tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39354205845523149682024-03-19T04:02:51.321-07:00Exe-JesusA Seminary for the Saint and the Skeptic alike.Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.comBlogger147125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-69911864188001521112020-02-12T21:09:00.001-08:002020-02-12T21:13:24.810-08:00The Deity of Christ in the New World Translation<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RvyN_ZCmwYo/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RvyN_ZCmwYo?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
When witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses we often try to object to their particular Bible translation, known as the New World translation, or the NWT. While there are serious problems with this particular translation, the fact is, the deity of Christ still bleeds from the pages of Scripture, even theirs.Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-52253545881457070682020-02-12T21:05:00.001-08:002020-02-12T21:14:01.207-08:003 Early Christian Artifacts for Apologetics<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wAJzNYZP2yc/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wAJzNYZP2yc?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
In the field of Textual Criticism, there are various discoveries that go largely unnoticed by the outside Christian community. Three of these discoveries contain valuable influence regarding the earliest Christian communities. In this video, I briefly address all three of these artifacts and their apologetic impact for today.<br />
<br />Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-61771806085814340132020-02-12T21:01:00.001-08:002020-02-12T21:14:48.530-08:00The Importance of Church History in Apologetics<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dm8NWfW7AIk/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dm8NWfW7AIk?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
I was recently asked to be on Ratio Christi TV's "Truth Matters" program to discuss the importance of knowning church history in apologetics. It was a blessing as always and I hope it will be an encouragement to you as well.<br />
<br />Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-45818347444737117072020-02-12T20:48:00.000-08:002020-02-12T20:48:03.228-08:00About Clark<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu7ui7zsibHKaMjBeYmfiwFdAaH6-Lb3SjNTaUwxKHknSWn3u_t06tT1_1GSHmCffnVRGWx3b23LkerjKTaFiJVuVMI86_-H4aJQqXtOS_xL7Y6hSviaZO4jCuLRJ_f8hP-Ah6ikuju9ig/s1600/fellow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu7ui7zsibHKaMjBeYmfiwFdAaH6-Lb3SjNTaUwxKHknSWn3u_t06tT1_1GSHmCffnVRGWx3b23LkerjKTaFiJVuVMI86_-H4aJQqXtOS_xL7Y6hSviaZO4jCuLRJ_f8hP-Ah6ikuju9ig/s400/fellow.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
My Calling</h3>
The American church is seeing its sharpest decline in influence, effectiveness, and presence in history. While there are many factors that contribute to this, I believe firmly that the biblical illiteracy becoming increasingly prevalent in the pews has been at its core. The body of Christ cannot function as the answer to the human dilemma if it doesn't first understand its message and mission. The Lord has called me to seek to fill this gap. I believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Christian Scriptures, as well as their textual reliability and efficacy to answer all of life's questions.<br />
<h3>
My Background</h3>
I came to Christ as a teenager but walked away from the faith for the better part of a decade after enlisting in the United States Coast Guard. Having lived my life as I saw fit and nearly destroying my marriage in the process, my wife suggested we seek counsel with a local pastor. It was through him and the local church that my faith was renewed and my marriage healed. From that time onward I have sought to grow in my knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and share that knowledge with all who would hear it.<br />
<br />
I hold a Bachelors of Science in Religion from Liberty University, having graduated Magna Cum Laude, and a Masters of Divinity degree in Pastoral Studies from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. I am currently studying for a second Master's degree in Theology with Phoenix Seminary, serving as a Fellow with the <a href="http://www.ps.edu/academics/institute/">Text and Canon Institute</a>, and intend on pursuing my PhD immediately after. For roughly a decade I have served in the local church as teaching elder, interim pastor and guest lecturer. I have spoken at numerous churches and gatherings along the Oregon coast, California, Michigan, Missouri and Illinois, emphasizing the reliability of the Christian Scriptures, the Christian worldview in science and philosophy, and the person of Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
I believe that every Christian should be confident in the faith that they hold and, following the directive of the apostle Peter, be willing and able to give a reason for the hope that dwells within them, with grace and compassion. My desire is to see unbelievers find the saving grace of Jesus Christ and fellow believers to rise up and seek to change the world for the kingdom of God, but neither can happen if the church is not willing to listen and empathize with those we engage with. Apologetics begins with a compassionate ear and a willingness to learn from those we wish to reach.<br />
<h3>
What Does the Title Mean?</h3>
I named the website Exe-Jesus as a play on words of the term below. After all, if Jesus is the central message of Scripture all meaning we draw from it will point to Him.<br />
<img alt="exegesis" class="wp-image-349 size-full aligncenter" height="180" src="http://exejesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/exegesis.png" width="634" /><br />
<h3>
</h3>
<br />
Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-29612162345270955622020-02-11T22:52:00.000-08:002020-02-11T22:52:42.426-08:00For Everything There is a Season<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAkadjKS4dpIIVGgfO340pjGVfmMPgIdrK3v3o11xVOqkm8D7jx_EW2PFu3Ro8heCspa7eP7AKXPUbJeL5RUB8haZQh8l9pOUSrPwEjxMUtFL2wjSX_ususG1HrKmD64iBn7HZrtz-AkSs/s1600/6-Ozzie-Smith-goodbye-300x192.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="192" data-original-width="300" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAkadjKS4dpIIVGgfO340pjGVfmMPgIdrK3v3o11xVOqkm8D7jx_EW2PFu3Ro8heCspa7eP7AKXPUbJeL5RUB8haZQh8l9pOUSrPwEjxMUtFL2wjSX_ususG1HrKmD64iBn7HZrtz-AkSs/s400/6-Ozzie-Smith-goodbye-300x192.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />January 18, 2020<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I was asked last year how I got involved in apologetics, and to be honest, I hadn’t reflected on that for quite some time. In one form or another, I have been engaged in apologetic ministry for roughly a decade, and in all that time of reading, studying, speaking and writing, it becomes easy to lose sight of how everything began. One day you’re just an apologist. You don’t know when you went from studying to be an apologist to being one, but at some point, everything shifted.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWBJA4y0gex36AOt-VkrfOq2kNo0fE36t4esdGyovmCzyTrUCeO0taEVqwzw_wfICI-b_U7vCbe1qQLemNFXlFzqDqHlmDkp43DJNIgUGzZfLiuFvuLywUg_q8ZAcAv8eIQICpPDBStdHj/s1600/pexels-photo-235986-200x300.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWBJA4y0gex36AOt-VkrfOq2kNo0fE36t4esdGyovmCzyTrUCeO0taEVqwzw_wfICI-b_U7vCbe1qQLemNFXlFzqDqHlmDkp43DJNIgUGzZfLiuFvuLywUg_q8ZAcAv8eIQICpPDBStdHj/s1600/pexels-photo-235986-200x300.jpeg" /></a></div>
As I reflect on it now, I have to say that I entered the world of apologetics a few years after coming to Christ. You see, prior to my being a follower of the Lord I was not a good man. My sins were many and some were illegal. While I had been justified a few years prior, the crimes I committed caught up with me and I had to face justice for them. While I was in prison, I was given a pair of headphones that were useful for two things: listening to AM/FM radio and the television in the common area. I wasn’t much for television, so I used them for radio. The only problem was that the prison house was cinderblock, as was my cell, which creates an excellent barrier to prevent radio signals from getting in. This meant that it was very difficult to find a radio station that I could receive in my cell, let alone a Christian one.<br />
<br />
I was able to dial in one Christian radio station, but it only came in if I laid on my bed in my cell, pushed right next to the window. On Sunday afternoons, there was a program that broadcasted in San Diego right around lunch, for 1 hour. That radio program was called Stand to Reason. Yes, this is the same Stand to Reason operated by Greg Koukl, Amy Hall, and Alan Shlemon. For one hour, every Sunday Greg answered calls and dealt with the evidence for the Christian faith. In the darkest corner of my world, his voice was a beacon of light, reminding me that my faith was not vain. It strengthened me in ways that I can never express or repay.<br />
<br />
After my release, I returned to my life, began working, and returned to serving my local church as I was able. I bought Josh McDowell’s book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and read it cover to cover. Before long, I was sharing in the adult Sunday Schools what I was learning. I read vociferously, digesting all four volumes of Norm Geisler’s Systematic Theology, Frank Turek’s I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, and everything from Ravi Zacharias. It wasn’t long before I was teaching regularly in the church and fighting a pull on my heart to serve the Lord in some form of teaching ministry. The effectual calling upon me was confirmed by the elders of my church and I approached the pastor to share what was on my heart. To be honest, I thought I was crazy, because there was no way a felon could serve the church (at least that’s what I thought). But my pastor encouraged me to pursue the calling and begin the degree process to receive an MDiv. Not having had any education prior, this meant 7 years of schooling, but I signed up and my journey began.<br />
<br />
As the years, and my training progressed I grew in wisdom and stature (metaphorically) with the Lord and others. I began to preach and teach in my church and others. I visited gatherings that were<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguBlzb4Fsve5Ls8gxjHfDQR0BgG-TopY2uHYK0wwauVWm5nccuZ-2mOHpV_iRazAtXfv5rvJvg_LrmXxG7HrdfIpzuoW7xQjKS71mhqPUEQZd5wviPTHGdQ5d6QJV_DVJltn8gZt7AZKfc/s1600/CIA-300x200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguBlzb4Fsve5Ls8gxjHfDQR0BgG-TopY2uHYK0wwauVWm5nccuZ-2mOHpV_iRazAtXfv5rvJvg_LrmXxG7HrdfIpzuoW7xQjKS71mhqPUEQZd5wviPTHGdQ5d6QJV_DVJltn8gZt7AZKfc/s1600/CIA-300x200.jpg" /></a></div>
interested in answering objections to the faith and helped strengthen the Body as I was able. Several years in, I was gifted with a scholarship to attend Frank Turek’s Cross Examined Instructor’s Academy, and I can honestly say that it changed my life. I learned how to focus my time and work in apologetics and to become a master of just one topic, rather than mildly familiar with many. I was fortunate to attend two Academies at different years and build a strong working relationship with many fellow apologists. From then to now, I have operated this website, completed my Master’s degree and continued to speak at various events in the areas I’ve lived. I’ve seen apologetics ministry go from being something almost unheard of to existing in every corner of the internet. For good or bad, apologetics and apologists are everywhere, and the Christian faith, to one degree or another, is being defended. For that I thank God.<br />
<br />
But now we come to where I am at today. As I sit at my keyboard, I am in the final stages of a Master’s Thesis for my second Master’s degree. I took on this second degree as I felt the call of God on my heart with more clarity and a call to academic study. To attain a PhD, I must have a Master’s of Theology, so here I am, at the end of that road. To reach this destination I was given the inexpressible gift of a Fellowship at Phoenix Seminary to work under the intellectual giants, Dr. Peter Gurry and Dr. John Meade. I have been blessed beyond measure to travel to Oxford, England and learn paleography; to work with the Museum of the Bible and the University of Birmingham as a transcriber of Greek manuscripts; I have held the oldest fragment of the Gospel of Matthew in my hands, and I have humbly sat under the teaching of great and godly men and women. The baby Christian in that San Diego prison cell could never have fathomed where his life was headed.<br />
<br />
<br />
All of that to say this, Lord willing, I will be working toward a PhD next year, and it will demand all of my focus and time for several years. Assuming anyone regularly reads this blog, it has probably been noticeable that I have posted less and less in the last year. This is because the sheer demand on my time is already very heavy and as much as I love apologetics, I simply cannot keep up. I have taken a great deal of time delaying this decision. I have prayed about it. I have sought counsel about it. And I believe that it is the right thing to do. At the end of this month, I will shut down this website and close the social media platforms for ExeJesus ministries. If asked, I will gladly speak at any gathering that would have me, but my time as an apologist has come to an end. I will always be thankful for everyone who encouraged me, supported me, and challenged me along this journey. And I will always defend the faith with love and compassion whenever I am asked about the hope that rests within me.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj350et7tJa5-Wn2vht70_fDPxfWF91OUfhat4lKRDDBu_ac9Wuxlvv15TRt5qD3-pF5Jb5zDP4LtI2vF4hSxbcJY2HzViJd1VxDodhxlqcS3vWQurlqgIcuQM1ptb0FlnpWbgggffFgu3T/s1600/Text+%2526+Canon.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="113" data-original-width="445" height="81" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj350et7tJa5-Wn2vht70_fDPxfWF91OUfhat4lKRDDBu_ac9Wuxlvv15TRt5qD3-pF5Jb5zDP4LtI2vF4hSxbcJY2HzViJd1VxDodhxlqcS3vWQurlqgIcuQM1ptb0FlnpWbgggffFgu3T/s320/Text+%2526+Canon.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
If I may pass on some parting words from ten years of observation, it is this: the best apologetic is the one that listens to the other person before speaking. It is the one that cares about the skeptic in the same way that it cares about the Christian. Apologetics is a part of evangelism, but it is not evangelism. Evangelism shares the beauty of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a lost and dying world. You can be an excellent apologist and have answers for every question, but never share the Gospel. My parting plea to the numerous young apologists out there is simply this: love your enemy, because they will know we are Christians by our love. There is no other way.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">May the Lord Bless You</span></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">May He Keep You</span></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"> May He Make His Face to Shine Upon You</span></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"> And be Gracious to You</span></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"> May the Lord lift up His Countenance Upon You</span></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">And Give You Peace.</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-19432397959365937882020-02-11T22:29:00.001-08:002020-02-11T22:29:27.384-08:00Book Review: Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0V9QoeQABebiFMQNfqs_yXoOPJsiNqJVikxWohM2DP1muaYe5h8EPw-hZHABYF1uU1ZhfXqBD4SDFFrIyOA8m4Rgj33GGZnevzjZNDs4saRa8_bHbQIpJzLd_Zt6NRiLhlA3Cc1sfp4BN/s1600/MM-200x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0V9QoeQABebiFMQNfqs_yXoOPJsiNqJVikxWohM2DP1muaYe5h8EPw-hZHABYF1uU1ZhfXqBD4SDFFrIyOA8m4Rgj33GGZnevzjZNDs4saRa8_bHbQIpJzLd_Zt6NRiLhlA3Cc1sfp4BN/s1600/MM-200x300.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />November 30, 2019<br />
<h3>
Disclaimer</h3>
For the sake of full disclosure, I must state that many of the contributors to this book are acquaintances and/or friends. Two of whom I work directly for. While this might lead readers to believe I cannot review this work objectively, I hope that they will not still believe this at the end. For those who have read the articles here regularly, it should also be understood that much of the material in this text corresponds to the same ideals expressed here.<br />
<h2>
Review</h2>
Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, <em>Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. Downer’s Grove: IVP Academic, 2019.</em><br />
<br />
I was speaking to a church group, expected to be an expert in all things apologetics, feeling the pressure to be both a low-budget Bible Answer Man, and encourage the congregation that they have good reasons to be Christians and to trust their Bible. When the time came for me to martial the evidence for the reliability of Scripture, I told them confidently, “Even if we didn’t have the New Testament, the quotations from the Church Fathers are so plenteous that we could recreate the entire New Testament and even close to the whole Bible, just from those!” I went on to say that even though many skeptics like to make a big deal out of “errors” or “variants” in the manuscripts, if you compiled them all, “The New Testament is still 99% accurate in every detail”, and “none of these variants, even make a difference to the Christian faith.”.<br />
<br />
That was many years ago, and today I’ve come to learn that even though my intentions were good, my information was not. I still see these factual errors made in print and in conversation from fellow apologists, which tells me that bad information, because it is often sensational, circulates widely. It’s for this reason that Peter Gurry and Elijah Hixson’s book is so well timed. Both editors being junior academics themselves, have compiled some of the brightest young minds in textual studies today, to help inform the church and apologists about the actual data and its ramifications for the text of the Bible. This is not done in a condescending manner but with a genuine desire to see these ministries flourish through the use of accurate weights and measures. The authors introduce their work by citing several common errors made in defense of the faith and do not shy away from naming some of the more prominent figures who have done so. The chapters are then divided into 15 “Myths” that have been believed by Christians for many years.<br />
<br />
Timothy Mitchell, a PhD student at the University of Birmingham, addresses the myth of “autographs”, taking to task claims of extended longevity made by a recent popularly acclaimed film, as well as the challenge of defining early publication in the 1st century. Jacob Peterson, PhD student at the University of Edinburgh, tackles the ever inflating “math myths” regarding how many New Testament manuscripts actually exist. Addressing the difficulty of actually cataloguing these texts and identifying those manuscripts that exist in multiple fragments, each with their own shelf number though being one actual manuscript, Peterson provides a more accurate count and a more balanced understanding of what this data actually means for the Christian. In one of the most enlightening chapters, James Prothro, graduate of the University of Cambridge, explains the different methodology used by scholars of classical literature when recognizing manuscript evidence and that used by apologists. In doing so, he provides a rarely afforded glimpse into this academic community with an appeal for Christians to avoid the extreme counts on either side of the argument and focus on more realistic numbers. The mid way point of the book is reached by addressing the “myth of dating” in 2 chapters. The first, written by University of Edinburgh graduate Elijah Hixson, tackles the overlooked difficulties of paleographic dating methods. By citing examples from both the extremely conservative dates often preferred in Christian apologetics and the preference for late-dating by those like Brent Nongbri, the chapter serves both as a crash course in paleography and manuscript awareness. For most Christians, an early date is to be preferred while a late date to be rejected. Others, opt for the middle of the road, selecting a date between the two extremes. The power of this chapter is in the author’s explanation that none of the three options is an accurate use of the data. The second chapter, authored by University of Cambridge graduate Gregory Lanier, tackles the adage of “earlier manuscripts are always better”, by guiding readers through a primer on the later Greek manuscripts of the Bible. In so doing, the author provides evidence for the consistency of these texts and their potential for containing earlier readings. In tandem with the preceding chapter, Lanier’s work serves as an exceptionally measured response to the doubts of scribal accuracy.<br />
<br />
The latter half of the text begins with University of Edinburgh graduate, Zachary Cole and a discussion on the actual habits of scribes and copyists who handled the New Testament texts. This chapter follows effectively after the last and serves as a more academic response to the skeptical claims made in popular work such as <em>Misquoting Jesus</em>. By analyzing various, observable tendencies in Manuscripts, Cole builds a macrostructure of behaviors that reveal a tendency for accuracy over error. Having discussed the actual copyists of manuscripts, University of Cambridge graduate, Peter Malik, uses his chapter to address the actual mistakes and corrections they made. As he states that, “the scribe’s main goal was not to innovate, and when they did, it was often accidental.” Additionally, helpful here is the author’s discussion on how to weigh a “correction”, especially if it is corrected by the original scribe. Moving into the “myth of transmission”, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary graduate S. Matthew Solomon distills his PhD dissertation on the manuscripts of Philemon into a digestible discussion on the accuracy of the transmission of the text. This chapter addresses the type of variation most often seen and its lack of impact in Christian doctrine, and lays the foundation for the following chapter by University of Cambridge graduate Peter Gurry. In this chapter, Gurry accesses the claim that no variants are significant for the Christian faith and points out several that do. In so doing, he seeks to adjust the argument away from oversimplification and require readers to face difficult variants head-on.<br />
<br />
In perhaps the most direct chapter addressing a specific skeptical challenge, Robert Marcello, PhD student at Dallas Theological Seminary, speaks to the “myth of orthodox corruption”. Refining the subject of the previous chapter to focus on “why” scribes might change the text, Marcello explains the difficulty of identifying a theological motivation in most cases, and addresses those instances where it is clearly the case. Addressing one of my own errors stated above, University of Edinburgh graduate Andrew Blaski takes on the myth of patristics and the claim that we can recreate the NT text from quotations. This chapter excellently establishes the difficulty with even identifying a direct quotation in the writings of the early church and reveals to readers the source of this oft made fallacious claim. John Meade, graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, draws from his expertise as a Canon scholar to address the “Myths of Canon”. This chapter reviews various approaches to defending the NT canon, and the areas where they fall short, concluding with an assessment of canonical lists of the early church and their value for apologetic methodology. PhD student at the University of Notre Dame, Jeremiah Coogan, uses his chapter to expose readers to the world of manuscript versions (i.e. non-Greek translations of the New Testament) and their role in textual studies. Citing both their value and limitations, Coogan deflates the notion that an “earlier” text might somehow be recreated from a version and reminds readers of their value in revealing how the New Testament was received in other cultures. The book ends with a first-of-its-kind chapter, wherein Bible translator and graduate of the University of Birmingham, Edgar Obojo discusses how textual criticism effects the translation of the New Testament and how both enterprises share some concerns, but differ in others.<br />
<br />
There is much to be commended in this book. The effort on the part of each author reveals both a strong academic affinity as well as a commitment to the faith and life of the church. At times the discussions may delve into such technical depths that the lay reader becomes lost, therefore, having a basic understanding of the terminology employed by textual critics can be very helpful before reading. That being said, every reader that becomes lost will be saved through the immensely helpful “Key Takeaways” section at the close of each chapter. These sections provide easily memorable bullet points of the overall discussion that readers can return to at will. As an apologist, I must admit that there were moments in which my ego was slightly bruised when reading, and others where my initial thought was the criticism was little more than tilting at windmills, given the specificity which the authors were trying to attain. But, I digress, that egos can and should recover, and what might appear to be unnecessary criticism to some is actually warranted if the integrity of our defense is at the forefront of our minds.<br />
<br />
It is rightly said that there are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient classical text, but if we apply numbers to this claim, we must ensure that those numbers are true. Likewise, it is rightly stated that the doctrines of the church are not affected by any single variant in scripture, but this is not because those variants don’t matter; it is because no doctrine of the church rest exclusively on one verse. It is true that the church fathers reference scripture throughout their writings, but they do not do so in such a way as to accurately apply chapter and verse, nor could we know that they are citing Scripture, if we did not have the New Testament to compare them to. And perhaps the hardest truth for some to hold to is that we do not need a first century copy of Mark, or any other New Testament text, to defend the reliability of the message of Scripture. Therefore, always choosing the earliest date for the manuscripts in our possession is neither necessary nor recommended when engaging with lay people in the body of Christ.<br />
<br />
This book accomplishes its goal in speaking the truth with love, and prods the apologetics community to walk with greater integrity than we have done in the past. It is also helpful for any person interested in the world of textual criticism and serves as an excellent primer into the various facets of this academic field. It is helpful for the minister seeking to educate their congregation, the apologist looking to mature in their knowledge and the student considering where they would like to take their studies in the future. It’s initial success in sales is testament to the felt need in the broader community and I hope that the desire for it continues to grow, as it is my core conviction that apologists, as soldiers on the frontline of the spiritual battle, must, above all others, walk in truth and integrity. I have made the mistakes listed in this book. I have believed many of the myths. I am certain that you have too. I choose to learn from those mistakes and not repeat them. I pray you will choose the same, and make this book the turning point for you future engagements.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-25917608801185105462020-02-11T22:08:00.001-08:002020-02-11T22:08:55.944-08:00Let's Talk About Preservation<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnQFaDq-6vqinsKAQ1HOMJTASyixgroNcg-iozdNs8xLiGd1YHl3xGLv8y02bJuAewiBnE49xJLwio0CS9LKSz-EpajhMVd1YQfUNrU-ITIbolwM_L-48J181bM_ZV3QR86UMbxkSEUEwA/s1600/byzantine-mosaic-300x164.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="164" data-original-width="300" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnQFaDq-6vqinsKAQ1HOMJTASyixgroNcg-iozdNs8xLiGd1YHl3xGLv8y02bJuAewiBnE49xJLwio0CS9LKSz-EpajhMVd1YQfUNrU-ITIbolwM_L-48J181bM_ZV3QR86UMbxkSEUEwA/s400/byzantine-mosaic-300x164.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />November 1, 2019<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Let’s talk about preservation. Preservation is one of those Christian doctrines that is largely presumed in a discussion rather than explained or thought through. Essentially, the doctrine of preservation is the belief that since God has promised that His word will never pass away, the word of God found in the books of the Bible must be preserved for all time. The reason this doctrine isn’t often addressed on its own, is because it usually gets enveloped into an argument for the reliability of the text. Discussions focus on manuscripts, variants, text categories and the like.<br />
<br />
For critics like Dr. Bart Ehrman, the existence of variants in the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament patently demonstrate that there has been no preservation of God’s Word. For others, the need to maintain the doctrine of preservation leads to adopting a particular translation of the Bible as the “only inspired and inerrant word of God” or to prefer the text that is found in the majority of manuscripts. And others choose to adopt a particular form of the text adopted by the Reformed creeds. In general, these slightly extreme approaches are bound up in a generally honorable desire, to defend the doctrine of preservation.<br />
<br />
The doctrine of preservation is entirely biblical (Ps. 12:6-7; Is. 40:8; Lk. 21:33) and if one believes that God must work miraculously through time to preserve every single word, the desire to adopt a specific form of the text makes perfect sense. I believe in the doctrine of preservation even though I do not hold to any of the positions above, but this post isn’t about breaking down the details of the doctrine, it’s about sharing what I believe to be an excellent example of God’s actions in history, through completely natural processes, to preserve his word for the next generations.<br />
<br />
<h2>
It's all Greek</h2>
<br />
The direction of my academic work rarely intersects with content that I would consider applicable to<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTmg4xrXCCgwD658BMaPx-3JoVNHEMajQ5olzImtQxzImMKD2r2tJoWJAwcXTTmA0fWWxif11FFTT5VLcFh7p0FQAIi7L8InsL7WIw-usNiN0ZsdXaOD1MEHMn66DaT4svru-zakJFQ0OF/s1600/Screenshot-119-300x209.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="209" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTmg4xrXCCgwD658BMaPx-3JoVNHEMajQ5olzImtQxzImMKD2r2tJoWJAwcXTTmA0fWWxif11FFTT5VLcFh7p0FQAIi7L8InsL7WIw-usNiN0ZsdXaOD1MEHMn66DaT4svru-zakJFQ0OF/s1600/Screenshot-119-300x209.png" /></a></div>
this site, but this week I believe it does. My present studies involve the transition in Greek manuscripts from the handwriting commonly called Majuscule or Uncial to what is called minuscule. In the earliest New Testament manuscripts, the Greek writing was entirely capital letters, with no spacing; this is what we call “majuscule” Greek. Over several centuries the Greek majuscule was refined into various styles seen fit for writing books, referred to generically as a “book-hand”. One of the most used styles by the 4th century onward is now called the “biblical majuscule” and is best evidenced in Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.<br />
<br />
The majuscule Greek dominated all literary works for hundreds of years, until the 9th century when a new book-hand abruptly appears on the scene. Nothing like the refined beauty of the all-capital majuscule style, this form of writing was lowercase. Not only this, but it was written in a cursive style of interconnected letters in random places and marked with several combination forms of letters, called ligatures. This new hand would later be called “minuscule” for its lowercase approach to the text and becomes the predominate style of writing until the time of the printing press in the 16th century. So influential was the minuscule that the earliest Greek typefaces used in printing were designed after the minuscule writing style, so much so that ligatures are even found in the earliest printed Greek New Testaments.<br />
<br />
The question that puzzles many (okay not many, but a select few that have nothing better to do) is why did the style of writing change as it did, and when did this actually begin? It’s impossible to believe that our oldest example of the Greek minuscule book-hand is the first time it appeared. Many of these studies are very technical, but most paleographers are in agreement on two features:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0S5QkQG73-W0l5Cxp9Eh1qJekLcf479520OTZLbpG-DefX3_saaRaccBGFXrh2vUxL_LCKw8Vs411RCdrXC1cse2-rNSkd0_SG9INobXc6AD28ci5QgOqWsvITGHPxRd2xWBgMzXWyU5B/s1600/Screenshot-27-222x300.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0S5QkQG73-W0l5Cxp9Eh1qJekLcf479520OTZLbpG-DefX3_saaRaccBGFXrh2vUxL_LCKw8Vs411RCdrXC1cse2-rNSkd0_SG9INobXc6AD28ci5QgOqWsvITGHPxRd2xWBgMzXWyU5B/s1600/Screenshot-27-222x300.png" /></a></div>
<ol>
<li>The minuscule book-hand must go back to at least the 8th century</li>
<li>All evidence suggests that this book-hand originated in the Stoudium monastery in Constantinople</li>
</ol>
It’s these two details that I want to expand on, briefly.<br />
<br />
<h2>
A Brief Byzantine History</h2>
<br />
In the 4th century a Roman diplomat of high social status named Flavius Stoudios founded a monastery in Constantinople. Very little is known of the monastery in the following centuries, but the surrounding Empire experienced immense difficulty. As various Emperors rose and fell, the wealth of the empire grew, but suffered under excessive expansion of territories. The plague decimated people and grain storages and people-groups living on the outskirts of the Empire began to revolt. Persia began to encroach into the northern boundary, Avars invaded in the West. By the 7th century, the Byzantine Empire was a shadow of its once great glory. At this same time, a new religion was rising in the East led by a man named Muhammed Ibn Abdullah: Islam. The Islamic faith spread rapidly in the 7th century, conquering Egypt and the Persian Empire, threatening the existence of the<br />
Byzantine Empire and Constantinople.<br />
<br />
The Islamic invasion was suppressed for a time, but their conquering of Egypt cut off the supply of papyrus to the Empire resulting in a shortage of writing materials. The alternative material, vellum, made from animal skins was costly and not producible in mass quantities in a financially diminished Byzantium. Within Christianity, this was the era of the Chalcedonian Council and the Christological battles against Nestorianism and the nature(s) of Christ. By the 7th century, a new conflict had arisen called the Iconoclasm. This dispute in the church revolved around the use of icons (images of Christ and Mary) in worship or in churches. The iconoclasts argued that they should be destroyed, while the iconodules argued for their necessity. It is here that the monks of the Stoudite monastery reappear in history.<br />
<br />
The Stoudite monks opposed the iconoclastic emperors and churchmen, arguing fervently and writing<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhet_lKWGO_2zoiA4_ia69rX4vABgjfuUajS6kVkrlR7_Q2u7UGfNSJ2CSKM8ZNGiHy4z-McqtR5WhWrm6dradqji4Hnx61DhDKq9lwiHTxYADn1mjWQeIRAHvmi1QwUZIdohzsrEaBe3QH/s1600/icon-155x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhet_lKWGO_2zoiA4_ia69rX4vABgjfuUajS6kVkrlR7_Q2u7UGfNSJ2CSKM8ZNGiHy4z-McqtR5WhWrm6dradqji4Hnx61DhDKq9lwiHTxYADn1mjWQeIRAHvmi1QwUZIdohzsrEaBe3QH/s1600/icon-155x300.jpg" /></a></div>
excessively in favor of the use of icons in the church. So adamant and vocal were they, that many were persecuted, defrocked and exiled. Among them was the abbot of the monastery, Theodore the Studite. Theodore didn’t begin his life as a monk, but was trained to be a bureaucrat, loving the sciences, reading and writing. He was convinced of the monastic lifestyle by his uncle Plato, also an abbot, and also trained in reading writing and the sciences. Under Theodore’s leadership the Stoudite monastery became a center of literature. The monks were diligent in labor and encouraged to read and copy books regularly. How would this be possible in a time of material shortage like I mentioned above? The monks raised sheep, both for food and for their skins to use as material. They became a self-sufficient center of learning.<br />
<br />
In the obituaries written of Theodore and Plato, it is said that they possessed a style of writing that is difficult to translate into English. The use od the Greek word is strange, but when combined with its context, the suggestion is that they wrote with a sweeping motion and with great speed. It is presumed that Plato taught this style to Theodore, who, in turn, taught it to his monks. This is believed by some to be the beginning of the minuscule Greek hand. Why? Because the earliest dated example of this book-hand is a Gospel text referred to as the Uspenski Gospels and it is signed by a monk. Nicholas the Stoudite, servant of Theodore.<br />
<br />
Over time, the church returned to the use of icons and the monks were allowed to return, yet their monastery had become so influential in its operations that the Empress Irene asked that they send monks to other monasteries and train them. In effect, these monks took the minuscule book-hand they had learned from Theodore and spread it to the rest of the Christian world, where it was then recopied, taking on regional features of its own, and eclipsing the previously used majuscule hand. Within a few centuries, the demand for book making increased to such a level that it rocked even the archaeological evidence left behind. In the 8th century a scant 58 New Testament papyri remain, many of which are fragmentary. By the 9th century, and the beginning of the minuscule book-hand, there are 208, by the 11th century there are 836 and it grows astronomically from there.<br />
<br />
Allow me to take this one step further by going one step backward. If you examine the non-literary papyri of the 5th – 7th centuries, it is possible to trace the expansion of a sloppy minuscule writing style, very useful for writing deeds, receipts, and the like. These all come from Egypt of course, and are nowhere near the Stoudite monastery in Turkey. However, the monastery was founded by a Roman diplomat, who would have been familiar with these non-literary styles of texts and was likely exposed to this very early form of the minuscule Greek. To populate the monastery, monks were brought in from the Ivory Coast of Africa on a trade route that would have taken them through Egypt, exactly where we find these papyri, exposing the monks to this style as well. What this may suggest is that the Greek minuscule writing style can be pushed back farther than originally thought, possibly back to at least the 6th century.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
So, what does all this mean for preservation? Let me show you what I see, from 10,000 feet. An educated Roman consul creates a monastery a century after the reign of Constantine from which a monk trained in the love of literature would eventually lead. It is populated by monks exposed to a very new and foreign way of writing Greek that also happens to resemble a Latin style of writing, once refined. This monastery becomes an outpost of book care and production, even establishing its own provisions for material in a time when the outside world is being ravaged. They are led by scholars, to become scholars, and influence other monasteries with them. They perfect a writing style that is faster than the one prior to it and aesthetically resembles the Latin, making it approachable in all regions of the Empire. These monks take this style of writing into the rest of the Empire right at a time when economic upturns promote a love and demand for literature. A demand for books that can be written quickly and stylishly. A demand that the earlier majuscule style would not have been able to meet. Without the minuscule hand, the coming Byzantine Renaissance would have died before it began, but because a thousand small changes took place centuries prior, exactly the right people, were in exactly the right places, at exactly the right time, to enable the largest period of book production ever seen prior to the printing press.<br />
<br />
I call that divine preservation. I call that providence. In all times, for all people, God has provided His word and He has ensured that it will last even through the most unlikely of times.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-6718264751702945342020-02-11T21:40:00.000-08:002020-02-11T21:40:00.531-08:00What's a Christian to do With Leviticus?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTnA-x-cABWSmjK476ZWKeTeqHP7bSQc_H4j_GabLH9FEbYofCdNec-W37XpDMNN2Cd5Ti1a0N_plH90q9VUDTWKg38G3aPu3bCjtJxtYamXUO5Re2DU0ekmkAWyIAp_jCWbD95KZK9ou4/s1600/desert-drought-dehydrated-clay-soil-60013-300x205.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="205" data-original-width="300" height="273" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTnA-x-cABWSmjK476ZWKeTeqHP7bSQc_H4j_GabLH9FEbYofCdNec-W37XpDMNN2Cd5Ti1a0N_plH90q9VUDTWKg38G3aPu3bCjtJxtYamXUO5Re2DU0ekmkAWyIAp_jCWbD95KZK9ou4/s400/desert-drought-dehydrated-clay-soil-60013-300x205.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />September 5, 2019<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The book of Leviticus. The mere mention of it brings images of a barren desert to the mind of most Christians. It is the book that shall not be named. It is the place “read my Bible in a year” plans go to die. Fewer books cause the amount of struggle than the book of Leviticus. Not because it’s convicting to the reader, or because its deep theology requires contemplation (although both could be true in some cases). No, it causes struggle because it’s…. just….so…. boring.<br />
<br />
What is a sheaf offering anyway? Or a wave offering? Why do they have to kill so many animals?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnHIvtVxERqKs6eXZ1f44rfi3-h5sDDvaa1s3YYquit8dThnxXheZEMQe-wMZGWaw5-Jv0w6pwdO6PuWWV4xWgzRgMCjGE9SbPum0iMaJGWa2FP8WPbwwMbilI5GXiEi32-bpYfNKdVNKY/s1600/The_Holy_Hand_Grenade_of_Antioch.0-300x200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="300" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnHIvtVxERqKs6eXZ1f44rfi3-h5sDDvaa1s3YYquit8dThnxXheZEMQe-wMZGWaw5-Jv0w6pwdO6PuWWV4xWgzRgMCjGE9SbPum0iMaJGWa2FP8WPbwwMbilI5GXiEi32-bpYfNKdVNKY/s200/The_Holy_Hand_Grenade_of_Antioch.0-300x200.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
What does any of this have to do with Christians today? Why can’t I stop picturing Monty Python and the Holy Grail every time I read it? Ultimately, the book of Leviticus is lost on many Christians. Its purpose is unclear, it’s bloody sacrifices turn the stomach and the list of punishments seems excessive to our sensibilities. What’s more, the content of Leviticus has become a playground for skeptics and unbelievers to use as ammunition against the Christian faith. So, what do we do with this book?<br />
<br />
<h2>
Some Basics</h2>
<br />
The book of Leviticus is named from the Latin Vulgate meaning “pertaining to the Levites”. In Hebrew it’s called וַיִּקְרָא (vō·kä·rä, “and he called”) based on the first word in the Hebrew text. Various Rabbinic traditions also referred to it as the “law of the priests” or the “law-book of sacrificial offerings”. It is counted as one of the five books of Moses, also known as the Torah or the Pentateuch, and is among the most valuable and oldest books of the Jewish tradition.<br />
<br />
Leviticus is essentially a rule book for the Levitical priesthood, but ore than that it is the guidebook for the relationship between the nation of Israel and God. It can be summed up with the repeated phrase, “Be holy, because I (God) am holy”. It’s filled with very specific instructions regarding sacrifices and offerings, lists of unacceptable sins and the punishments that attach to them.<br />
<br />
Leviticus is blunt and bloody, and it flies in the face of most modern, Western sensibilities. But, it is the source for the character of the nation that was chosen by God and the manner in which they were to carry themselves as a nation set apart from those around them. As Christians, it is difficult to determine where we stand in relation to this book. One option has been to simply assert that it doesn’t apply to us. That was for them, then and the New Testament is for us, now. Another approach has been to assert that it’s all applicable and its guidelines are for Christians as well. However, even those who affirm this, don’t actually burn witches or sacrifice goats.<br />
<br />
<h2>
The Message of Leviticus</h2>
<br />
Firstly, Leviticus communicates that God is Holy (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.+20%3A3&version=NIV">20.3</a>;<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.+22%3A32&version=NIV">22.32</a>). Because of this holiness mankind cannot enter into His presence. The manner in which the Israelites set up their camp reveals this separation:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h5>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u>Space Person</u></span></span></h5>
<span style="color: blue;">The Sanctuary Priests only</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">The Camp The Israelite People</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">Outside the Camp The Temporarily Unclean</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">The Wilderness Unclean Spirits</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
This establishment demonstrates how a persons spiritual position relates to their proximity to the Lord. What’s more, the closer a person or thing gets to God, the holier it becomes:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h5>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u>Space Person</u></span></span></h5>
<span style="color: blue;">The Inner Court Levites</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">The Holy Place Priests</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">The Holy of Holies The High Priest</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
Understanding this relationship between the people and God is foundational to understanding the rest of the text. The ritual purity laws and cleansing rituals, kept the people aware of their need for holiness. On those days when an Israelite was to enter into the sanctuary, they would need to be even more aware, given the closer proximity to the Lord and the need for ritual holiness.<br />
<br />
Also, death is clearly combined with being unclean. Death defiles the man. Even touching a carcass renders the person unclean (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.+11%3A24-40&version=NIV">11.24-5; 39-40</a>). Contact with a human corpse was worst of all, to the extent that a priest couldn’t contact a corpse unless it was his wife (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.+21%3A1-12&version=NIV">21.1-4; 10-12</a>).<br />
<br />
Holiness coincides with justice. Because God is holy and He demands the people to be holy, then they must require justice (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.+24%3A20&version=NIV">24.20</a>). Retribution must fit the crime, and crimes must be punished. Additionally, God’s holiness is revealed in Leviticus through His love. The one’s who love God are told to “love [their] companion who is like [them]” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.+19%3A18&version=NIV">19.18</a>). Because of this love, the Israelites are to treat others justly and lovingly (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.+19%3A15-18&version=NIV">19.15-18</a>).<br />
<br />
Because God is holy and the average person is not, a means to be made pure was necessary. Enter the sacrificial system. Sin results in consequences, and nothing made this more evident than the sacrifice. So prevalent was the need for sacrifice that unintentional sins required the life of an animal (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.+4-5&version=NIV">4-5</a>). Logically, this resulted with the realization that sin brings death and the only way to forgive this sin was for something else to take the sinner’s place. This is most clearly stated in 17.11,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“For the life of the animal resides in the blood: I have assigned it to you to make expiation on the altar, for your lives, because it is the blood that makes expiation by the life.”</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
It was not enough to merely follow the ritual, however, as the nation would later be judged for empty ritual practice. It was understood that God searched the heart of the individual and that brought the forgiveness.<br />
<br />
So, what do Christians do with this book?<br />
<br />
<h2>
Leviticus and the New Testament</h2>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_zMnY7YFZagwWES_wacf8SLwRmLOvJhQ76D3FsEZee9tJ1ff6kot_hmHUFNCtxKWbbFMLtkPxX-MEj_xOF6uHm1Iv-INMASo-vvR3ePWsMa-3sZ73FpaPKGjhcfH8pFjF8tw-Z8lHWOVy/s1600/jesus-cross-summit-cross-37737-200x300.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_zMnY7YFZagwWES_wacf8SLwRmLOvJhQ76D3FsEZee9tJ1ff6kot_hmHUFNCtxKWbbFMLtkPxX-MEj_xOF6uHm1Iv-INMASo-vvR3ePWsMa-3sZ73FpaPKGjhcfH8pFjF8tw-Z8lHWOVy/s1600/jesus-cross-summit-cross-37737-200x300.png" /></a></div>
The Levitical system of sacrifices reveals the need for the sacrifice of Christ. We read that the pattern of things in the Torah was a shadow of what was to come (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb.+10%3A1&version=NIV">Heb. 10.1</a>). The sacrifices of bulls and goats, even flour and birds, were not able, in and of themselves to cleanse a person from sins (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb.+10%3A4&version=NIV">10.4</a>). They were effective because of their value in the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb.+9%3A12-14&version=NIV">Heb. 9.12-14</a>).<br />
<br />
Beyond this, there are the more difficult aspects of this book, most notably the requirement of a sin offering for a woman who has had a child or menstruated, a leper, and even a bodily discharge. Why in the world are natural bodily functions and diseases considered a sin?! We might be tempted to point out that the people of this book were clearly savages or simply ignorant of the way the body worked and this is the result of these requirements. We might simply want to reject the book as a whole, because of this. I would suggest that neither would be correct.<br />
<br />
<br />
Consider that the sin sacrifice not only applies to everyday bodily functions, but even to UNINTENTIONAL sins! Sacrifice is expected for sins you didn’t even consciously commit!! How is this fair? How I this just? You might even respond that it’s impossible to remain clean and holy under such conditions!!!<br />
<br />
And you’d be right. Because that’s the point.<br />
<br />
The sacrifice is required because God is holy. It applies to every part of daily life because every part of our humanity is unholy. This is the message of Paul (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.+5%3A12-21%3B+8%3A5&version=NIV">Rom. 5.12-21; 8.5</a>) and John (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Jn.+2%3A2%3B+3%3A5&version=NIV">1 Jn. 2.2; 3.5</a>). It is why Jesus came to be sin on our behalf (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Cor.+5%3A21&version=NIV">2 Co. 5.21</a>), the just for the unjust (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Pt.+3%3A18&version=NIV">1 Pet. 3.18</a>). He did this, because it is impossible for any human being to keep himself holy or be able to approach God through his or her own efforts. The message of Leviticus is the message of the cross.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
Does the book apply to Christians today? Yes, and no. Without Leviticus the resurrection becomes meaningless. Without all that had been foreshadowed in the Old Testament, the action of Christ in the New becomes nothing more than an interesting historical event. To abandon Leviticus is to strip the cross of its power, so in all these ways Leviticus most definitely applies to Christians today.<br />
But it doesn’t, in so far as the rituals are concerned. Why? Because Jesus was the last sacrifice required, and he stands in the presence of the Father on our behalf eternally (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb.5.1-10%3B+8.1-6%3B+10.19-23&version=NIV">Heb.5.1-10; 8.1-6; 10.19-23</a>). The need for Christians to remain separate from the world as exemplified in the separation of cloths and kinds of cattle (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.+19.19&version=NIV">Lev. 19.19</a>) or the need to remain morally pure as seen in sundry passages (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.+19.20-22%3B+18.6-10&version=NIV">19.20-22; 18.6-10</a>) is still true (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+2&version=NIV">1 Jn. 2</a>). The punishment for these crimes, particularly those deserving death still stand, but it is no the Christian who is to impose them, but God alone (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.+12.19%3B+13.4&version=NIV">Rom. 12.19; 13.4</a>). Likewise, death will come to those who continue in sin without taking advantage of the means by which God has provided for forgiveness (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn.+3.16-20&version=NIV">Jn. 3.16-20</a>).<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Dear Christian, if the book of Leviticus has been a cross you felt you had to bear up to now, I pray that you will leave here seeing it as the cross Christ bore on your behalf.</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<hr />
Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-19590442691314594042020-02-11T21:14:00.002-08:002020-02-11T21:20:41.976-08:00An Appearance on Lawyers for Jesus<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfsrovNCladR_AOCFoFc32o4tISCYskCXz73Gt1j9EXHAQ0VIcdofOKrDMPNn8lUi4HNqMyBt8Y9oSmIURZOaPgUWEVfcogq-Z9NGDo1xL949Lf4WWnc0WgvisHvx9oNXGTHLunStU7BL-/s1600/lawyers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="220" data-original-width="229" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfsrovNCladR_AOCFoFc32o4tISCYskCXz73Gt1j9EXHAQ0VIcdofOKrDMPNn8lUi4HNqMyBt8Y9oSmIURZOaPgUWEVfcogq-Z9NGDo1xL949Lf4WWnc0WgvisHvx9oNXGTHLunStU7BL-/s400/lawyers.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />
June 28, 2016<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I was recently featured on the Chicago radio program, Lawyers for Jesus. The program airs live on AM1160 and the shows can be found as a podcast on iTunes and Soundcloud. The show is operated by the law firm of Mauck & Baker LLC, a law firm intent on helping Christian ministries stand up for their legal rights in a modern society. After listening to the broadcast, I encourage you to visit their website at <a href="http://mauckbaker.com/">http://mauckbaker.com/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://soundcloud.com/lawyersforjesus/apologist-clark-bates-explains-how-christians-can-defend-the-bibles-validity-using-common-sense">https://soundcloud.com/lawyersforjesus/apologist-clark-bates-explains-how-christians-can-defend-the-bibles-validity-using-common-sense</a>Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-29737035843077887942020-02-11T21:02:00.002-08:002020-02-11T21:02:42.061-08:00The Codex and Christianity Revisited: New Research from Notre Dame<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivkzDGYNM_s4IJvmzotqIZxPvAIwMIgLvA7rQpT0G5tKVapUMdd6UCE7jDyh0FibrUWTVRU7QwlMi5Qhf6BqPPFM_HSoWC03Vdxs4XH-G3az6Ijavzq5jMPn7kuLkNgjMM5NCsetmvl2Nn/s1600/notre-dame-300x200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="300" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivkzDGYNM_s4IJvmzotqIZxPvAIwMIgLvA7rQpT0G5tKVapUMdd6UCE7jDyh0FibrUWTVRU7QwlMi5Qhf6BqPPFM_HSoWC03Vdxs4XH-G3az6Ijavzq5jMPn7kuLkNgjMM5NCsetmvl2Nn/s400/notre-dame-300x200.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />June 5, 2019<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This last weekend I was fortunate enough to be able to attend The Material Gospels conference at the University of Notre Dame. This was a small gathering of like-minded scholars interested in the use of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, as a material document. There were six lectures overall, covering topics form the use of the codex in non-religious practices, the New Testament as a material artifact in early church practice, insights from a Syriac Gospel Palimpsest<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a>, the resistance of some Christian communities to the use of the codex, and a very enjoyable history of a particularly odd Latin codex, known informally as “Codex Bobiensis”.<br />
<br />
There were several points made in these discussions that I wanted to relay here, but I believe I will devote this week’s article to the first two presentations made in the morning, and reserve a singular article later devoted to another presentation that I believe has ramifications for certain modern conceptions of the “Bible” and it’s relation to the person of Jesus Christ. This week’s discussion revolves around the use of the codex in non-Christian culture, and how that might shed light on the reason for the Christian adoption of this fairly unused book-form for their sacred texts.<br />
<br />
<h2>
The Codex in Galen</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
The first talk of the morning was given by eminent scholar Clare Rothschild, titled “Galen’s <em>De </em><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<em><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5ucDKtgM1vAc4JAC7unHsjpalF2G2PuHzyJzPRjmQ3ARyAmA7ivRF3xPEqq1onU7E7R8UBT-OQ1WX-DnVioGhInXU9HZ-k7WN58oah86q38O5luYNioJFNTQznkyErOiHqbkM4NVkonAg/s1600/Galenus-181x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5ucDKtgM1vAc4JAC7unHsjpalF2G2PuHzyJzPRjmQ3ARyAmA7ivRF3xPEqq1onU7E7R8UBT-OQ1WX-DnVioGhInXU9HZ-k7WN58oah86q38O5luYNioJFNTQznkyErOiHqbkM4NVkonAg/s1600/Galenus-181x300.jpg" /></a></em></div>
<em>Indolentia</em> and the Early Christian Codex”. The bulk of this talk was focused on the work of Galen, roughly translated as “concerning the freedom from pain” which was written to an unspecified individual describing his response to a fire that destroyed a large portion of his library in 192 CE. Galen himself was a medical researcher, living in the Roman Empire in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. While the text is meant to be about how to overcome the pain of loss, particularly the author’s loss, the bulk of the text is a catalog of the library's contents.<br />
<br />
Among the many manuscripts that were destroyed, Galen recounts a “recipe” codex which contained various recipes for medicinal cures. This catalog had been compiled by the author from physicians coming through Rome from all over the world. They would trade recipes with one another during their interactions and Galen collected all that he had. More fascinating than this early “Physician’s Desk Reference” is that the author had the forethought to organize the text by ailment, making it searchable for the reader. Put simply, the physician could be presented with the patient and a description of the ailment, and the possessor of the codex would be able to turn to the applicable section for a remedy. It is notable that Galen used a codex format for this type of book.<br />
<br />
It may be worth noting at this stage that while the codex book-form is the common book-form today, this was not always the case. Prior to the 4th century, the scroll was the most common book technology in mass production. Much of the change from scroll to codex can be credited to Christian use, which I have written about <a href="http://exejesus.com/like-books-thank-a-christian-how-the-codex-supports-the-canon/">here</a>. That being said, the codex was used in small amounts for various types of writing, yet prior to the 4th century the evidence of its use is fairly limited. While it had, at one time, been postulated that Christians <em>invented</em> the codex, this is certainly not true. It was also postulated that Christians used the codex to demonstrate that their texts were special or of high value. While this has been an intriguing and entertaining thought, it no longer appears to be a sufficient explanation. This is where Galen’s work adds to our understanding.<br />
<h3>
<br /></h3>
<h2>
The Codex in Other Forms</h2>
<br />
Add to this the talk given by PhD candidate Jeremiah Coogan, “Navigating the Gospel: Nonlinear Access and Practical Use” and even more light is shed upon this fascinating transition in book technology. Jeremiah’s research has revealed that, in general, two genres of book are frequently found in codex form: anthologies and legal texts. Beginning with the second form first, while it is true that when a legal proclamation was made by the emperor, or a lower regent it was often read allowed in public on a scroll. The reason for this, which can also be seen in early Greco-Roman art, is that a scroll carried a recognition of power. When the scroll was unfurled before the people, the demonstration was significant in confirming the authority of the reader and the message contained within.<br />
<br />
That being said, once this legal text had been read, and possibly displayed publicly, it would be removed from public view, but retained as a record. The message contained on the scroll was then transferred to a page in a codex and stored. These legal codices contained information that may need to be accessed, but often would not be something committed to memory or regularly read. In essence, a legal corpus such as this would not be read like a novel, from front to back, but in segments. It would not be read linearly.<br />
<br />
In a similar way, anthologies were works like a modern-day encyclopedia. Often these works would contain lists of items and brief descriptions below their title. In one such work, the codex contained a list of birds, categorized by paintings of these birds, followed by a description of them. The picture served as markers for where each section began and ended. Additionally, there was an example of a magical text containing various incantations. These incantations often began with headings describing what the spell would help with, but would also end with a particular marking denoting the end of the incantation before the beginning of the next. In both examples, the texts often used, as with the example provided by Galen, were not intentioned for linear reading.<br />
<h3>
<br /></h3>
<h2>
What Does this Have to do with the Bible?</h2>
<strong><br /></strong><br />
How this relates to the Christian use of the codex may already becoming clear to some readers, but I will attempt to explain it now. Prolific and eminent scholar Larry Hurtado postulates that the Christians used the codex for the New Testament, and ultimately the entire Bible, as a way of demonstrating that it was of high value.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> The reason for this was largely due to the cost of producing such a work. However, in recent years other postulations have been made. Another, which I have written some about, was postulated by Hurtado’s former student, Dr. Michael Kruger, suggesting that the portability of the codex over the scroll was especially helpful when dealing with multiple texts intended to be carried together.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> In this way, the adoption of the codex by Christians may point to an early “canon-consciousness” within the body of Christ. In other words, the use of the codex reveals that the church was already thinking of certain books as a “canon”, likely starting with the Pauline epistles.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiWcq8U7f4FnnhE2MN1S1DaTAJsYxWZjtdJjp34gmLCAFygU-oqTSFUaeeTgIRCfQYcyivXuWriBwSQ360Lpay8j7fr5CqO7TMu9lKJW3PFHFcYx5V-gi2NiMczb4XYjkPxESSqqSKC31b/s1600/luke-212x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiWcq8U7f4FnnhE2MN1S1DaTAJsYxWZjtdJjp34gmLCAFygU-oqTSFUaeeTgIRCfQYcyivXuWriBwSQ360Lpay8j7fr5CqO7TMu9lKJW3PFHFcYx5V-gi2NiMczb4XYjkPxESSqqSKC31b/s1600/luke-212x300.jpg" /></a></div>
If we now add to these theories, the data revealed by both Rothschild and Coogan, the selection becomes more complex. While we might say these new positions are <em>contra</em> Hurtado and Kruger, having spoken directly to one of the presenters, I feel it is better to say that they are <em>in additio</em> to Kruger and Hurtado. Coogan’s work in non-linear reading does find correlation in the Gospels when we consider that they are largely written in pericopes, or small stories. While it is true that the Gospels can be read from beginning to end and constitute an overarching narrative, they are also written in such a way as to be read non-linearly. In fact, many four-Gospel manuscripts contained pages at the beginning of each Gospel with a painting of the Gospel author. Even today, as those of us who study these manuscripts search them, we scan the pages online, looking for those paintings as a way to find our place. This is a form of non-linear reading and place marking by the compiler for just such a purpose. All one must imagine is the way a standard church service approaches the text of Scripture. A Gospel or Epistle is not read in its entirety but only a section. It is then, in some churches, picked up the following week, or a new topic is discussed from another segment. It is also known from manuscript evidence that Christian churches were using lectionaries (weekly assigned readings for the year) as early as the 5th century, and the position of “reader” in the church is reported as early as the 3rd century. Additionally, per Coogan, there are possible lection marks in the 4th century Codex Vaticanus that may suggest early traditions of reading the New Testament in a non-linear fashion. If this is true, the codex book-form would be extremely efficient for such purposes.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a><br />
<br />
Additionally, returning to Rothschild’s discussion, it has become clear that the use of a codex did not, in and of itself, represent that a text was more valuable than another, unlike Hurtado’s suggestion. While it may still be true that the Christians viewed theses texts as sacred, something Christ Keith dealt with in his talk and something I will hopefully discuss in the near future on this website, their use of the codex would not necessarily symbolize this. How this is known, comes again from Galen’s <em>D</em><em>e Indolentia</em>, wherein he mentions that his most valuable texts are actually contained on scrolls, not codices. Therefore, scrolls and codices were interchangeable regarding the “value” one might place on a manuscript. However, unintentionally, both Coogan and Rothschild’s work overlapped in many ways. Both demonstrated rather effectively that a prime feature of the codex was its ease of use when seeking to find a specific place in a text for perusal. If we consider how many of us approach the Bible in our own homes even today, it is rarely to read through it linearly but to access a specific place. Not only are we accessing a specific chapter or verse, but a specific chapter and verse in a particular book. Before us is a virtual library of 66 separate books, delineated by headings, much like the work cited by Coogan, from which we can scan and isolate a particular place for reading, evangelizing or preaching. This form of nonlinear reading would be almost impossible by modern thinking if the codex book-form had not been proliferated by the Christian church. And the evidence that continues to come to light suggests that this may have actually been one of the very things they intended.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
As I grow more familiar with the work of the saints that have come before us and the care which they have painstakingly taken with the Bible that we often take for granted, I am increasingly humbled. This text did not come down to us roughshod or by accident. It was not thrown together with little thought or even in a rush to combat heretical teachings growing in the church. The Bible in your hands exists because those who came before us were contemplative, spiritually guided, individuals always thinking of how the Word of God must reach the ends of the earth. It was their ingenuity that has produced the remarkable text before you, and we must never take that for granted.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: navy;">* Conclusions made in this article are the author's. It is not my intent to suggest that these conclusions were drawn by the presenters in their talks and I have sought to be clear within the article on this matter.</span></h3>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> A Palimpsest is a manuscript that was initially used for a different document than what is currently found on it. It derives its name from the Greek word παλιμψηστος (palimpsestos) which means “scraped again”, referring to the practice of scraping the old ink off of the original document to reuse the material for another writing.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a>Larry Hurtado, <em>The Earliest Christian Artifacts</em>.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> Michael Kruger, <em>Canon Revisited</em>.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> It should be mentioned that this form of non-linear reading in the Christian church was likely borrowed from the practice of the Jewish synagogue. We read in Luke 4:16-21 of Jesus doing this very thing, and using a scroll for such purposes. Because of this, we cannot stretch the link from the codex to the ease of non-linear reading too far. A person trained in the use of a scroll and familiar with the text at hand could likely access a portion of it fairly quickly. That being said, if multiple sections of different books were needed, as they would be in a lectionary situation, the number of scrolls needed would be cumbersome, whereas a single codex would be an improvement.Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-4812192426989270572020-02-11T20:37:00.001-08:002020-02-11T20:37:48.797-08:00Does the Bible Approve of Abortion?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyQqUvc96lhkYqVcelPsA5jjn6xy1MR-tq9bGGa-myHEjXTGcBbYa2AovQz-I4kjxLxciqaexg8u1IG62fu6ZJVyLP7LqXgfQpsUcjnFsJyrRgK6xuAPQl57L9-V7xkbehIYXr-kO9LUTt/s1600/Screenshot_20190521-034640-300x225.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="300" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyQqUvc96lhkYqVcelPsA5jjn6xy1MR-tq9bGGa-myHEjXTGcBbYa2AovQz-I4kjxLxciqaexg8u1IG62fu6ZJVyLP7LqXgfQpsUcjnFsJyrRgK6xuAPQl57L9-V7xkbehIYXr-kO9LUTt/s400/Screenshot_20190521-034640-300x225.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />May 28, 2019<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This week’s post is another response to “meme theology”, or in this case it might be considered “meme exegesis”. As the fires of the abortion debate have been stoked once again, with the introduction of new state legislation, making abortion illegal in almost all instances, the vitriol has flooded social media. Recently, when engaging with an abortion advocate online, I was presented with the meme above and the claim that “the Bible promotes abortion”. This is, of course, a backdoor attempt to religiously legitimize a practice most Christians find abhorrent, and it is often produced by those who would not seek biblical approval for any area of their life, making it disingenuous at best.<br />
<br />
That being said, many Christians would simply reject the claim and respond in anger, possibly justified, but never actually examine the passages cited. As I am a avid proponent of Christian apologists being biblically mature ahead of everything else, it follows that we should know the passages cited, their proper context, and how to respond biblically. That is the purpose of this week’s article. Below I will address each passage and seek to explain why they cannot, legitimately, be applied to the abortion agenda today.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Exodus 21:22-23</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<hr />
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Exod-21-22"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Exod-21-22" id="en-ESV-2100">"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.</span> <span class="text Exod-21-23" id="en-ESV-2101"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,</span> <span class="text Exod-21-24" id="en-ESV-2102">eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, </span><span class="text Exod-21-25" id="en-ESV-2103">burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."</span></span><br />
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Exod-21-25"><br /></span></span>
<hr />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvDgLKuk02e48qMUPAsyvS9dIGPAvpVSOu74xCE52jBix5k60ViNwUskwtFa2Cka_66QVgx6-QJDdTOJiUOFQXUxR9H0qjBmWIDNm4u9jGZFa0ys3a4y-ohH-PcR3ZzpqzZJc-2wBvyn5w/s1600/3d-ultrasound.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="159" data-original-width="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvDgLKuk02e48qMUPAsyvS9dIGPAvpVSOu74xCE52jBix5k60ViNwUskwtFa2Cka_66QVgx6-QJDdTOJiUOFQXUxR9H0qjBmWIDNm4u9jGZFa0ys3a4y-ohH-PcR3ZzpqzZJc-2wBvyn5w/s1600/3d-ultrasound.jpg" /></a></div>
The standard reasoning attached to this verse, and that which is implied in the meme, suggests that when a fetus is miscarried, the penalty is only a fine, whereas in the following verse, if the mother is killed, the penalty is life. It has been articulated as follows:<br />
<br />
“In other words, if you cause the death of the fetus, you merely pay a fine; if you cause the death of the woman, you lose your own life. Thus, the Bible clearly shows that a fetus is <em>not </em>considered a person. If the fetus were considered to be a person, then the penalty for killing it would be the same as for killing the woman—death. Abortion, then, is <em>not</em> murder.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a><br />
<br />
The conclusions made in this reasoning stem from the belief that the Hebrew word יָצָא (yâtsâ) should be translated as “miscarriage” or as “depart”. While the idea of “departing” is consistent with a possible translation, the concept of miscarriage is not. This is a gloss based on the semantic range of the verb. At its core, the verb is an action of “going out” or even “bringing forth”, which is its most common use in the OT.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> This has also been acknowledged in modern English Bible translations, as the only version that translates this as suggesting the death of a child is the KJV. All other English translations of this passage render the verse as “gives birth prematurely” which, while still being a gloss, is a more accurate treatment.<br />
<br />
What is additionally important in this passage is the line that immediately follows:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: navy;">“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, <strong>but there is no harm</strong>…”</span><br />
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
The “harm” in question here, is applied to the child, but could also, indirectly apply to the mother. Let us also point out that even if we were to accept the tenuous linguistic argument that a “miscarriage” is in view here, that is not the same as an abortion. An abortion is the intentional ending of an unborn human life. A miscarriage can happen for many reasons, but always unintentionally.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a><br />
<br />
What’s more, in the following verse there is the penalty for what is to happen if harm does occur to the baby or the mother. In such a situation, the law of <em>lex talionis</em> (eye for an eye) applies. While those who use this passage to suggest that the Bible does not view a fetus as a human life argue that v. 22 applies to the fetus dying and v. 23 applies solely to the mother, they are making that argument on speculative grounds linguistically, and largely from presuppositions made prior to reading the text. <br />
<br />
That is why this verse led scholars like Meredith Kline, formerly of Gordon-Cromwell, to say:<br />
<br />
“This law, found in Ex. 21:22-25, turns out to be perhaps the most decisive positive evidence in Scripture that the fetus is to be regarded as a living person.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a><br />
<br />
And if this were not enough, there is the larger corpus of Scripture which clearly presents the unborn life as sacred.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a><br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>Leviticus 27:6</strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<hr />
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Lev-27-1"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Lev-27-1">"The <span class="small-caps">Lord</span> spoke to Moses, saying,</span> '<span class="text Lev-27-2" id="en-ESV-3573">Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, If anyone makes a special vow to the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span> involving the valuation of persons,</span> <span class="text Lev-27-3" id="en-ESV-3574">then the valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary.</span> <span class="text Lev-27-4" id="en-ESV-3575"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>If the person is a female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels.</span> <span class="text Lev-27-5" id="en-ESV-3576"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>If the person is from five years old up to twenty years old, the valuation shall be for a male twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels.</span> <span class="text Lev-27-6" id="en-ESV-3577"><sup class="versenum"> </sup><strong><em>If the person is from a month old up to five years old, the valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female the valuation shall be three shekels of silver.</em></strong></span> <span class="text Lev-27-7"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>And if the person is sixty years old or over, then the valuation for a male shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.'"</span></span><br />
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Lev-27-7"><br /></span></span>
<hr />
<br />
The argument from this passage is largely an argument from silence. Not much need to be said here in the way of refutation, for there is nothing in the verse to bring one to the conclusion found in the meme. What is at issue is that the law in this passage refers to the value to be paid for a person, beginning with full grown males and females, down to children up to 1 month old. The argument then, is that since there is no monetary value listed for children less than 1 month old, the passage is positively stating that children less than a month (a fetus included) are not considered human life.<br />
Hopefully it is clear, at the outset, that not having a monetary value attached to children under 1 month does not necessarily, or even logically, conclude that they are not considered human life. <br />
<br />
Formally stated, the argument from “silence is, in many cases, a lack of evidence, for the reason that the matter in question did not come within the scope of the author’s argument.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a> The assumption imported into the pro-abortion argument behind this verse is that a votive offering is somehow indicative of the redemptive value of human life. The problem with such an assumption is that it is exactly that, an assumption. The nature of a votive offering is unclear, especially in this text.<br />
<br />
A votive offering is generaly recognized as an offering paid as part of a vow to God. This vow could be for many reasons. It could be a vow that resulted in blessing or protection. In such cases the offering is either being paid by the offeror for themselves, or for the other party, but has no direct impact on the recognition of that individual’s humanity. The reason for this is precisely as Dr. Briggs noted above so many years ago, <em>the idea of the humanity of the individual was not within the scope of the argument.</em> As we have already seen, the value of unborn life was already clear in Jewish culture, and thus not part of the guidance in Lev. 27:1-7. Even if the votive offering were one of redemption, it would be to redeem those who had made a vow, of service in most cases, to the temple or to the Lord in some fashion.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a> One can hardly expect a child less than one month old to be of service in a temple, especially since they would still be nursing. A child of one month to five years could easily be of service, first with the mother, and then on their own, once old enough to work. In either case, it has nothing to do with the humanity of the child.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>Numbers 3:15-16</strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<hr />
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Num-3-14"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Num-3-14" id="en-ESV-3707">"And the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span> spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying,</span> '<span class="text Num-3-15" id="en-ESV-3708">List the sons of Levi, by fathers' houses and by clans; every male from a month old and upward you shall list.'</span> <span class="text Num-3-16" id="en-ESV-3709"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>So Moses listed them according to the word of the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span>, as he was commanded."</span></span><br />
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Num-3-16"><br /></span></span>
<hr />
<br />
Suffice it to say, the repetitious nature of these citations should become very clear at this point. This is, yet again, an argument from silence. The context of the passage is the official numbering of the Israelites by tribe. Given that the infant mortality rate (as far as it can be determined) for Israel in Late Antiquity (3-8th century AD) was as high as 30% <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8">[8]</a>, the mortality rate for the Ancient Near East would be considerably higher. Thus, when taking a census, it would not be reasonable to count children highly unlikely to survive.<br />
<br />
Again, it must re-stated that the humanity of the child is not in the purview of the verse. What is in sight is the population count. A child less than one month would be less likely to be counted, given the mortality rate. Additionally, to reason that the verse above necessitates a conclusion that the infant is not human, begs the question. One must begin with the presupposition that (a) an unborn child is not human, or (b) the Bible explicitly states that an unborn child is not a human. Option (a) is a modern philosophical invention being imported into the text, and option (b) is non-existent in the text.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>Numbers 31:15-17; Hosea 9:14;16; 13:16; 2 Samuel 12:14</strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<hr />
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Num-31-15"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Num-31-15" id="en-ESV-4680">"Moses said to them, 'Have you let all the women live?</span> <span class="text Num-31-16" id="en-ESV-4681"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span> in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span>.</span> <span class="text Num-31-17" id="en-ESV-4682">Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.' "</span></span><br />
<span style="color: navy;"><br /><span class="text Hos-9-14" id="en-ESV-22223">"Give them, O <span class="small-caps">Lord</span>—</span><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Hos-9-14">what will you give? </span></span><span class="text Hos-9-14">Give them a miscarrying womb </span><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Hos-9-14">and dry breasts....<span class="text Hos-9-16" id="en-ESV-22225">Ephraim is stricken; </span><span class="text Hos-9-16">their root is dried up; </span><span class="text Hos-9-16">they shall bear no fruit. </span><span class="text Hos-9-16">Even though they give birth, </span><span class="text Hos-9-16">I will put their beloved children to death....<span class="text Hos-13-16" id="en-ESV-22283">Samaria shall bear her guilt, </span><span class="text Hos-13-16">because she has rebelled against her God; </span><span class="text Hos-13-16">they shall fall by the sword; </span><span class="text Hos-13-16">their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, </span><span class="text Hos-13-16">and their pregnant women ripped open."</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Hos-9-14"><span class="text Hos-9-16"><span class="text Hos-13-16"><br /></span></span></span></span></span>
<span style="color: #073763;">"Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span>,the child who is born to you shall die."</span><br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
Given that several passages are in view here, let’s address them at one time. To begin, the statement attached to these passages in the meme points out that God either “approves of” or actively “kills” fetuses or newborns. Before even looking at the verses in question, an immediate response can be made on purely theological grounds. As I have addressed in <a href="http://exejesus.com/god-is-a-genocidal-immoral-murderer/">another post</a>, God is the rightful owner of all humanity as He is the ultimate cause for all human life that ever has been and ever will be. Because of this, it is solely within His right to take the life of whomever He pleases.<br />
<br />
Setting that point aside, Numbers 31:15-17 refers to the killing of male children, not unborn babies, <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiwVSIZFJ3SXEMhOJw9JKsQBtU4idcRSwq7RYGNm4lgTldGLSZxym6ooGLth0JoROwb8ImJCbIe_enTEPmsDGCWR9_eB2NYdiZm7_BzHYdMOBAB5TebyIWJ8Nb4B-jYU9A1HA4rMAmBeLy/s1600/The_Last_Judgement._Jean_Cousin.-287x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="287" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiwVSIZFJ3SXEMhOJw9JKsQBtU4idcRSwq7RYGNm4lgTldGLSZxym6ooGLth0JoROwb8ImJCbIe_enTEPmsDGCWR9_eB2NYdiZm7_BzHYdMOBAB5TebyIWJ8Nb4B-jYU9A1HA4rMAmBeLy/s1600/The_Last_Judgement._Jean_Cousin.-287x300.jpg" /></a></div>
while addressing the issue of killing children is a topic worth discussing, it is not part of the argument for abortion that this meme is attempting to make, unless the abortion advocate is willing to acknowledge that a fetus is as much a human life as a born child, to which we would agree, but this is not an argument many will make. The command to kill the male children is to prevent the Midianite boys from growing up to seek vengeance upon the Israelite people. While it might seem extreme to modern sensibilities, it was a common practice of the age.<br />
<br />
When addressing the Hosea 9 passages, it should be understood from the beginning, that the language used is poetic and figurative. The nation of Israel is being represented in many ways, but all negatively. Chapter 9 begins with punishments that will befall Israel because of their rejection of the law of God. The verses immediately prior to those in the meme declare that the nation will be childless, either in an inability to conceive or to bring to term, and it is God acting out this judgment. All references to unborn children in 9 are to miscarriage or infertility. The direct killing stated in v.16 refers to born alive children. While it is true that judgment language of this kind is found in many Ancient Near Eastern texts, they are commonly hyperbolic in the extremity to which they will go.<br />
<br />
Clearly the Israelites did bear children that survived, as there are Israelites still living to this day. Therefore, what we have in Hosea is a divine judgment text, not meant to be taken woodenly but as a blanket judgment of destruction to the people. Barrenness itself was considered a divine curse throughout this time and beyond.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9">[9]</a> While Numbers 13:16b is the closest any of these verses might come to speaking of an unborn child being murdered, it again falls within the context of a judgment text. These actions did take place, and they were under the sovereign will of God, but to be equivalent to the pro-abortion argument it would require the proponent to believe that God was actively commanding them to commit the abortion AND that the abortions being performed were part of God’s judgment on the people receiving them. Again, this is not an argument that will be made.<br />
<br />
Lastly, 2 Samuel recounts the well-known passage in which David’s child by Bathsheba dies. While the statement attached to this verse in the meme is technically correct, it again does nothing to support the current, pro-abortion, position. Yes, it is true that God allows the death of, or even kills, a child to punish the parents. This is clearly the case for David. Yet, this is not normative either. It is not abortion on demand for any reason, at any time. Also, as has been stated above, it is God’s prerogative to take human life, and in this case, it is in the form of a child dying of natural causes AFTER birth. It is not a case of child neglect, as has been approved in states like Virginia and New York, and is not tantamount to an abortion. Secondly, as was also noted above, this is DIVINE JUDGEMENT upon the parents. Unless the abortion practitioner or the one promoting abortion is suggesting that they are God’s tool of judgment upon the mothers, the reasoning does not follow.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>Numbers 5:21; 27-28</strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<hr />
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Num-5-11"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Num-5-11">And the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span> spoke to Moses, saying,</span> '<span class="text Num-5-12" id="en-ESV-3805">Speak to the people of Israel, If any man's wife goes astray and breaks faith with him,</span><span class="text Num-5-13"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband...<span class="text Num-5-16" id="en-ESV-3809">the priest shall bring her near and set her before the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span>.</span><span class="text Num-5-17"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water....<span class="text Num-5-19" id="en-ESV-3812">Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband's authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse.</span> <span class="text Num-5-20"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you...<strong><em><span class="text Num-5-21" id="en-ESV-3814">the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span> make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span> makes your thigh fall away and your body swell.</span> </em></strong><span class="text Num-5-22" id="en-ESV-3815"><strong><em>May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’</em></strong> And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’"</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: navy;"><span class="text Num-5-13"><span class="text Num-5-17"><span class="text Num-5-20"><span class="text Num-5-22"><br /></span></span></span></span></span>
<hr />
<br />
This passage is often cited as one in which God “causes an abortion”. At best, what may be in view here is another example of a miscarriage, but even this is suspect. No, popularly used, English translations interpret this text to reference an abortion. The exact statement is that the “abdomen will swell” and the “thigh will fall away”. Both are euphemistic terms that are unclear. While it is possible that the swelling of the abdomen might be suggestive of an illegitimate pregnancy that fails to come to term<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10">[10]</a>, the reference to the “thigh” is consistently euphemistic of the sexual organs.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11">[11]</a><br />
Rather, “The most probable explanation for the phrase 'and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away . . .' is that the woman suffers a collapse of the sexual organs known as a prolapsed uterus. In this condition, which may occur after multiple pregnancies, the pelvis floor (weakened by the pregnancies) collapses, and the uterus literally falls down. It may lodge in the vagina, or it may actually fall out of the body through the vagina. If it does so, it becomes edematous and swells up like a balloon. Conception becomes impossible, and the woman’s procreative life has effectively ended . . .”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12">[12]</a> This being the case, pregnancy is not in view but rather the inability to ever conceive.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>Genesis 38:24</strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<hr />
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: navy;">"About three months later Judah was told, 'Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.' And Judah said, 'Bring her out, and let her be burned.' "</span><br />
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
The caption attached to this last verse declares that the “law of God” required the execution of pregnant women by burning to death. Suffice it to say that the Law does not prescribe the burning of pregnant women, least of all here. The larger context of this story is a narrative, not a legal passage, therefore drawing the conclusion that the actions taken or even attempted are approved by God would be contrary to the genre of the text.<br />
<br />
The narrative within which this verse falls is the deception of Judah by his daughter-in-law, Tamar. In the story, Tamar, has married Judah’s son, Er, but he has died without producing an heir. According to the law, it falls to the closest male sibling of her husband to marry her and produce a child.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13">[13]</a> Judah commanded his second son, Onan, to perform his duties as the levirate, but Onan did not. This left Tamar without an heir and without a husband, leaving her helpless as a woman in that time. Tamar’s recourse is to disguise herself as a prostitute and convince her father-in-law, Judah, to sleep with her. He does this, and she becomes pregnant. The law actually requires that Judah marry Tamar at this point.<br />
<br />
When Judah is told that his daughter-in-law has conceived through prostitution, he responds violently, but not in any way sanctioned by OT law. When he learns that he is actually the father, he immediately adopts his role as her kinsman redeemer. Judah, the one calling for her to be burned, is depicted in this narrative as the enemy, not the hero. It is Tamar that is the righteous character in this story, for she is doing what is necessary to protect herself and ultimately continue the messianic line that would lead to David (Ruth 4:18-22) and ultimately to Christ (Matt.1:6-17). Therefore, this verse neither promotes abortion, nor does it depict the law of God as validating the burning of a pregnant woman. To suggest so is, like every other claim in the meme, a <em>non sequitur</em>.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
Certainly, it can be said that a refutation of this position can be made without even appealing to the Bible. Strictly operating from a theological standpoint and arguing back from the nature of God and His relation to mankind, to disprove any concept that God would approve of the modern practice of abortion. However, as Christians, and apologists, it behooves us to know the biblical text intimately, and even a quick investigation into these texts and the surrounding context reveals the impotency of the argument presented.<br />
<br />
The argument ultimately devolves into a form of, “If God can do it, so can I”, and this is probably the most accurate of statements to be made. The inner corrupted desire of all mankind is to usurp the authority and role of God in their lives, and the abortion industry is no different. The pro-abortion argument from Scripture is nothing more than tacit agreement that the person in favor of abortion is seeking to be God.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><br /></strong>
<strong><br /></strong>
<strong><br /></strong>
<strong><br /></strong>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> Graham Spurgeon, “Is Abortion Murder?” in <em>The Religious Case for Abortion</em>, p. 16<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> See Gen. 1:24; 4:16; 9:18; Ex. 28:35; 29:46; 32:34 and many, many more.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> The Mayo Clinic defines a miscarriage as the “spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week.”<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> M. G. Kline, “<span style="font-style: inherit;">Lex Talionis</span> and the Human Fetus,” <span style="font-style: inherit;">JETS</span> 20 (1977): 193-201<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> Job 10:8-12; 15:14; Ps. 51:5; 58:3; 139:13-16; Eccles. 11:5; Jer. 1:5; Gal. 1:15<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a> C.A. Briggs, “The Argument E Silentio: With Special Reference to the Religion of Israel,” <em>Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis</em>, vol.3 (1), (June, 1883).<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a> This is similar to the vow made by Hannah concerning her son Samuel in 1 Sam.1:11.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">[8]</a>Meir Bar-Ilan, Mortality Rate in the Land of Israel in Late Antiquity: <a href="https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/articles/to_check/infant.html">https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/articles/to_check/infant.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9">[9]</a> Consider the barrenness of Sarah (Gen. 15:2); Hannah (1 Sam. 1:5-11); the curse of David’s wife Michal (2 Sam. 6:23) and even the statement made by Elizabeth (Lk. 1:24-25).<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10">[10]</a> R.K. Harrison, <em>Numbers</em>, WEC, 111-3.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11">[11]</a> Walter Riggans, <em>Numbers</em>, Daily Study Bible Series, p. 50 (cf. Gen. 24:2)<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12">[12]</a> Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah (Numbers V 11-31), <em>Vetus Testamentum, </em>34:1 (January, 1984). Also, Frymer-Kensky, “The Trial Before God of an Accused Adulteress,” <em>Bible Review</em>, 2:3 (Fall, 1986).<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13">[13]</a> Deut. 25:5-10Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-58740939108616519592020-02-11T19:56:00.001-08:002020-02-11T19:56:46.977-08:00Do We Believe in the Bible Because of Christ or in Christ Because of the Bible?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicqNwY8SG-VJAFw_7VnHSgVA3LDFAXs2j6fSZYqlOIhDgE1LYD4hX5AovvGYI6LjV5HlEy2jbwXd_F96OZeyZYyvyrNTASAWM833i3XHNsdzkxkSGIgij-g5qq5vP2BDF2YFrQnzYcH6K7/s1600/William_Lane_Craig-199x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="199" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicqNwY8SG-VJAFw_7VnHSgVA3LDFAXs2j6fSZYqlOIhDgE1LYD4hX5AovvGYI6LjV5HlEy2jbwXd_F96OZeyZYyvyrNTASAWM833i3XHNsdzkxkSGIgij-g5qq5vP2BDF2YFrQnzYcH6K7/s400/William_Lane_Craig-199x300.jpg" width="265" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />April 22, 2019<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Recently on social media, a Q&A from Dr. William Lane Craig’s website, Reasonable Faith, made the rounds. Needless to say, it has caused no small stir amongst the Reformed on social media, and likewise it has concerned me. Before I begin though, let me state that this is not going to be an attack on Dr. Craig or his theology. I have great respect for Dr Craig and the work that he does. He has even given me some very wise advice early in my apologetic pursuits, and I will always be thankful for that. What concerns me, and has for many years now, is the increase in compromise that I have seen come from within the so-called “Mere Christianity” movement, of which Dr. Craig is a large contributor.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOl9Q9MfhkRFsHkZpOkYynuYgXJEQLCRWe-JZI8fqYuew5mxb1Sk2dgXNNP7SUroNdVUkmgSsl5eFvNspqaNgNgysKtSc2sJj3KOdt5etK2VPt9i4MKBGVGVArjGsocP3RdkspARwzlahp/s1600/300px-Jesus_resurrected-234x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="234" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOl9Q9MfhkRFsHkZpOkYynuYgXJEQLCRWe-JZI8fqYuew5mxb1Sk2dgXNNP7SUroNdVUkmgSsl5eFvNspqaNgNgysKtSc2sJj3KOdt5etK2VPt9i4MKBGVGVArjGsocP3RdkspARwzlahp/s1600/300px-Jesus_resurrected-234x300.jpg" /></a></div>
These compromises often center doctrinally around what can best be described as <em>Sola Resurrectio </em>or the resurrection alone. By this, I mean that the only important Christian doctrine that needs to be pressed on an unbeliever is the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If this can be proven, usually from the famed “minimal facts” approach, it is theorized that everything else that Christians believe, and what the Bible teaches, must be acceptable. While I disagree even on logical grounds that simply because Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, the rest of Christianity necessarily must be true, what is more troubling is the extent to which this perspective has been taken.<br />
<br />
A popular evangelical minister has made headlines in recent years with ever increasing claims about the value believers should place on the Bible itself. He has taught sermon series that challenge historical aspects of the Bible, cardinal beliefs of the Christian faith, and most recently suggested that Christians should cease to use the Hebrew Bible as it is not authoritative for the believer. This preacher’s main thesis for this increasing polarity is that the only thing that matters is the resurrection. It is <em>Sola Resurrectio</em> <em>ad extremo</em>. I am not laying this pastor’s actions at the feet of Dr. Craig, although it should be noted that Dr. Craig and other apologists involved in the Mere Christianity movement have continued to express support for this pastor and his actions. Rather, this is just an example of the extremes to which <em>Sola Resurrectio</em> can go.<br />
<br />
I say all of this to set the stage for why the question and answer article posted at Reasonable Faith has caused such a stir, and why the response from Dr. Craig is what it is. The Question posed to Dr. Craig concerned an interview given by Dr. Craig in January of this year. This is the question:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h5>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></h5>
<h3>
<span style="color: blue;">Hello Dr. Craig,</span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">I appreciate your work and am going through the Defender podcasts I enjoyed your interview with Erik Thoennes of Grace Evangelical Free in January 2019. In that interview you said "We believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ. We do not believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible". Can you explain what you meant by that statement ?</span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">Thank you !</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
I have not seen this interview, so I cannot comment on anything that was said during the actual discussion. This is why I am limiting this article to Dr. Craig’s posted response. It begins this way:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h5>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></h5>
<h3>
<span style="color: blue;">"Sure! What I’m expressing in a pithy way by this aphorism (which is not original to me!) is that in order to rationally believe in Christ as Savior and Lord, you need not embrace biblical inspiration or inerrancy. So long as the New Testament documents are sufficiently reliable to establish the historicity of Jesus’ radical personal claims and the historicity of his crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection, then you are warranted by the evidence in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and so was who he claimed to be. That suffices for a Christian commitment."</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
To begin with, Dr. Craig asserts that the “pithy aphorism” he has employed is referring to the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible, but if that is in fact the case, and I take Dr. Craig at his word here that it is, the aphorism says nothing about either doctrine. The purpose of an aphorism is to create an easy-to-remember mnemonic for a larger truth. This aphorism seems to imply that the Bible should be doubted were it not for Christ. If you have to explain the aphorism then it has failed to serve its purpose. But let’s look at the larger claim being made. Dr Craig says that,<br />
“So long as the New Testament documents are sufficiently reliable to establish the historicity of Jesus’ radical personal claims and the historicity of the crucifixion, burial …then you are warranted by the evidence in believing Jesus rose from the dead and so was who he claimed to be.”<br />
<br />
Here is where I struggle. What appears to be going on is nothing more than a semantic game, for what Dr. Craig is saying is that we don’t believe Christ because of the Bible, but because of the reliability of the “New Testament documents”. The New Testament documents are part of the Bible. They were viewed as Scripture on par with the Old Testament within the lifetime of the apostle Paul. So, in reality Dr. Craig is affirming the exact opposite of his aphorism. He does in fact believe in Christ BECAUSE he believes in the Bible! I actually don’t disagree here either. I believe that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the Christian and that includes the belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Despite the increasing trend of shying away from referring to the Bible as the Bible, a rose by any other name….<br />
<br />
Dr. Craig’s response does not end there. He goes on to say:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: blue;">"Even taken as ordinary, fallible human records, the New Testament documents have been shown to be reliable with respect to these facts. Too many Christians naively think that unless you presuppose biblical inspiration and inerrancy, the historicity of the life of Jesus goes down the drain. This attitude, far from showing confidence in the Bible, actually betrays a profound lack of confidence in its historical credibility. Without the theological assumptions of inspiration and inerrancy to hold it up, the Bible is implicitly taken to be untrustworthy on this view.</span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">But once one becomes a Christian, then one submits to the teaching of the Lord Jesus. When we see how Jesus regarded the Old Testament, we perceive that he taught it to be the inspired and wholly reliable Word of God. So as his disciples, we should, too. We believe in the Bible because we believe in him."</span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">- William Lane Craig</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="que-ans-by">
<hr />
</div>
<br />
While it might be true that some Christians believe that inerrancy and inspiration are the only means by which the Bible can be true, this is certainly not the prevailing view in academia or in the majority of seminaries or pulpits. The following statement also seems to be a false dichotomy that believing that the Bible is inspired by God, something affirmed by the apostle Paul, is somehow naïve and betray a lack of confidence in its historical credibility. Clearly the apostles and the Lord himself believed in the inspiration of the Old Testament AND its historical credibility. To say that these “theological assumptions” are mistaken creates more havoc within Christian belief than most in the mere Christianity movement seem to recognize or want to acknowledge.<br />
<br />
Finally, Dr. Craig affirms the inspiration of Scripture only after it is clear that Jesus believed this. Yet, as I’ve stated above, Dr. Craig inadvertently affirms that belief in the reliability of the New Testament is how someone believes in Jesus, meaning that the entire argument is ultimately circular. If we remove the semantic wordplay the response devolves to, “I believe in Jesus because the Bible is reliable and because the Bible is reliable about Jesus, I believe that the Bible is inspired.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
In the end, I agree with all the things that Dr. Craig inadvertently admits. I do not agree with the use of confusing aphorisms that really only exist for shock value. As I have written <a href="http://exejesus.com/the-most-important-word-in-all-of-scripture/">elsewhere</a>, the most important verse in all of Scripture is 2 Timothy 3:16, precisely because it is the affirmation that all of Scripture is “God-breathed”. This is the reason that the Bible carries the weight of authority that it did for the Jewish believers of old and the Christians that would follow. To affirm it as any less, even with the noble intention of wanting to bring someone to faith in Christ, is to play a type of deceptive game. It is not helpful to deceive someone into the faith. Likewise, multiple studies from the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/14/5-facts-on-how-americans-view-the-bible-and-other-religious-texts/ft_17-04-12_scripture_bible_knowledge1/">Pew Research Center</a>, <a href="https://thestateoftheology.com/">Ligonier Ministries</a>, and the <a href="https://www.barna.com/research/half-churchgoers-not-heard-great-commission/">George Barna Group</a> repeatedly demonstrate that biblical literacy in the American church is at an all-time low. The answer to this disturbing trend is not to <em>remove</em> large portions of the Bible to make it easier for Christians and non-Christians, but to increase the teaching of the full counsel of God’s Word, even in apologetics. Let us strive for higher, not set the bar lower.Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-58966150202096102782020-02-11T11:39:00.001-08:002020-02-11T11:39:23.324-08:00The Resurrection: Physical Body or Disembodied Spirit?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic1xmCBkwiGAAR2chk-_0H1p2A7whAmXkL2ISUapHEQE3qZzSICfki-WPocASNcb2h4lRehwZl0_w94q9JDsRrplkKtPk_UYAmOwfBhUZ6bsW3WN35abs-rjzzLFzYpXiKfPROATfcHx1o/s1600/crucifix-200x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="200" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic1xmCBkwiGAAR2chk-_0H1p2A7whAmXkL2ISUapHEQE3qZzSICfki-WPocASNcb2h4lRehwZl0_w94q9JDsRrplkKtPk_UYAmOwfBhUZ6bsW3WN35abs-rjzzLFzYpXiKfPROATfcHx1o/s400/crucifix-200x300.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />April 16, 2019<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This week is Holy Week, when the Christian church reflects on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As everyone knows, even if they are not Christian, the week culminates with Easter Sunday, long believed to have been the historical day of the week when Christ rose from the grave. Special occasions such as this are essential for life within the church as they remind us of the reality of our core beliefs. At the same time, public celebrations such as this also create a target of sorts for nonbelievers and skeptics, wherein they can attack what they perceive as “foolishness” within Christianity. While this has taken many forms for millennia, one of the more recent attacks related to the resurrection of Jesus is the nature by which he was raised.<br />
<br />
I am referring to the belief that Christ was not raised bodily, but that the disciples only saw visions of him. This argument has waxed and waned through the years, finding adherents in the likes of Rudolf Bultmann, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and even Bart Ehrman. It has recently been “resurrected” (pun intended) by the modern Jesus mythicist movements. While not quoting from any one skeptic in particular, the form of this argument often traces to the statements of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. In what is arguably a favorite passage for Christian apologists because of its antiquity and its presentation of the resurrection, 1 Cor. 15:3-9 contains the earliest recorded creed of the Christian church. While this might seem like fool-proof evidence in favor of the bodily resurrection, some skeptics have argued that it is the exact opposite. The argument follows these general premises:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
In vv. 5-8 Paul relates the resurrection appearances of Christ, including himself at the end.<br />
Paul is implicitly comparing these appearances with his own, suggesting that he saw Christ in the same way that the apostles and these others did.<br />
<br />
However, according to Acts 9:5-7, Paul only had a vision wherein he heard the voice of Jesus.<br />
<br />
What’s more, Paul goes on to say in 1 Cor. 15:44 that the believer’s resurrection body is a “spiritual body” not a natural one.<br />
<br />
And, in 1 Cor. 15:50, Paul unequivocally states that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”.<br />
<br />
Therefore, according to the apologist’s favorite resurrection passage, Paul is arguing for a spiritual resurrection or type of vision, NOT a physical, bodily resurrection as is often claimed.<br />
<hr />
<br />
Based on this argument, it is reasoned that the belief in a spiritual resurrection preceded belief in a physical resurrection. The strengths of the argument are that it appears to follow the evidence within the text and it hinges on the oldest creed in Scripture, making it prior to any other writing. Because of this, it cannot be argued that because the Gospels record a physical resurrection of Jesus, that Paul means that he too saw Jesus bodily, because the creed Paul uses in 1 Corinthians predates every Gospel.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">So, what do we do with this claim?</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaeUrrEQenAaVMBU256W1ttPwwtuEKcPzVwDq4TTokGDQJJpsCOC_SeVet451ifGhbANHilmTwetxEKB9IHuv14fDF4PUcMD_oINc0VINF-8yhhfzqQmD_A-ALnppPduYjvXgaZUKndfjR/s1600/Paul.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="257" data-original-width="196" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaeUrrEQenAaVMBU256W1ttPwwtuEKcPzVwDq4TTokGDQJJpsCOC_SeVet451ifGhbANHilmTwetxEKB9IHuv14fDF4PUcMD_oINc0VINF-8yhhfzqQmD_A-ALnppPduYjvXgaZUKndfjR/s200/Paul.jpg" width="152" /></a></div>
The best response is one that takes the claim seriously and examines each line of evidence. The first few arguments are not really deniable. It is true that Paul is comparing his experience with the risen Lord to that of the apostles. It is also true that the recording of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9 only recounts a voice, not a bodily appearance. For this reason, I see no need to argue against the first points. The real question comes with the context of the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians. What does Paul mean by “spiritual body” and “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”?<br />
<h4>
</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h2>
What Was Paul Thinking?!</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
Immediately following Paul’s use of the creed, in vv. 12-34, he responds to an unknown question posed by the Corinthian church. He states,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span>
<h3>
<span style="color: navy;">“Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can <strong>some of you</strong> say there is no resurrection of the dead?”</span></h3>
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
It would seem that there are some, perhaps a Christian faction, within the church at Corinth that are claiming that there is no resurrection from the dead. The apostle’s response is to point out that if there is no resurrection from the dead then neither is Christ raised, so why are you preaching the resurrection of Christ?! What follows is the adamant assertion that without the resurrection of Christ there is no Christian faith. He then follows that point by arguing that Christ was the “firstfruits” (i.e. one to come first) of all believers that die, meaning that His resurrection is emblematic of the Christian’s resurrection. This is followed by another critique of those who are baptizing for the dead. While nothing is known about this practice, it can be presumed that the same individuals arguing against the resurrection of the saints are the ones performing this baptismal ritual because Paul’s point is that it’s nonsensical to baptize for the dead if there is no resurrection! What’s more, he will go on to say, there is no reason to live in any other way than licentiousness, for without the resurrection, life is fleeting.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Natural Body or Spiritual Body?</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
In vv.35-54, we have the statements quoted by the skeptic. In v.44, Paul states that “it” (i.e. the body<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3j4K_BdQ90l1464a6znA7p9b5iPTzPtjbrnrtPgz4RVJzZJNUMnmmMMcflZVvrAkJnLzQmjcuTZbQ_IM1HUSjUaqNdo7qWuLDIZoWZTziIGby1litoxpXwPnQHU5SAKiNYHWzrP14mSA3/s1600/seed-300x200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3j4K_BdQ90l1464a6znA7p9b5iPTzPtjbrnrtPgz4RVJzZJNUMnmmMMcflZVvrAkJnLzQmjcuTZbQ_IM1HUSjUaqNdo7qWuLDIZoWZTziIGby1litoxpXwPnQHU5SAKiNYHWzrP14mSA3/s1600/seed-300x200.jpg" /></a></div>
of the saint) is sown a natural body and raised as a spiritual body. In Greek it is the apposition of two terms ψυχικὸν (natural) vs. πνευματικὸν (spiritual). However, v.44 doesn’t stand alone. It is the continuation of a thought that really begins as far back as v.35 wherein the Apostle begins discussing the different types of bodies in the created world. The point of this digression is to persuade the reader that a “body” can take on multiple forms. This is especially true in the case of a seed that has one kind of body when it is laid in the ground, but a completely different type of body when it springs forth from the ground. Both bodies are different, but they are still bodies.<br />
<br />
That being said, the immediate context of v.44 begins in v. 42 where Paul writes,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span>
<h3>
<span style="color: navy;">“It is the same with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”</span></h3>
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
It is clear that there is a pattern of comparison being made here:<br />
<br />
Perishable vs. imperishable = dishonor vs. glory = weakness vs. power = natural vs. spiritual<br />
<br />
To put it another way:<br />
<br />
Perishable = dishonor = weakness = natural<br />
Imperishable = glory = power = spiritual<br />
<br />
There is one final comparison made in v. 45:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: navy;">“So also it is written, ‘the first man, Adam, became a living person”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”</span><br />
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
What we have in this portion of Paul’s argument is not a discussion of bodily resurrection versus a disembodied spirit, but a discussion on that which was made in Adam but restored in Christ! That which was sown a natural body is that which was under Adam; that which was raised a spiritual body is that which is under Christ. In both cases there are bodies, but the difference is who has control.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a><br />
<br />
<h2>
What about the Flesh and Blood?</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
Moving to v. 50, we come to the last claim. Paul writes,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: navy;">“Now this is what I am saying brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.”</span><br />
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
As we have just seen above, the argument Paul is using in the preceding verses is still being applied here. The use of “flesh and blood” clearly means physical in the same sense as the “natural body” of v.45, but it is again qualified with the same language. The perishable does not inherit the imperishable, therefore it must be changed from perishable to imperishable; from mortal to immortal. The emphasis in chapter 15 is not on the corporeal or a disembodied spirit, but the transference of a sinful body to one renewed in Christ Jesus. A different body, but not the lack of a body.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
Without appealing to the Gospels for support it is possible to diffuse the power of this skeptical claim, simply by letting Paul speak for himself. While the argument seems weighty at first blush, a closer look at the text reveals that it stands on sinking sand. It could be noted as well that the idea of a physical body ascending to the gods is not foreign to Greeks<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> or Jews<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> and thus, the bodily resurrection of Jesus and his subsequent ascension was not without general precedent. What would be striking to them is how this action of Jesus’ could affect anyone else. This is why Paul’s argument carries the weight that it did. Not only did this Jesus rise bodily from the grave and was seen, but his resurrection guarantees that those who are “in Christ” will share in the same victory over death.<br />
The resurrection of Jesus is the most important part of Christian belief not only because it is the culmination of who Jesus is, but also because it is the promise to all those who follow after Him.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">Happy Easter!</span></h2>
<div>
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> It should also be noted that the use of ψυχικὸν can mean a great many things, but one which fits this context best is that of “creaturely”. The body under Adam was creaturely, but raised as spiritual under Christ. Meaning, no longer a slave to the creaturely desires of old.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Achilles (except in Homer), Memnon, Asclepius, Melicertes, Menelaus and Ino are Grecian examples.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> Elijah and Enoch are Jewish examples.Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-6793716997452255322020-02-11T11:14:00.001-08:002020-02-11T11:14:05.589-08:00Where do You Want to Die? A Plea for Caution<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5pHMdYIYLXtOQ2x3C6MyQo4UyM92NSLFH8BT93ZdwnsbxrCvrxWso28SLb-8MBxmPAbUrr0z0HOdX4zC-Xkc91n_oB0BGFDf92mzc-YjDL0V9pBwa43hfZDdDXkZlB9TGDnS9weDlS6nR/s1600/mountain-200x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="200" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5pHMdYIYLXtOQ2x3C6MyQo4UyM92NSLFH8BT93ZdwnsbxrCvrxWso28SLb-8MBxmPAbUrr0z0HOdX4zC-Xkc91n_oB0BGFDf92mzc-YjDL0V9pBwa43hfZDdDXkZlB9TGDnS9weDlS6nR/s400/mountain-200x300.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />
March 22, 2019<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Everyone has one. That mountain they're ready to die on. There’s always at least one thing that you will not abandon, no matter how hard you’re pushed. I’m willing to bet that, even if they’ve never thought of one, every person on the planet has a such a position. This is a good thing. I believe firmly that everyone should have convictions and that these convictions should be something that they will fight for. You might say that’s a mountain I would die on.<br />
<br />
That’s not to say that we all shouldn’t be willing to be reflective and analyze our convictions over the years, to be certain that we aren’t holding to something that may not be true. After all, circumstances change, new evidence can be revealed, and as Socrates famously said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”<br />
<br />
The question everyone should ask themselves routinely regarding their particular “mountain(s)” is, “Do I need to die here?” Basically, reflect on the issue at hand and determine if it really is absolutely necessary to your worldview that it be true, or that your position never change. I bring this up because the tendency among Christians, and probably everyone else as well, is to make minor details of Christian belief the most important. Having grown up in an IFB (Independent Fundamentalist Baptist) community, I was well-versed in the hundreds of minor details that were “essential” for someone to believe if they were a “real” Christian.<br />
<br />
Examples? This may be where I lose readers but there are many. Does it matter which translation of the Bible you use? What about wearing a hat in church? Can a Christian smoke? Drink? Dance? In the world of apologetics, we have many as well. Does it matter how old the universe is? Can you be a Christian and believe in evolution? What if the Gospels were written later than 70 AD? Does it matter if the meaning of a beloved Bible verse happens to be different than you’ve always thought? What if the Canon of the Bible wasn’t ever actually decided formally?<br />
<br />
Ask yourself, are these non-negotiables for you, or is there room for differences of opinion? For many years, several of these positions were non-negotiables for me. I would never have agreed that you could believe in an old earth, let alone evolution, and be a Christian. I always believed that the New Testament existed as the 27 books we use today and that there was never any dispute in the matter. And don’t even get me started on dancing (blame the IFB, but hey I was a kid, I didn’t know any better). These days, whether by wisdom or folly, I don’t consider any of the items listed as non-negotiables of my faith. Why? Because Scripture does not affirm them to be, and my knowledge of both the positions themselves and those who hold to them has broadened. Mind you, I do still have mountains I will die on, but these are not among them.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
Mosaic Authorship = Biblical Inspiration?</h2>
</blockquote>
<br />
I'm writing this for two reasons, the most important of which is that if you make everything a non-negotiable you will never have a clear grasp of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because everything will get subsumed into the gospel. If the gospel is everything it may as well be nothing. The second reason is that if you or your children are led to believe that certain things are “mountains to die on” in Christianity, where the Bible itself does not, you are building a house of cards with your faith and it will come crashing down.<br />
<br />
I was reminded of the importance of this, earlier in the week when I saw an ad on social media for an upcoming movie seeking to prove that Moses was the author of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). The tag line for the ad was, “Is the Bible the inspired Word of God? Or is it a book of fables and myths?” Now, if you can’t spot the issue here, what this seems to suggest is that <em>either</em> Moses authored the Torah <em>or</em> the Bible is not inspired and must be reduced to fable and myth. Do you see how tenuous a claim that is? I even asked the question of the company posting the ad, how one would have anything to do with the other. I did receive a reply from another Christian seeking to defend the statement, and he clearly felt it was necessary to believe that Moses wrote the Torah. In our brief discussion, I never stated whether I believed in Mosaic authorship or not, only pointed out that the Bible could be the inspired Word of God even if someone else compiled the stories of Moses and wrote them down. This didn’t go over well, but the conversation remained gracious and for that I’m thankful.<br />
<br />
So, allow me to make my point a little more clearly here by using two examples: Mosaic authorship and the authority of the New Testament. I’ll begin by stating that I actually do believe that Moses is the most likely candidate for the author of the Torah, and has traditionally been the author for thousands of years. I also defend both the more conservative dating of the New Testament and the traditional authorship of the Gospels and Epistles. That being said, these are not mountains to die on, and I don’t believe they should be for you either, though I can’t make that decision for you. I only hope you will be willing to hear what I am about to say and take the time to reflect on the matter more.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Mosaic Authorship</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0VhW9pqyaG2cpkvrDliMevJhePzzcmeAKZxdtZxqbUH9gkaT73Zqst-xUVAbQMtC-7jNW8fgmdYcI8i8fJ2YQDjL0tz3OOn8gRFfsOC_N0Qnx6az43bhC9voDcheGTbsVZvviyBFRyIPq/s1600/images.jpeg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="275" data-original-width="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0VhW9pqyaG2cpkvrDliMevJhePzzcmeAKZxdtZxqbUH9gkaT73Zqst-xUVAbQMtC-7jNW8fgmdYcI8i8fJ2YQDjL0tz3OOn8gRFfsOC_N0Qnx6az43bhC9voDcheGTbsVZvviyBFRyIPq/s1600/images.jpeg.jpg" /></a></div>
What if Genesis – Deuteronomy were written by someone other than Moses? Would that mean the Bible is not inspired? The argument in the positive rightly points to the many places in the New Testament wherein the “law” is said to have been written by Moses.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> Therefore, the argument goes, if Moses didn’t write the Torah then Jesus is lying when he credits it to Moses and that makes the New Testament false, i.e. uninspired and not the Word of God. Admittedly, there is logic to this argument in so far as it goes, and it is certainly true that Jews have always held, at least until modern times, that Moses was the author of the Torah, and Jesus does seem to suggest that Moses wrote the law.<br />
<br />
Now, allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment. Modern scholarly consensus is that Moses did NOT write the first five books of the Bible. The most common theory involves several variations on what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis or JEDP.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> This theory maintains that the Torah was written long after the time of Moses, likely in the 5th or 6th century BC after the exile. What’s more, there is little-to-no Mosaic influence at all, but rather various scribes can be detected within the texts based on their use of the divine names “Jehovah” (YHWH) and “Elohim”, or the focus on priestly functions or revisions of the law. These various scribal works, it is claimed, were then compiled by later editors to create what is now the first five books of the Bible. This theory is clearly, and understandably, offensive to most believers because it flies right in the face of what they’ve always believed, and stands directly opposed to what the first five books of the Bible seem to say. It’s also not unrelated that many who hold to the documentary hypothesis deny most, if not all, the historicity or value of the entire Old Testament corpus.<br />
<br />
But here’s the rub, what if they’re right? What if I modified this position just a little bit and pointed out that while Moses is the main character in at least four of the five books of the Law, none of the books are themselves plainly authored? If you look at them again, you might notice that all of them are formally anonymous. Granted, 3 of them begin with the phrase, “then the Lord spoke to Moses…”, but this is the recording of a narrator. The texts are entirely in the third person with the exception of direct discourse. You might say, and some have, that the Torah is formally anonymous in the same way that the Gospels are. In fact, and this is just something extra to chew on, the narrative of the Gospels in relation to Jesus are strikingly similar in form to the narration of Moses in the Torah. No one claims that Jesus wrote the Gospels. Therefore, it is entirely possible that, while the narrations of the Torah contain accurate historical accounts of the manner in which Moses came to be the leader of Israel and the manner in which the nation was given the Law through him, the actual compilation of the books and the narrative that links the stories together was created by another individual(s).<br />
<br />
I will pause here to remind you that I subscribe to Mosaic authorship, so the pitchforks and torches can hopefully be put away, but even if the reality is something like I’ve described above, what does it change? In most instances of the NT, Jesus refers to Moses writing something specific contained within the law, which is supported by the account in the OT. Therefore, there is no contradiction in saying that Moses wrote x or even that Moses gave Israel the law, AND there being a third person compiler of these accounts. Does it change the value, quality or inspiration of the Torah or the Bible as a whole, if the author of any of the books is someone other than Moses? Do we not subscribe to the authority of the rest of the OT even though more than 80% of the books are written by unknown authors? Do we not submit to the authority of the epistle to the Hebrews in the NT despite having no knowledge of its author? If you can answer, “nothing changes” then maybe Mosaic authorship isn’t a hill to die on, and it has nothing to do with the inspiration of Scripture. But this also leads me to the second example.<br />
<br />
<h2>
The Authority of the New Testament</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
Whenever a defense of the New Testament Canon is provided in an apologetic setting, one of the key points is explaining how the books were selected or identified. Most, myself included, will point out that the books had to be written by apostles, or have apostolic authority. Exceptions are usually given for the epistles of James and Jude, as well as the Gospels of Mark and Luke, given that these were not apostles. Mark’s Gospel is bolstered by the claim of the church Father Papias, writing in the 1st century, that Mark wrote down what Peter told him, thus making Mark’s Gospel really the Gospel of Peter and thus, apostolic. Therefore, the claim goes, if the book could be traced to an apostle or close relation of an apostle it was considered canonical.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcrkiIZcOprtjvMqlLqGT2rjwsEXG2C3O_VuBEQ9c1-PNKOvZu9kG1WbOXBJ8aUigVFwaDKTkczwZ6yMqYG9ZgoTd5qJTgqxoWopXjhv6GxNL8IEEVoyUlw4cFtE1QARdsonJ9Hcu7tepp/s1600/holy-apostles-icon-224x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcrkiIZcOprtjvMqlLqGT2rjwsEXG2C3O_VuBEQ9c1-PNKOvZu9kG1WbOXBJ8aUigVFwaDKTkczwZ6yMqYG9ZgoTd5qJTgqxoWopXjhv6GxNL8IEEVoyUlw4cFtE1QARdsonJ9Hcu7tepp/s1600/holy-apostles-icon-224x300.jpg" /></a></div>
Just like above, I will pre-empt my devil’s advocate stance by saying that I subscribe to traditional authorship. There is even an entire page of this website devoted to who wrote the New Testament where I lay out the arguments for that authorship. But here’s the reality, if we set aside our commitments to Christian tradition and what we’ve always been taught, or even what is cleverly argued, there are several books of the NT that are anonymous. While many have taken pains to deciphering how we can be reasonably be sure that the four Gospels were authored by the very men whom they are named after, they are still formally anonymous.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> Nowhere in the Gospels themselves do the authors plainly identify themselves. In a similar fashion, the epistle of James and Jude do not identify which James or which Jude. Both refer to themselves as “slaves of the Lord (Jesus Christ)” and Jude states that he is the brother of James, but given that both names are counted in the most popular names of the region in the 1st century, any more specificity in identifying them must be based on reasoned conjecture and nothing more. That’s not to say that the reasoning is unsound, far from it, it just means we need to be willing to see the evidence for what it is.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a><br />
<br />
Now, if my position on the Canon of the New Testament or the Inspiration of Scripture relies on apostolic authorship of the books, being faced with this kind of information could destroy my entire faith in the books as a whole. It may even damage my belief in the inspiration of Scripture. However, if I take a step back and really consider the arguments for canonicity, the apostolic qualification for books was NOT about who the author was, but rather if the text carried apostolic <em>authority</em>. So, the test is not authorship but authority. This may not seem like a difference, but it is.<br />
Consider the argument often used that Irenaeus argued that the four Gospels were authored by those to whom they are ascribed. If you look at his actual argument in full, two points emerge:<br />
<ol>
<li>He’s arguing not for their authorship per se, but that the teaching contained within the Gospels can be traced back to the teaching of the apostles of Jesus and that they did not require “perfect knowledge” to teach, and</li>
<li>He’s making this argument in response to the claims of the Gnostics (specifically the Valentinians), that they are the ones who carry the teaching of the apostles.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a></li>
</ol>
So, while this quote can be helpful in demonstrating early support for the authorship of the Gospels, it’s actually not why Irenaeus is writing what he does.<br />
<br />
Now consider the difficulty of claiming apostolic authorship for canonicity with a book like Hebrews. The author is completely unknown! Sure, you can claim that many “think” that Paul was the author, but there’s nothing in the book that states this, and the language of the letter doesn’t match what we see in the Pauline letters. Additionally, while I don’t agree, the arguments against several of the canonical Pauline epistles would suggest that many of the books of the NT are not apostolic. However, when you realize that a book could be written by non-apostles, and several were, without it bothering the church for hundreds of formative years because a book was deemed canonical if it carried the authority of an apostle, all of these arguments against the canon disappear.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a><br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
I’ve spent quite a bit of time pointing out what I don’t think are mountains to die on, but I would be remiss if I didn’t mention what I DO think is a mountain to die on. To put it briefly, those doctrines espoused in the Nicene Creed are non-negotiables of the Christian faith. Prior to the time of the Creed, the Early Church maintained only a few mountains to die on: <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
There is but one God and He is the Creator of all things. </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
He has one, only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, by whom alone salvation is possible. </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
This man Jesus was truly God and truly man, born of a virgin, died by crucifixion, </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
was resurrected on the third day and ascended into Heaven. </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
The Holy Spirit of God has been given to His people through which they will receive power to tell others of the salvation made available to the world. </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
These are, without a doubt, non-negotiable for the Christian. All other points are ancillary to these, and while they will each have their own level of importance, there will always be room for discussion over them, and there always should be.</div>
<br />
So, there is no misunderstanding me, please know my heart on this issue. When I give lectures at a church and I bring up matters such as this, I am quick to point out that one day, the people will hear about these issues. They will either hear it from someone like me or from someone like Bart Ehrman, and I’d much rather they hear it from me. I want the church to be known for its level-headedness and careful thinking. I want Christians to take captive naivete surrounding their faith and be prepared for the opposition they will face in the world. I want them to know the challenges so that their faith takes hold of the fertile soil and digs deep roots, because the birds of the air and the thorns of the deep will come to try to snatch it away and choke the life from them, but a seed sown deep is not easily removed. I will close with a quote from a friend of mine now at Tyndale House in Cambridge concerning the approach to the Bart Ehrman’s of the world:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333399;"><br /></span></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333399;">“The problem isn't 'Ehrman (full stop)', it's 'Ehrman+antagonistic professor+ministers letting Christians hear about this stuff from Ehrman and antagonistic professors first'. Treating it as if Ehrman is the sole problem is a *really* bad idea because it leads to statements like ‘This is why I am wanting an actual list, to be able to demonstrate how deceptive Ehrman is’ and ignores our own failures to let our church members know what's out there before they hear it from someone who wants to use it in a way that would destroy their faith. </span></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333399;">Yes, Ehrman sensationalizes his point to draw conclusions that should not necessarily be drawn from the data he gives. But Christians do it too in our desire to respond to/disprove him. It's never a good idea to misrepresent the truth. Far better to be honest about what God has given us. To use a phrase that a couple of friends of mine use, there is a ditch on both sides of the road—don't fall into one of them because you're trying to avoid the other one.”</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: #333399;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<ul>
<li><strong>Author's note: In no way am I demanding that those who read this article agree with me in my positions, nor by citing other positions (i.e. theistic evolution) am I suggesting that I agree with them. My only desire is that every believer be willing to reflect on the positions they have historically considered non-negotiable and simply ask themselves why those positions are mountains they choose to die on.</strong></li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> Jn. 1:45; 5:46-7; Lk. 20:28; Mk. 10:5; 12:19, etc.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> J – Jehovah; E – Elohist; D – Deuteronomist; P - Priestly<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> I find the manuscript evidence for consistent titles of the Gospels, early recognition of the church fathers with these titles and the clear means by which the entire church from its inception were able to distinguish between them (after all you had to know which Gospel you wanted copied for your use) to be substantial in supporting the traditional authorship, or at least, the fact that the Gospels have always been transmitted under the same names as we have today.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> This is to say nothing of the challenges to various Pauline Epistles that, especially to those untrained in the original languages, can be quite convincing.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> Irenaeus, <em>Against Heresies</em>, 3.1.1 – 3.3.1-4.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a> By “apostolic authority” I mean that a book could be written by someone other than an apostle (i.e. Jude, James, Mark, Luke, Hebrews) yet contain teaching which clearly corresponded to the teaching of the apostles to the church. If the message of the book met this standard it became canonical. This also helps understand why books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, and others were not accepted, even though they were initially used by the church.<br />
<br />Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-30718095094656863122020-02-11T10:36:00.001-08:002020-02-11T10:36:51.658-08:00God Demands Human Sacrifice<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw1xsxMytbMitbAqJ0RT5Y5jUh7VEovWuZtiRIUsk16igxXR531FfkXluvlsz70Eicsfq0eb6-j8l52qgx0bSdEulmjaB35mMUcNsdqxhXnkXvjrYjaITowswighF-eng-ZjVmATPiZGsx/s1600/sacrifice-300x200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="300" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw1xsxMytbMitbAqJ0RT5Y5jUh7VEovWuZtiRIUsk16igxXR531FfkXluvlsz70Eicsfq0eb6-j8l52qgx0bSdEulmjaB35mMUcNsdqxhXnkXvjrYjaITowswighF-eng-ZjVmATPiZGsx/s400/sacrifice-300x200.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />March 16, 2019<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In the summer of last year, I was blessed with the opportunity to study at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. The city is truly amazing, with a history so profound that it’s often hard to fathom that you’re actually walking down the same streets as some of the most famous minds of all time. I stood in the gardens where Lewis Carroll was inspired to write Alice in Wonderland, wept on the spot where Latimer and Ridley were burned alive for the Protestant faith, and even held the oldest piece of the Gospel of Matthew in my hands. It was truly a profound experience, but one of the more fascinating days for me was a visit to the Pitt Rivers Museum. This museum houses artifacts from every age of civilization and even many fossils from long before.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUNCxx9_3XjtiiDnorNMK4gQRooJGH1sT3PmoXyxjb2rHIJ-ywU5pjf-plgak1dUDzMPsZKGXUKXLUi24xEPdYjsbiQKU54OpYzvHUVgJmNFHK2R4leXpowEJpkC1VzjAHnSLMKTn1MElw/s1600/head.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUNCxx9_3XjtiiDnorNMK4gQRooJGH1sT3PmoXyxjb2rHIJ-ywU5pjf-plgak1dUDzMPsZKGXUKXLUi24xEPdYjsbiQKU54OpYzvHUVgJmNFHK2R4leXpowEJpkC1VzjAHnSLMKTn1MElw/s1600/head.jpg" /></a></div>
In one corner of the immense building is a two-story room lined with the various weaponry throughout history. In the center are curiosities from all over the world, used by peoples long gone. Suffice it to say, there are some very dark elements to some of these exhibits, not the least of which is the display of actual human heads shrunk by tribes in the Amazon, as well as the pieces of victims of cannibal tribes recovered many years ago. Amidst this gruesome display, much is written on the practice of human sacrifices in cultures all around the world, and while this topic is often too disturbing for many to reflect on, it has made me consider an interesting, although morbid, truth: The practice of human sacrifice can be found in all regions of the world.<br />
<br />
<h2>
A Sacrifice I Desire...</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
The Bible even speaks of human sacrifice, specifically in the form of infant sacrifice. In the book of 2 Kings we read of King Josiah enacting sweeping changes across the land of Israel:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“He brought all the priests from the cities of Judah and ruined the high places where the priests had offered sacrifices, from Geba to Beer Sheba. He tore down the high place of the goat idols situated at the entrance of the gate of Joshua, the city official, on the left side of the city gate. . . . The king ruined Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom <strong>so that no one could pass his son or his daughter through the fire to Molech.</strong>” (2 Ki. 23:8-10)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
The phrase “pass his son or his daughter through the fire to Molech” refers to the Canaanite practice of offering living infant children to the god Molech, by burning them alive on his altar.<br />
Later on, in a prophecy given to Jeremiah, we read that YHWH will judge the nation of Israel for committing this very same practice:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“They set up their disgusting idols in the temple which I have claimed for my own and defiled it. They built places of worship for the god Baal in the valley of Ben Hinnom so that <strong>they could sacrifice their sons and daughters to the god Molech.</strong>” (Jer. 32:34-35a)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
The act of human sacrifice was common in the Ancient Near East as a means of finding favor with the gods. Archaeology has confirmed this practice not only here, but all over the world:<br />
<ul>
<li>Between 1922 and 1934, archaeologist Sir Leonard Woolley excavated the Royal Cemetery of Ur, wherein several rooms were unearthed containing human remains in what appeared to be a primitive human sacrifice ritual.</li>
<li>In Homeric legend, the King Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter, Iphigeneia, to the goddess Artemis, so that the Greeks would be victorious in the Trojan War.</li>
<li>Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed infants to the gods. In the child cemetery known to archaeologists as Tophet (literally “roasting place”), spoken of in OT, it is estimated that 20,000 urns containing the remains of infant sacrifices were found.</li>
<li>According to Diodorus Siculus' <em>Bibliotheca historica</em> there were ancient Greeks in the 1st century BC that also practiced infant sacrifice. He writes, "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire."<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a></li>
<li>Cicero claims that puppets thrown from the Pons Suplicius by the Vestal Virgins in a processional ceremony were substitutes for the past sacrifice of old men.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a></li>
<li>According to Roman sources, CelticDruids engaged extensively in human sacrifice. According to Julius Caesar, the slaves and dependents of Gauls of rank would be burnt along with the body of their master as part of his funerary rites. He also describes how they built wicker figures that were filled with living humans and then burned.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a></li>
<li>The ancient Chinese are known to have made drowned sacrifices of men and women to the river god, Hebo.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a></li>
</ul>
Given the widespread nature of human/infant sacrifice, it would seem that there is something common to the various cultures of mankind that relates sacrifice to a deity as essential. Of course, there were various reasons for sacrifices to be made. In some cases, servants were sacrificed at the death of their masters so that they would serve them in the afterlife. In others, sacrifices were made for blessing at war, or even harvest. On a wide scale, no matter what the specific purpose of the sacrifice, the general reasoning was that the one making the sacrifice needed to gain favor in the eyes of the deity. The Bible uses another word for favor, “grace”. It also stands to reason that the more important the thing being sacrificed was to the one making the sacrifice, the more value it would have in gaining this “grace” from God.<br />
<br />
In the Bible, we read that the practice of infant sacrifice, and human sacrifice as well, is considered an abomination to God. In the book of Leviticus, we read that:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you…. <strong>You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech</strong>, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord…. do none of these abominations…” (Lev. 18:3;21;26)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
What’s more, YHWH condemns the practice harshly, saying:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“Say to the people of Israel, anyone of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech, and do not put him to death,<strong><sup> </sup></strong>then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech.” (Lev. 20:1-5)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
It becomes clear that while this practice was common among the nations, it was not commanded by YHWH.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Exceptions to the Rule?</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
Of course, the careful reader will immediately think of two exceptions, Abraham and Jepthah. Given what has been read above, there must be a contextual light given by which these other examples should be read. I have written on the “near” sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham <a href="http://exejesus.com/apologetics-as-a-martial-art/">here</a>, but suffice it to say that the purpose of this act is clarified in Scripture, not as a demand for a child sacrifice, but both as a test of Abraham’s faith and a foreshadowing of what was to come in Jesus.<br />
<br />
The story of Jepthah takes place in the book of Judges. A dark book, recounting a time of <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjghGKoXf0ALqOUsVHxK-TVQtd823a8sMjR_sZDio82ZFhVcC31sdrspsdHnt447U6re-ULTAQn6Bj_n-Cu0JIi6LlRMP0C7L18AeTkQ9jOZxTKEmlJIc8RLpZtlWUlhIlPXuqV4I9VGvbJ/s1600/jepthah-300x233.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="233" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjghGKoXf0ALqOUsVHxK-TVQtd823a8sMjR_sZDio82ZFhVcC31sdrspsdHnt447U6re-ULTAQn6Bj_n-Cu0JIi6LlRMP0C7L18AeTkQ9jOZxTKEmlJIc8RLpZtlWUlhIlPXuqV4I9VGvbJ/s1600/jepthah-300x233.jpg" /></a></div>
wickedness in Israel heretofore unknown. It is said to be a time when “everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” The book of Judges serves more as a cautionary tale than any form of prescriptive practice. Even the “heroes” of each narrative are flawed and failing. Jepthah is one such “hero”. We read in Judges 11 that he has been recruited by Israel to defeat the oppressive Ammonites. A crafty man, and an astute warrior, it seems that this judge of Israel will do well. Then we come to his tragic vow:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand,<strong><sup> </sup></strong>then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord's, and<strong> I will offer it up for a burnt offering</strong>’…. Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter.” (Jdg. 11:30-31;34)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
Much discussion has gone into what exactly happened here. Some surmise that Jepthah did not sacrifice his daughter in the sense of killing her, but rather devoted her to virginal service in the tabernacle. I do not believe this to be the case. There is nothing in the text to suggest that this sacrifice was any different than the standard use of the term throughout to the rest of the Hebrew Bible. What’s more, the act of child sacrifice was common among the Ammonites and the entire theme of the book of Judges is one wherein the Israelites are conforming to the habits of their oppressors. Additionally, there is no command from YHWH for Jepthah to make this vow. His actions are rash and troubling, but this example does not contain a request for human sacrifice from YHWH.<br />
<br />
Given all of this, the fact that human sacrifice was practiced widely in the world but that the God of Israel declared it to be evil, how can I title this article as I have? Because the God of the Bible <em><strong>does</strong> </em>demand a human sacrifice…once. That sacrifice came in the form of a man named Jesus of Nazareth:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. <strong><sup> </sup></strong>He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all <strong>when he offered up himself</strong>.” (Heb. 7:26-27)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<h3>
<br /></h3>
<h2>
Eternity in their Hearts</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
Years ago, an author named Don Richardson wrote a book titled Eternity in their Hearts wherein he cataloged multiple cultures all across the world and their belief systems. He found that if he traced the beliefs back far enough, even the most pluralistic societies once believed in a singular, supreme deity, from which humanity fell and could not return to its presence. The pantheon of gods was meant to act as a go-between for these people to the supreme god. I believe there is something similar observed here. All across the world, it was recognized that mankind was lacking the grace of God needed them in daily life. In addition to this, they recognized that this “grace” could not come by any means other than a sacrifice. To obtain the most “grace” the sacrifice must be most valuable, which then translates to the sacrifice of another human being. All of this represents a fallen, warped understanding of the greater message of the Gospel, that God <em>does</em> demand a sacrifice, and that sacrifice <em>must</em> take the form of a human, but it is not a sacrifice any human can give.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
In no way am I suggesting that human sacrifice, like that practiced among pagan people, was, in any way, acceptable unto God. Far from it. What I <em>am</em> suggesting, is that the recognition of a need for a supreme sacrifice on behalf of mankind to gain the grace of God is intrinsically written on the hearts of all men. On a subconscious level, all cultures possess the knowledge that they are separated from God, and the only way back to a right relationship with Him is a sacrifice. It seems natural for the human mind, especially in its fallen state, to conclude that a sacrifice to God must be something valuable to the person making the sacrifice. Therefore, the more valuable the sacrifice, the farther it will go towards attaining grace. And what could be more valuable than another human being? What could be more valuable than a human being in one’s own family? What could be more valuable than a precious child born to the sacrificer himself? Enter infant sacrifice.<br />
<br />
The truth is, God <em>does</em> require a human sacrifice. He <em>does</em> require a valuable sacrifice. But it is a sacrifice no human on earth can offer, for the value required is beyond the value of any human being. In order to satisfy this requirement, God himself became a human being, Jesus of Nazareth. He walked as a human, talked as a human, hungered and thirst as a human, even wept as a human. And then he offered himself as a sacrifice, dying as a human. But because he was not <em>JUST</em> human, death could not hold him, and he rose again, conquering death and returning to the Father in heaven. A sacrifice was required and a sacrifice was given. Because of this, there is no need for sacrifices of flesh to God, only the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.+12%3A1-2&version=ESV">living sacrifice</a> of a life wholly devoted to Him, lived in accordance to His will, in recognition of the grace provided.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> Salisbury, Joyce E. (1997). <em>Perpetua's Passion: The Death and Memory of a Young Roman Woman</em>. Routledge. p. 228.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Cicero "Pro Roscio Amerino" 35.100Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-64023567258197893272020-02-11T10:10:00.000-08:002020-02-11T10:10:56.154-08:00What if the New Testament was Changed Very Early? What We can Learn from the Library of Alexandria<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAA6-FJ2ZtEwakSm9q5J5uTPqZhbJ8v3f9mp2yRb1wHWbswZMT4W_FJ3mb4rrkIYCXW-jYeyr8nIh7VQO-msyKd7vJB-6SYzmOIaN-V3uiXniGnD_nhjJ_X6x3AaR3b28x6-5_E7PRdAzl/s1600/spy-300x169.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="169" data-original-width="300" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAA6-FJ2ZtEwakSm9q5J5uTPqZhbJ8v3f9mp2yRb1wHWbswZMT4W_FJ3mb4rrkIYCXW-jYeyr8nIh7VQO-msyKd7vJB-6SYzmOIaN-V3uiXniGnD_nhjJ_X6x3AaR3b28x6-5_E7PRdAzl/s400/spy-300x169.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />March 5, 2019<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
How do you know the New Testament wasn’t changed early on? This is a fairly common question in the realm of skepticism, and it’s honestly a question we shouldn’t dismiss out-of-hand. Have you ever asked yourself this question? If you’re reading this article, it’s likely that most of you would answer it, “no”, that you don’t believe the New Testament was changed early on. But why do you believe this? All Christians WANT to believe this, but if pressed, what would you say?<br />
<br />
For many who have studied apologetics, there’s the tendency to reach immediately to the number of manuscripts that exist for the New Testament. You’ve probably heard the argument that because we have so many (at least 5,400 in Greek, more than 20,000 overall), and because this number exceeds the number for all other ancient works by such a large margin, there is no reason to believe it has been changed. But allow me to push back on this some. If the argument being made is that, since modern scholarship accepts these other, less-attested, works to be trustworthy, they have no reason to doubt the New Testament, then there is some validity to that. You might call this the “What’s good for the goose” defense. All we’re really saying in such an argument is that scholarship and skeptics should be consistent in their standards and methodology.<br />
<br />
But what if I told you that most scholars willingly acknowledge that most classical works, particularly from Ancient Greece, were changed? And I don’t mean spelling errors or word placement, but complete changes to words, removal of chapters, new endings, and more!? What does that do to the argument? Because, what they are arguing is not that these works haven’t been changed, but rather that they are trustworthy to represent the most widely transmitted text, or possibly the most genuine text for a particular region (and in some cases not even that!). When you consider how regularly and widely written stories were changed over time in Ancient Greece the challenge to the New Testament texts becomes slightly more sobering.<br />
<br />
Allow me to add one more point: The number of NT manuscripts cannot answer this question. At least not on the basis of their count alone. As it has been correctly stated by Bart Ehrman and many other skeptics, the vast majority of NT manuscripts come from an era 900 years or more removed from the time of Jesus. Yes, we have earlier manuscripts, but the closer to the 1st century CE that you get, the fewer and fewer they become. So much so, that by the time you get to the 2nd-3rd century, many of them are merely fragments and not complete texts. With all this in mind, how do we know the New Testament wasn’t changed early?<br />
<br />
<h2>
A Lesson from the Greeks</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
I don’t want to offer a new response to this question necessarily, but I would like to offer a nuance to part of the common answer. Remember that I said the number of manuscripts does not answer this question on its own. That’s because having a lot of manuscripts doesn’t make them right. It’s certainly easier to check the accuracy of a manuscript when there are much fewer copies. After all, 3 copies can only differ so much. This is actually what we have with the manuscript evidence for the Christian book known as 2 Clement. There are only 2 known copies in existence and one is incomplete. This means that we have very little work that can be done to compare the two for differences, but it also limits how confident we can be as to its original content. The advantage of the multiplicity of NT manuscripts is that, while it creates a much larger pool of data, it allows us many opportunities to trace variation in the text. A necessary byproduct of this is that with more copies, more variations will exist. An advantage is that in many cases, though not all, it can be possible to see how a change came to be made early on and influenced later changes as the manuscripts were copied. By doing this, it is also possible to trace the change back to what appears to be the most likely wording, prior to the change. However, this doesn’t answer the question entirely. What if the NT was changed BEFORE the earliest full copies of the NT books we possess?<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh55XjfBD4RL47_zo1zlgcvSUBVkhR3CFJJISRkjW2Y4dKPoXs0z4tpJc7oC_YBnKOeFPaRjoAcMLZ0KlOKyUmB6OiVfW8WC3JN3eMFQyqnvnTF-g7QvM-ar0qCc7Y5Z2YRtubuCVXx_BY4/s1600/alexandria-300x169.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="169" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh55XjfBD4RL47_zo1zlgcvSUBVkhR3CFJJISRkjW2Y4dKPoXs0z4tpJc7oC_YBnKOeFPaRjoAcMLZ0KlOKyUmB6OiVfW8WC3JN3eMFQyqnvnTF-g7QvM-ar0qCc7Y5Z2YRtubuCVXx_BY4/s1600/alexandria-300x169.jpg" /></a>Here’s where the nuance comes in. As far as can be determined, the great Library of Alexandria was <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> This happened during the time when book making began to increase in the ancient world and rulers were beginning to see the value in acquiring them. Estimates at the height of the Library’s popularity were that it contained anywhere from 40,000 to 400,000 book rolls. What is of greater interest to the discussion here is not the library, but the nearby Museum of Alexandria. Formally a temple in honor of the Muses, equipped with a priest, it was also the center of literary and scientific study. To be clear, members of this community were men like Eratosthenes (c. 295-214 BCE), famous for his attempts to measure the circumference of the earth (bet you were taught everyone believed it was flat back then); that is to say the smartest men alive. Many learned and literary men visited this community and undertook the examination and copying of manuscripts.<br />
built during the reign of the Ptolemy’s somewhere between 323 BCE and 246 BCE.<br />
<br />
It became immediately aware to them, just as it does to us today, that if they wanted a copy for themselves, they would have to copy it, but the copies they possessed at the library and museum were not the same. You might say this was the dawn of textual criticism. It was the work of the first six librarians housed at the Museum (Zenodotus, Apollonius Rhodius, Eratosthenes, Aristophanes, and Aristarchus) that created the methods of copying and annotation that preserved the Greek texts we have today.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> This is why it matters to us in regards to the NT. Because of the work of these men, the excessive changes made to the works of Homer began to cease. How? Well, we possess fragments of Homer that date back to the 3rd century BCE and the text in these papyri varies quite a lot from the printed copies in most libraries today. Many lines are added or omitted in these fragments, but within a short time, these versions of Homer stopped being transmitted. The question is, why?<br />
<br />
The answer is that the scholars of Alexandria made a determination about what the text of Homer would look like and successfully imposed this determination upon it until it became the standard Homeric text against which all others would be measured. They did this by possibly creating a master copy for public use, or even employing multiple professional scribes to produce many copies for dissemination. How this relates to the NT is found in the centralized authority. The changes found in the earliest copies of Homer were implemented by a singular centralized authority (the Museum of Alexandria) that was able to control the final and future product. This is an actual historical example of intentional change early in the life of a book.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Who's the Boss?</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk9Btxm-GUGw2kAuGFvT1oRUUV8HAn0sMkWd8Ow1YpxFqYJT9ez2es2TRQIBk0GT688V7ZWw43h10LqjU67sAok2Zn81hgvLf_v07baiLcwwO2Ew7PmTTJHT4pB6bbHVTYs1Q4T-V_gn1U/s1600/pope1-300x200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk9Btxm-GUGw2kAuGFvT1oRUUV8HAn0sMkWd8Ow1YpxFqYJT9ez2es2TRQIBk0GT688V7ZWw43h10LqjU67sAok2Zn81hgvLf_v07baiLcwwO2Ew7PmTTJHT4pB6bbHVTYs1Q4T-V_gn1U/s1600/pope1-300x200.jpg" /></a></div>
If we return to the question from the start, we must ask, if the New Testament was changed early, who changed it? Who had the power to change it? The answer is no one. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 we read that the apostle Peter <em>and </em>those to whom he is writing are aware of the letters of Paul. So familiar are they with these letters that when Peter says that they are “difficult” to understand, he has no need to explain what he means. This suggests that the copying of the Pauline epistles was already in progress by the mid-to late 1st century and they were widespread. In the epistle of 1 Clement, dated by many to the early 2nd century, the author(s) show(s) familiarity with the Pauline epistles and the Gospels using quotations recognizable from the manuscripts we currently possess.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> The evidence of the earliest Christian communities, is not of a unified whole, organized under one central power structure, but multiple communities, growing throughout the Roman empire, and not always in theological agreement. Yet they were communities actively engaged in the copying and spread of the New Testament text.<br />
<br />
By the time of emperor Constantine in the 4th century, copies of various NT books were scattered throughout the empire. The number of manuscripts that were being produced, <em>in conjunction with </em>the widespread locations producing them, rendered any potential change, like that seen in the Museum of Alexandria, impossible. Even if someone were to suggest that a change like this was orchestrated under Constantine, it would be impossible to change those manuscripts that came before him. A further reality is that those manuscripts that come after Constantine, some of the first complete Bibles we possess, have clear evidence of corrections. As is popularly stated <em>against</em> the reliability of the NT, no two manuscripts are exactly alike! If no two manuscripts are exactly alike, then they could not have been changed early on to any prescribed standard!<br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
What we have with the NT is not merely a lot of copies. We have a wealth of material evidence with a striking degree of agreement that existed hundreds of years before a centralized power structure was in place to enforce any unilateral actions in the church. What we also have in that same wealth of material evidence is enough disagreement to rule out any actual authoritarian change prior to the oldest manuscripts we possess. Therefore, we have a greater degree of reliability, not only with the text of the New Testament, than with any other document in history, but also with the historical accuracy of its original message.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> The earliest record of its building is the <em>Letter to Aristeas</em> which also recounts the creation of the LXX, however it is widely known that the <em>Letter</em> contains a great number of inaccuracies.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a>L.D. Reynolds and N.G. Wilson, <em>Scribes and Scholars</em>, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 8.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968&pli=1#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> 1 Clem 13:1; cf. 1 Cor. 1:31/ 1 Clem. 13:2; cf. Matt. 7:2/ 1 Clem. 15:2; cf. Matt. 15:8, Mk. 7:6/ 1 Clem. 34:8; cf. 1 Cor. 2:9/ 1 Clem 36:2-5; cf. Heb. 1/ 1 Clem. 46:8; Matt.18:6, Mk. 9:42/ 1 Clem. 56:4; Heb. 12:6Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-59260904259755701512020-02-10T22:18:00.000-08:002020-02-10T22:18:23.864-08:00Breaking News! New Testament Actually Predicts Modern Challenges to Faith<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmhARuF4dzeSEk0e24Lq0Xo6_1BcMToFqlhnjFkYqdMYXAzKCpfU1oEXHUsAuLHRjpI6H26giWIpmirmyEZ36KSXkjhvFAkoo5Zhdmu5dp7N1B3qm7nnFNt0necO4FytOKxe5lYrVgkgKu/s1600/mr-cup-fabien-barral-634461-unsplash-225x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="225" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmhARuF4dzeSEk0e24Lq0Xo6_1BcMToFqlhnjFkYqdMYXAzKCpfU1oEXHUsAuLHRjpI6H26giWIpmirmyEZ36KSXkjhvFAkoo5Zhdmu5dp7N1B3qm7nnFNt0necO4FytOKxe5lYrVgkgKu/s400/mr-cup-fabien-barral-634461-unsplash-225x300.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />February 12, 2019<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
No matter where you turn, whether it be internet bloggers, published mythicists, or academic skeptics, it seems that the reliability of the New Testament is always under fire. The existence of <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQU8wSYJutVQEs0ZJcp2lmUfcsomftzcAxvXgFiwHf64-FUoDDzbCrA_YOUL9_ijDwxDtx_ff9XqdMzBky90qB0k_-LiaGZa03PYk47Spb_BBJzEhSIBOX6Ma69CqNmiJquJ2J4yOG795H/s1600/5fc4e2765912ae6bc71fc328eeb0679c.jpg.max600-300x285.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="285" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQU8wSYJutVQEs0ZJcp2lmUfcsomftzcAxvXgFiwHf64-FUoDDzbCrA_YOUL9_ijDwxDtx_ff9XqdMzBky90qB0k_-LiaGZa03PYk47Spb_BBJzEhSIBOX6Ma69CqNmiJquJ2J4yOG795H/s1600/5fc4e2765912ae6bc71fc328eeb0679c.jpg.max600-300x285.jpg" /></a></div>
"other" gospels is meant ot prove that the New Testament canon was not the only "Christian tradition" around, and thus what Christians believe is not necessarily the "true" Christian faith. The fact that Jesus never wrote anything, to some, means that the very existence of Jesus, or the fame that is often applied to him, are inventions to be rejected alongside the validity of the Homeric exploits of Odysseus or Jason and his mighty Argonauts. For others, a heavy emphasis is placed on the oral nature of the work and teaching of Jesus, so much so, that it is concluded that the written texts we possess cannot be believed to have his actual teachings. These oral lessons are presumed to be something wholly other than what has been recorded.<br />
<br />
In the face of all this skepticism, what is a Christian to do? Certainly there are many books and websites that cover this material, and Christians should avail themselves of those resources, but I believe there is another, far more valuable resource, that answers all of these objections sitting in the home of every Christian, and maybe even the non-Christian. It's the Bible. Now, I know that it sounds naive to some for me to say, "just read your Bible", but I'm not saying that. Well, I am saying that, but I'm not saying JUST that. This might seem to be a bold statement, but I believe that many Christians, regardless of denomination, fail to take the text of the New Testament seriously enough. What I mean is that if we read the text carefully, it actually communicates a lot about the world in which it existed and the manner in which the NT itself came to be.<br />
<ul>
<li>Disclaimer, what I’m about to relate requires that the reader approach the NT as a trustworthy document. A great deal of discussion has been had about this topic <a href="http://exejesus.com/whats-in-a-name/">elsewhere</a>, but perhaps the most recent work that I would recommend for readers on the matter is Peter William’s new book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Can-Trust-Gospels-Peter-Williams/dp/1433552957/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=peter+williams+can+we+trust+the+gospels&qid=1549782732&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmrnull"><em>Can we Trust the Gospels?</em></a>. If the reader approaches the NT with a “hermeneutic of suspicion” wherein the text is deemed unreliable from the start, there will be no point in continuing further.</li>
</ul>
<h4>
<br /></h4>
<h2>
The New Testament and the Argument from Orality</h2>
<br />
So what things do we discover from this kind of “careful” reading? To begin with, nowhere in the NT do we read that Jesus wrote anything.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> We read consistently that he taught in multiple locations and at various times, but never that he wrote anything. This might seem trivial, but it is odd that a renowned Rabbi would not write his teachings down. For some, even if they believe Jesus existed, they use this as a reason to doubt his literacy. However, to conclude that Jesus was illiterate from this is unnecessary, as we have examples of his ability to read in the Gospel of Luke (4:16-19), and the popular use of an amanuensis (scribe), as seen in the writings of Paul, would not preclude him from being able to record written works. Additionally, in the earliest writings of the apostles, there is no mention of them writing anything either. In the book of Acts or the Gospels, there is no mention of any apostle recording any letters or documents.<br />
<br />
What does this mean? Well, if you take the earliest letters of the apostle Paul (i.e. 1/2 Thessalonians and/or Galatians) and place them into the timeline of the book of Acts, you have approximately a 15-20 year gap between the time of Jesus’ death to the time of any writing by the Christian church. These letters, in turn, make no mention of any written gospel at all, but rather refer to the stories of Jesus as “traditions” that are remembered and passed down.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> Therefore, the NT itself points to the oral nature of the message of Christ in its earliest stages, so while it has been used in recent years as ammunition against the teaching of the Gospels, the oral nature of the teachings of Jesus is actually confirmed by the Gospels!<br />
<br />
<h2>
From Orality to Literacy</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
The next step in the transmission of the NT, as recorded by the NT itself, is found in the opening of the Gospel of Luke,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">"Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">Luke 1:1-2</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
The word translated here as “undertaken” is ἐπεχείρησαν which means to “put one’s hand to”. This marks a recognition of a shift from what was once a message primarily "preached" and "passed on" to something that was written down. This is what the author refers to in the same section as “accounts passed on” or oral records. So, not only does Luke inform us that he, himself is writing his Gospel to make certain what Theophilus has been taught, but also that there are others who have done the same.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">"...just as the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlt3j2Nre-E7gWDAw6eN_s9aa9qXzvPPY2jhRx0MRoci8NB25WzKwuVeyvlX6Qiw9blsRbvYtn5SuCjQa1y2zZNVFy76RQ4TuWQWsv4z7ZCV84leWHNYxT9n_142RjstdkUXh25xhlx9Fc/s1600/180px-Origen3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlt3j2Nre-E7gWDAw6eN_s9aa9qXzvPPY2jhRx0MRoci8NB25WzKwuVeyvlX6Qiw9blsRbvYtn5SuCjQa1y2zZNVFy76RQ4TuWQWsv4z7ZCV84leWHNYxT9n_142RjstdkUXh25xhlx9Fc/s1600/180px-Origen3.jpg" /></a></div>
Additionally, Luke points out that what he is writing is the same as it has been taught by the apostles. It is currently accepted in academic research that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) share a literary relationship. While it is likely true that these Gospels have borrowed from one another, this statement in Luke may also reflect why they bear such similarities. If they are the “other accounts” being written down, that are being written “just as” they had been passed down they would naturally relay similar stories, even if slightly different. Neither does what Luke says preclude the existence of other early “gospels” such as the often-mentioned Gospel of the Hebrews found in Papias and Eusebius, or even the sayings of Jesus supposedly collected by Papias in the first century.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">"...the things that have been accomplished among us..."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
One more point is that Luke refers to the events of Jesus as having been “accomplished” among “us”. He does not write that it happened during the times of “our fathers” as might be expected if it were written late, but instead writes of the events of Jesus’ ministry as occurring in his own lifetime, i.e. the early to mid-1st century.<br />
<br />
Moving past the Gospels we have the writing of 2 Peter,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">"Indeed, I will also make every effort that, after my departure, you have a testimony of these things."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">2 Pet. 1:15</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
This statement marks a change in direction for the church. A church that began on the oral tradition and faithful teaching of the apostles was growing older, and these teachers were dying. Peter himself seems to acknowledge that his life is close to its end (v.14). The best way to ensure that the teaching would remain, was to have it written down. Thus, the people of the church would soon become known as the “people of the book” for their unique devotion to a written Scripture over an oral tradition.<br />
<br />
This letter closes with a reference to the apostle Paul and his letters,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">"And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist totheir own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">2 Peter 3:15-16</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
Peter not only references that Paul is “writing” but that these “letters” were available to Peter, and he knows them enough that he is familiar with them. What’s more, Peter assumes that his audience also knows these letters and are familiar enough with them to recognize what he means by them being “difficult”. This is only possible if the letters were not only written, but were being circulated in the church by the time of the writing of 2 Peter. Added to this is the comparison made by Peter between the writings of Paul and “the rest of the scriptures” both placing the Pauline corpus on par with the Old Testament, but also recognizing that there are “other” writings that constitute Scripture circulating in the church.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Lost Gospels and the Challenge to Canonicity</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
The NT also prepares us for the discovery of “apocryphal” Gospels. Most readers here know that an apocryphal Gospel is one that exists outside of the received canon of Scripture but purports to contain extra details about the life of Christ. Examples of these are the Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, etc. All of these Gospels are dated no earlier than the mid-2nd century and lack all the features of reliability found in the canonical Gospels. They lack knowledge of the geography of Palestine, the names of individuals, and often portray Jesus as being more divine than human. They neglect teachings of redemption from sin and the foretelling of Jesus in the Old Testament as well.<br />
<br />
As we have seen to this point, what mattered most to the church was the teaching of the apostles. The strength of the canonical books was not that they were authored <em>by</em> apostles but that <em>they faithfully transmitted apostolic teaching</em>. For the sake of this discussion, we might call this the “apostolic Christianity” of the 1st century. However, there are those who departed from this teaching in the Christian community. We read in 1 Cor. 15:12 that Paul is combatting those teaching that there is no resurrection from the dead. If there are Christians who are in the church at Corinth teaching that there is no resurrection from the dead, what would it look like if they wrote a Gospel? This kind of Gospel might be of the kind that would remove any references to the resurrection. It might also remove the need of a physical body, not unlike what we read in the Gospel of Judas. Now, we don’t have a 1st century Gospel like this, but the NT prepares us for the possibility of alternative Gospels to be written, which we do have examples of by the time of the 2nd century.<br />
<br />
Additionally, in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 Paul writes,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">"Now regarding the arrival of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to be with him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to be easily shaken from your composure or disturbed by any kind of spirit or message or letter allegedly from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
If we read this carefully, we see that there is apparently a letter being circulated to the church at Thessalonica that pretends to be written by Paul. How often do we hear arguments that Paul didn't write all the letters attributed to him? Now, I'm not saying that any of the Pauline epistles in the NT are not Pauline, at least in my view, but, yet again, there is the recognition in the NT itself that pseudepigraphal Pauline letters were being passed around! The claims of modern skepticism are nothing that the apostle himself didn't admit was the case in the 1st century! While we do not have this letter in question, nor do we have any 1st century non-Pauline epistles, there was a letter circulating in the church until the 4th century known as 3 Corinthians, which was supposedly written by Paul. It was determined to be a forgery and removed from circulation and the author punished, but this serves as a real-world example of the very thing the NT has already told us existed.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
Consider what would happen if one of these 1st century letters were discovered. Imagine the headlines of Time Magazine or National Geographic. “The Real Paul discovered!” “Paul didn’t believe in the Resurrection!” The media and many in scholarship would capitalize on the authenticity of these letters over the received Pauline epistles. They would argue that this was the "real" Paul. But even if one of these letters were to be discovered, it would not worry me even slightly, nor should it worry you, because Paul himself has already prepared us for that possibility! In fact, if they do discover something like this, I think Christians should actually praise God because it serves as nothing less than a confirmation of the reliability of the existing New Testament!<br />
<br />
Through and through there will always be objections to the Word of God. There will always be objections to the Gospel message. Challenges will always mount against the text and some will even seem formidable, but the more we mine the resources of the New Testament itself, the more we find that nothing that has been "discovered" to date that has been anything that the New Testament hasn't already acknowledged to be true. The apostles didn't live in a world of perfect belief and consistent faith. They lived in a culture that struggled with their message. A message that first relied solely on their preaching, the very thing that the Holy Spirit was promised to help them do (John 14:26). The culture that struggled with the message often abandoned it, but some took the message and twisted it, teaching their own brand of gospel. The evidence for this has been found in the Egyptian sands, but the fact that it happened was attested long before, by the very authors of Scripture who watched these groups leave. While it might surprise or even worry us to hear of these things, take heart dear Christian, it wasn't a surprise to God, nor was it a surprise to the authors of your Bible.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> The immediate exception in the minds of some readers will be the story of the woman caught in adultery found in some Bibles between John 7-8. For the textual instability of this story consider <em>To Cast the First Stone</em> by Tommy Wasserman and Jennifer Knust, and for the impact or purpose of Jesus writing in the sand in this story consider the essay by Chris Keith, The Preicope Adulterae, The Gospel of John and the Literacy of Jesus, published by Brill in 2009.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Consider Paul’s repeated use of “preached” in association with “the gospel” in Galatians 1. 1 Cor. 11:23 is relayed as an oral tradition, as is the creed of 1 Cor. 15<br />
<br />
<br />Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-12094580106598525692020-02-10T21:33:00.002-08:002020-02-10T21:33:46.523-08:00Is the Septuagint Real? A Response to the NIFB<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin6p9IhQdjctHHW-TfgWP7fDjHqXxDtVcxA0zx_4EQTlqKxCKR8w_n4LS3JooSqzH7rndXLwm3bTVWqCCRBc8yIEuavC5qzLpfGNmxqaSpCBBpTti_4CUoLSPFAtpqAV7lmrXM3Y0_GMH9/s1600/confused-203x300.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin6p9IhQdjctHHW-TfgWP7fDjHqXxDtVcxA0zx_4EQTlqKxCKR8w_n4LS3JooSqzH7rndXLwm3bTVWqCCRBc8yIEuavC5qzLpfGNmxqaSpCBBpTti_4CUoLSPFAtpqAV7lmrXM3Y0_GMH9/s1600/confused-203x300.png" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: 1rem;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 1rem;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 1rem;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 1rem;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 1rem;">Posted by Clark Bates<br />January 14, 2019</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 1rem;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 1rem;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 1rem;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 1rem;"><br /></span>
There’s a troubling resurgence, within the Christian faith, of a group known as the New Independent Fundamentalist Baptists (NIFB). The original IFB were prevalent in the American South, especially in Florida, for a large portion of the 1980’s and 90’s. I was raised in Florida at this time and my family were founding members of an IFB church. The NIFB is a movement, from the same regions, of younger pastors seeking to revive the teachings of the IFB church through social media, films, and heated, vitriolic attacks on those who disagree.<br />
<br />
For some background, a cardinal tenet of the NIFB is that the King James Version of the Bible is the only inspired Word of God. Understand what I am saying, they don’t believe that the KJV is the best English translation. They believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God. What this means is that if a Greek text disagrees with the KJV, it should be changed to match the English. It also means that any reference in the Bible to the Word of God, is a reference to the KJV. I spent more than a decade in this movement and can honestly say that it is a cult. A second characteristic of the NIFB is the rejection of repentance from sin. This is a bit odd of a position, but the NIFB believes that salvation does not involve repentance, because the believer is forgiven and need not repent.<br />
While I have considered addressing several of their positions recently, one that I had not been aware of growing up, but was faced with recently, actually caught me off guard and is what I’m writing about today. The claim is that the Greek Old Testament, often called the Septuagint, or LXX, is fake. Here are some quotes from IFB websites:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“The Greek Septuagint -- some Christians swear by it, and other Christians have never heard of it. It is common for the new-age bible version defenders to call upon the Greek Septuagint in their time of weakness, but as we will demonstrate in this article, <strong>the Greek Septuagint never existed.</strong>” (bold type theirs)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian <em>Septuagint</em> is a fraud”</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“So, the <em>Septuagint</em> story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging.”</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
In my time with the IFB I don’t recall having heard this, but I was young and may not have paid that close attention. Most of the arguments provided by the NIFB emphasize <em>ad hominem</em> attacks and accusations of Roman Catholicism, New Age Paganism, and the like. For now, let me just address, three points often used as support by the NIFB as a reason to reject the LXX:<br />
<br />
<ol><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBuP_yOSi3T9bTMYDUMF9TnDUbqBCc1HbWFeB-eMMEGv9yiY4cEgy1B0gjJUbLao9rc6fFdchzQtFCc9FKkpm9YJJtuwRN9MSx1D2Vrzj_tei9hHIuBiRpijVXOEfEHBB226rNG5UDtYk9/s1600/LXX.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="210" data-original-width="280" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBuP_yOSi3T9bTMYDUMF9TnDUbqBCc1HbWFeB-eMMEGv9yiY4cEgy1B0gjJUbLao9rc6fFdchzQtFCc9FKkpm9YJJtuwRN9MSx1D2Vrzj_tei9hHIuBiRpijVXOEfEHBB226rNG5UDtYk9/s200/LXX.gif" width="200" /></a>
<li>The Letter of Aristeas</li>
<li>No manuscript evidence for the LXX before the time of Christ</li>
<li>No evidence that Jesus or the apostles used it</li>
</ol>
<h2>
<br /></h2>
<h2>
The Letter of Aristeas</h2>
<br />
Many who read this have probably heard of the LXX but don’t really know the history of it, so it is best to give you the background before addressing the <em>Letter</em>. The first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek is believed to have taken place under the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-246 BC). While it is commonly called <em>the </em>Septuagint as if it were a single document, the Greek Old Testament is actually a compilation of various Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, made over many centuries. The first books to be translated under the Ptolemian dynasty were the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible. By the time of Jesus, in the 1st century AD most of the entire Hebrew Bible was likely translated into Greek.<br />
<br />
There are several theories as to why the translation occurred but an historical reality is that the Jewish people were living in an increasingly Hellenized world. Greek was the language of the day, and even in Palestine, many Jews would need to understand Greek in order to do business. The need for a Greek language Bible would become an ever-increasing necessity in this environment. Additionally, a Greek Bible would make it more accessible to non-Jewish converts to Judaism. People whom the NT describes as “God-fearers” (i.e. Cornelius in Acts 10:1) would not know Hebrew, and the Hebrew people were viewed suspiciously by the Romans for their unwillingness to sacrifice to the pagan gods, therefore, a Greek translation of the Scriptures would assist in revealing God’s message to the Romans.<br />
<br />
The name “Septuagint” is Latin for “the seventy” and this is why it is often abbreviated with the Roman Numerals LXX (70). The origin of this work comes from the pseudo-historic <em>Letter of Aristeas</em>. The letter is clearly a work of archaism, seeking to promote the Jewish culture and beliefs. While many scholars reference it as a historical resource to the origin of the LXX, it is widely understood to contain imaginary, non-historic elements. However, a document need not be entirely true to contain elements of truth. In it we read that,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“Demetrius of Phalerum, the president of the king's library, received vast sums of money, for the purpose of collecting together, as far as he possibly could, all the books in the world. By means of purchase and transcription, he carried out, to the best of his ability, the purpose of the king.” (<em>Aristeas 9</em>)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
The king in question would be Ptolemy, however, the president, Demetrius of Phalerum, was banished by Ptolemy at the assumption of his throne so it is unlikely that this Demetrius was involved. That being said, it is still believed that Ptolemy did seek to have books copied and transcribed, including the Hebrew Bible. A letter from Ptolemy to the high priest Elazar is recorded in <em>Aristeas</em>, saying,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“Now since I am anxious to show my gratitude to these men and to the Jews throughout the world and to the generations yet to come, I have determined that your law shall be translated from the Hebrew tongue which is in use amongst you into the Greek language, that these books may be added to the other royal books in my library. It will be a kindness on your part and a regard for my zeal if you will select six elders from each of your tribes, men of noble life and skilled in your law and able to interpret it, that in questions of dispute we may be able to discover the verdict in which the majority agree, for the investigation is of the highest possible importance.” (<em>Aristeas</em>, <em>38-39</em>)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMbz4EUkY8IKcH_O_c3YqP8Qe5APHRngN9-F_-CP6XJlH91d4fLbRrQmfmgof45P92bazewEja2b1F0Egz7b7xVjIbSxcTcPlvPmphmCghgF71FBqtoYG4FN12yHpyaQ6Bnczn9JOY2I37/s1600/Aristeas_Epistula_ad_Philocratem_BSB_Clm_627-212x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="212" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMbz4EUkY8IKcH_O_c3YqP8Qe5APHRngN9-F_-CP6XJlH91d4fLbRrQmfmgof45P92bazewEja2b1F0Egz7b7xVjIbSxcTcPlvPmphmCghgF71FBqtoYG4FN12yHpyaQ6Bnczn9JOY2I37/s200/Aristeas_Epistula_ad_Philocratem_BSB_Clm_627-212x300.jpg" width="141" /></a></div>
The letter records that 72 translators were employed in the task of translating the Hebrew Torah into Greek. The Jewish tendency toward rounding numbers up or down makes this number 70 which resulted in the name “Septuagint” (although this name wasn’t formally applied until the writings of Augustine in the 4th century AD). This account is shared in the writings of Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus, both from the first century AD. Philo writes,<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“He [Ptolemy II], then, being a sovereign of this character, and having conceived a great admiration for and love of the legislation of Moses, conceived the idea of having our laws translated into the Greek language; and immediately he sent out ambassadors to the high-priest and king of Judea, for they were the same person.” (<em>Moses,2.31</em>)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
And according to Josephus,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“I found therefore that the second of the Ptolemies, was a King who was extraordinary diligent in what concerned learning, and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue.” (Josephus <em>Preface to Antiquities 3</em>) </span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
While the accounts tend toward the miraculous, the lowest common historical denominator is that multiple lines of historical evidence point to a Greek translation of the Torah being commissioned by Ptolemy II during his reign.<br />
<br />
This directly contradicts statements of the NIFB that, “it should be emphasized that <strong>the "Letter of Aristeas," is the <em>ONLY </em>evidence for the existence of the Septuagint.</strong>” This is not the case, but in an effort to avoid these other accounts, Philo is dismissed as a “mystic” and Josephus is said to be a poor historian since his accounts of the Jewish people in <em>Antiquities</em> do not match the Old Testament in every detail. Two short responses to these points: Calling Philo a “mystic” is not a refutation of his ability to record history, neither was Josephus seeking to re-write the OT in the <em>Antiquities</em> but provide a summarized history of his people, therefore his accounts will not match. And as a footnote, the existence of miraculous claims does not detract from the core historical element of the story, therefore when the three lines of historical evidence are examined, they agree on that fundamental detail, which should be acknowledged.<br />
<br />
<h2>
The Manuscript Evidence</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
The claim that there is no manuscript evidence before the time of Jesus to support the existence of the LXX is meant to accompany the claim that the LXX was actually invented by 3rd century church father, Origen of Alexandria. Origen becomes the foil for the NIFB because he is known for creating the <em>Hexapla</em>, a comparison of the six versions of the Greek Old Testament existing in his day. Rather than believe that Origen was copying existing translations, something accepted by virtually all historians, the NIFB believes this is when the LXX was actually created.<br />
<br />
The claim made on one NIFB website is this,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“In fact, the <em>ONLY</em> Greek manuscript of the Old Testament from before the time of Christ in existence today is Ryland's Papyrus #458, which contains only 6 chapters of Deuteronomy. That's it.” (italics original)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
Without seeking to be to brusque, this statement is simply false. Here is a list of papyri fragments prior to the time of Christ and their contents supporting the LXX:<br />
<br />
<br />
<table style="width: 688px;"><tbody>
<tr><td width="89"><strong>2nd BC</strong></td><td colspan="3" width="576"> </td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">Dt 11.4</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/4QDeut.jpg">4QLXXDeut</a> = 4Q122 ("leather" roll) [E. Ulrich, Studies J.W. Wevers (1984), p.71-82 = Disc. Jud. Desert 09 122]</td><td width="51">2bce</td><td width="158">[#819] LDAB 3458 [K. Treu, Archiv 31 (1985), p.59 no.55b]</td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">Dt 23-28</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/PRyl458b.jpg">PRyl 458</a> (roll)(sp, high dot) [C.H.Roberts, Bull. J.Rylands Library 20 (1936), pp.219-245]</td><td width="51">2bce</td><td width="158">[#957] vh057 t039 LDAB 3459</td></tr>
<tr><td width="89"><strong>2nd/1st BC</strong></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">Ex 28</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/7QEx.jpg">7QLXXEx</a> (roll) [check dating; LDAB 000 (confused?)]</td><td width="51">2/1bce</td><td width="158">[#805] vh038 LDAB 3456 AlandAT18</td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">Lev 26</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/4QLevA.jpg">4QLXXLev\a</a> ("leather" roll)(blanks) [check dating; LDAB 000]</td><td width="51">2/1bce</td><td width="158">[#801] vh049 LDAB 3454</td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">EpJer/Bar6</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/7QEpJer.jpg">7QLXX EpJer</a> (roll)</td><td width="51">2/1bce</td><td width="158">[#804] vh312 LDAB 3460 AlandAT144</td></tr>
<tr><td width="89"><strong>1st BC</strong></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">Gen 3-38</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/PFou942.jpg">PFouad 266a</a> (roll)(sp, blanks) [Zaki Aly - L. Koenen, Three rolls of the Early Septuagint, 1980]</td><td width="51">1bce</td><td width="158">[#942] vh056a LDAB 3450 AlandAT3 [K. Treu, Archiv 28 (1982), p.91 no.5a]</td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">Lev 2-5</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/4QLevB.jpg">4QLXXLev\b</a> Jerusalem, Rockefeller Museum (roll)(sp, blanks, paragr, IAW)</td><td width="51">1bce</td><td width="158">[#802] vh046 LDAB 3452 AlandAT22</td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">Dt 17-33</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/PFou848.jpg">PFouad 266b</a> (roll)(sp, blanks, paragr, Heb tetragr, stichometric in 32) [Zaki Aly - L. Koenen, Three rolls of the Early Septuagint, 1980]</td><td width="51">1bce</td><td width="158">[#848] vh056b t037A LDAB 3451 Aland01 = AT27 [K. Treu, Archiv 28 (1982), p.91]</td></tr>
<tr><td width="89"><strong>late 1st BC</strong></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">Dt 10-33</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/PFou847.jpg">PFouad 266c</a> (roll)(sp) [Zaki Aly - L. Koenen, Three rolls of the Early Septuagint, 1980]</td><td width="51">1+bce</td><td width="158">[#847] vh056c LDAB 3453 Aland01; [K. Treu, Archiv 28 (1982), p.91 no.55a]</td></tr>
<tr><td width="89"> </td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/4Q127.jpg">4Q127</a> (Greek paraphrase of Exod?)</td><td width="51">1+bce</td><td width="158"> </td></tr>
<tr><td width="89"> </td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/4Q126.jpg">4Q126</a> (unidentified Greek, skins)</td><td width="51">1+bce</td><td width="158"> </td></tr>
<tr><td width="89"><strong>turn of era</strong></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">Nm 3-4</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/4QNum.jpg">4QLXXNu</a> ("leather" roll)(sp)</td><td width="51">000</td><td width="158">[#803] vh051 t036A LDAB 3455</td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">MPrs-A</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/MPrsA.jpg">Nahal Hever hand A</a> ("leather" roll[s], two hands, A and B)(sp, blanks, paragr, ekthesis, <a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxmprstetr.jpg">paleo tetra</a>) [D. Barthe/lemy. Les devanciers d'Aquila (1963); B. Lifshitz, Isr. Explor. Journ. 12 (1962), p.201-207; E.Tov, R.Kraft, P.Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever, Disc. Jud. Desert 08] [Parsons 1+bce?]</td><td width="51">000</td><td width="158">[#943a] vh285 LDAB 3457</td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">MPrs-B</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/MPrsB.jpg">Nahal Hever hand B</a> ("leather" roll[s], two hands, A and B)(sp, blanks, paragr, ekthesis, paleo tetra) [see above]</td><td width="51">000</td><td width="158">[#943b] vh285 LDAB 3457</td></tr>
<tr><td width="89"><strong>1st BC</strong></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
<tr><td width="89">Job 42</td><td width="370"><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/POxy3522.jpg">POxy 3522</a> (roll, paleo tetragr, sp)</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
*MPrs means the Minor Prophets<br />
<br />
It cannot be overstated that simply because these are the fragments and scrolls remaining, this does not mean that theses were the only books copied. It is not uncommon for members of the IFB/NIFB to ignore historical evidence that can’t be manipulated in their favor. This is another important trait to keep in mind when facing the claims made by the group. The manuscript evidence alone is devastating to the NIFB position, that the LXX was created after the 2nd century AD.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Jesus and the Apostles</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
The final argument is that Jesus and the apostles never used the LXX. Many of you reading this article have undoubtedly heard for a long time that many (if not most) of the OT citations in the NT are from the LXX. From one NIFB website, the claim reads this way,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
“<span style="color: blue;">Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">‘For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.’ (Matthew 5:18)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek <em>Septuagint, </em>His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the <em>Hebrew</em> scriptures!</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) ‘The Law and the Prophets’ and (2) ‘The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms’:</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">‘And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.’ Luke 24:44</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The <em>Septuagint</em> had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!”</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
You’ll notice right away that no attempt is made to actually address the <em>use</em> of the OT by Jesus or the apostles, merely an attempt to avoid the issue by suggesting that when Jesus spoke <em>about</em> the OT, he used Hebrew terminology. Of course, Jesus used Hebrew terminology! He was a Hebrew! He was speaking to Hebrews! Most likely in Hebrew (or Aramaic)! The existence of a Greek OT does not preclude the use of the Hebrew nor does it mean that all references to the Hebrew Bible would cease. Arguments like the one made above do not address the issue, they merely avoid it.<br />
<br />
There are numerous places where the NT citation of the OT do not match the Hebrew, I will only list four for the sake of brevity:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
1. <strong>Ps. 40:6:</strong> “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced.” (<strong>Hebrew</strong>)<br /><strong>Ps. 40:6:</strong> “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, <em>but a body you have prepared for me</em>.” (<strong>LXX</strong>)<br />The LXX translation is considerably different than the Hebrew, and it is the LXX that is quoted in Hebrews 10:5<br />
<br />
2. <strong>Is. 29:13:</strong> "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near <em id="yui-gen36">me</em> with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: (<strong>Hebrew</strong>)<br />
<br /><strong>Is. 29:13:</strong> "And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me, <em>but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.</em>" (<strong>LXX</strong>)<br />
<br />In Mark 7:6-7 Jesus states that he is quoting the prophet Isaiah and reads the above verse from the LXX.<br />
<br />
3. <strong> Is. 28:13:</strong> "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner <em id="yui-gen40">stone</em>, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste." (<strong>Hebrew</strong>)<br />
<br /><strong>Is. 28:13:</strong> "Therefore thus saith the Lord, [even] the Lord, Behold, I lay for the foundations of Sion a costly stone, a choice, a corner-stone, a precious [stone], for its foundations; and he that believes [on him] <em>shall by no means be ashamed</em>." (<strong>LXX</strong>)<br />
<br />Both the apostle Paul in Rom.9:33 and 10:11, and the apostle Peter in 1 Pet.2:6 quote teh LXX version of this passage.<br />
<br />
4. <strong>Gen. 47:31:</strong> “Israel worshipped as he leaned on top of his bed.” (<strong>Hebrew</strong>)<br /><strong>Gen. 47:31:</strong> “Israel worshipped as he leaned on top of <em>his staff</em>.” (<strong>LXX</strong>)<br />This is the text quoted in Hebrews 11:21.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
The simple fact is that the overwhelming evidence <em>from the words of Jesus and the apostles</em> is that the LXX existed and was used in the 1st century AD. The only way around this issue is to suggest that the OT citations were somehow changed before the oldest manuscript copies that we currently possess were made. However, the only way to make this claim is to call into question the entire reliability of the Bible, something NIFB proponents will not do.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
The evidence in support of the existence of the LXX is far greater than the NIFB would like to suggest. They gather support among their followers by selectively picking which data they will use and attacking any other evidence as being heretical, without actually engaging with it. This is the standard practice for most beliefs in the NIFB and they must be avoided. Behind this challenge to the LXX is the actual reason, the earliest full Greek OT copies come from Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two Greek Bibles are rejected by the NIFB as a forgery (Sinaiticus) and Roman Catholic corruption (Vaticanus). Why? Because they contain the apocrypha, or books believed by many in the Protestant church to be non-canonical. For the NIFB it’s an all-or-nothing situation. There can be no room made for the possibility that apocryphal books were included for any reason other than canonical purposes or even that the church being entirely Greek/Latin speakers with no knowledge of Hebrew had no idea that these books were not received in the Hebrew tradition. This approach demands that they create conspiracies to explain the historical data that doesn’t conform to their position.<br />
<br />
Certainly, the differences in translation between the Hebrew and the Greek OT bring up theological questions. Some of which I have addressed <a href="http://exejesus.com/why-does-my-new-testament-quote-the-old-testament-incorrectly/">here</a>. But the answer to these questions is not to develop an elaborate conspiratorial house of cards. Such an approach only guarantees the damage of believer’s faith when they see the evidence for themselves. In reality, the existence of the LXX is one of the most important literary finds in Christian and Jewish antiquity, as it opens our eyes to the world of Hellenistic Judaism and the early church. It did exist, and it is not a threat<br />
<br />
<br />Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-25561994924552465662020-02-10T21:13:00.002-08:002020-02-10T21:13:58.034-08:00Does God Lead Us Into Temptation?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7065JZaNxF7sQX10QI_kIGPLgeZZFTaa_qz8SDBx8GrDWgELui9EY5tClNbyFP6PXNz629mfHLz1A_DxYwaAR-8Y6nW9Xg8nidk69JhCoO0J7qP3TCozdcMu2VgWeMYnBqqEeZcENeOCY/s1600/leading-200x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="200" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7065JZaNxF7sQX10QI_kIGPLgeZZFTaa_qz8SDBx8GrDWgELui9EY5tClNbyFP6PXNz629mfHLz1A_DxYwaAR-8Y6nW9Xg8nidk69JhCoO0J7qP3TCozdcMu2VgWeMYnBqqEeZcENeOCY/s400/leading-200x300.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />January 9, 2019<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Recently, it has been <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/11/pope-francis-redo-lords-prayer-translation/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">reported </a>that the Pope Francis has been considering an official change to the “Lord’s Prayer” found in Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:1-4. This is not a new proposal, as it was discussed earlier in 2017. The statement being considered for revision is found in Matthew 6:13/Luke 1:4,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”</span></h3>
<hr />
<br />
The proposed change to the reading would render the verse,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“do not let us fall into temptation…”</span></h3>
<hr />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO12g9W3F_5u2Q-XPbWxJ6BOtZ5PQIBYnhazeg1Q35c7Ch_87pqydVarJ7EpqqQIxYw-KufGemTnu46F_decU4-8q9ZzvNRDn6eBnvj06e8NyoVTwHUbiYZY0OBVVQSDxBFzpcDZowcf-p/s1600/pope-300x200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO12g9W3F_5u2Q-XPbWxJ6BOtZ5PQIBYnhazeg1Q35c7Ch_87pqydVarJ7EpqqQIxYw-KufGemTnu46F_decU4-8q9ZzvNRDn6eBnvj06e8NyoVTwHUbiYZY0OBVVQSDxBFzpcDZowcf-p/s1600/pope-300x200.jpg" /></a></div>
Why the change? The Pope has said that it leads individuals to believe that God leads us into sin, which He does not do. He told an Italian reporter, “Do not let me fall into temptation because it is I who fall, it is not God who throws me into temptation and then sees how I fell…A father does not do that. He helps you get up immediately.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a><br />
<br />
Many Christians around the world, Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox, would likely agree with the pontiff’s statements, as this is a sentiment shared in much of Christianity. But the question that presses upon me more than the papal theology is whether or not the change is legitimate? The most important aspect of translation is a fidelity to the message of the original wording, therefore any change made to the wording, must not be made on theological grounds, but primarily on grammatical grounds.<br />
<br />
Before I state my position, it must be stated that I am a Reformed Baptist, confessing the London Baptist Confession of 1689. I stand in line with the Protestant Reformers in my belief that the Bible and the Bible alone is the sole, infallible rule and authority for the church. Because of this, I do not recognize any authority of the Pope. That being said, any objections I may have with the Pope or with a decision being made by the Roman Catholic Church does not extend to individual Roman Catholics. If you are reading this and are a Catholic, I am not against you personally; I am for the Word of God.<br />
<br />
<h2>
“Lead us” or “Let us”</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
In both Matthew and Luke, the verse contains the same Greek phraseology, however Luke lacks the second half contained in Matthew. In Greek, Matthew 6:13 reads,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκης ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ρῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.”</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
The first clause, “καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκης ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν” currently reads in most English translations, “and do not lead is into temptation.” Two preliminary points to make regarding this clause is firstly, that the use of μὴ (mā) is an emphatic negative particle often translated as “no” but with a more intensive force than its counterpart οὐ (ōō). Therefore, the entreaty to the Lord is emphatic “please do <strong>not…</strong>” Secondly, the word εἰσενέγκης is an Aorist Active Subjunctive 2nd person singular from the word εἰσφέρω which generally means “to lead into” or “to bring/carry in”. There is no aorist form in English, so it becomes difficult to understand initially, but is best understood as an action that has occurred at some time in the past.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> The aorist tense only deals with the action <em>having occurred</em> not the <em>duration</em> of the event. As a result, it is often rendered as a simple past tense.<br />
<br />
However, there is another caveat to this word. While it is an Aorist, it is Aorist Subjunctive. The subjunctive mood is often defined as the mood of possibility or potentiality, leading many to interpret subjunctives as something that “might” happen. This is not entirely accurate. The subjunctive mood does deal with an indefinite action, but a probable one, therefore it is more the mood of probability.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> An example of the use of the subjunctive in another context is 1 John 2:28, where it reads,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h5 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></h5>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“And now, little children, abide in him so that<strong><em> when he appears</em>, <em>we may have confidence</em></strong> and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.” (ESV)</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
John uses the subjunctive here, not because he is uncertain if Christ <em>will</em> appear, but because he is uncertain <em>when</em> he will appear. In many cases the English translation of a subjunctive is accompanied with the English gloss “might”. At other times, especially if the subject is plural, it can be glossed with “let us”. Given that the key term being changed in the Lord’s prayer is an aorist <em>subjunctive</em> and the proposed change is “<strong>let us</strong> not fall into temptation”, this is likely the grammatical reasoning behind the change.<br />
<br />
With all this information (assuming you’re still reading) it would appear that there is grammatical justification for the change. After all, the Pope has even argued that the modern French translations of this passage have made this exact change.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a> However, there is one caveat that should give us reason to pause. It’s known as a Prohibitory Subjunctive. A Prohibitory Subjunctive has two features: 1. It is a subjunctive in the aorist-tense form and 2. It is negated with the emphatic μὴ. As we have already seen, both features are present in this passage. When a Prohibitory Subjunctive is used, the proper English translation should be an Imperative, or for lack of better terminology, it should be rendered as a command without any of the glosses that typically accompany a subjunctive. <br />
<br />
Examples of the Prohibitory Subjunctive are,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h5 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></h5>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“<em><strong>Do not think</strong></em> that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets…” (Matt. 5:17)</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<hr />
<h5 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></h5>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“</span><em style="color: blue;"><strong>Do not be amazed</strong></em><span style="color: blue;"> that I told you that you must be born again…” (John 3:7)</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
and<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h5 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"> </span></h5>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“<em><strong>Do not </strong></em>handle, <em><strong>do not</strong></em> taste, <em><strong>do not</strong> </em>touch…” (Col. 2:21)</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
Therefore, if we are to be consistent with our translation, the same should be true of Matthew 6:13. In which case the proposed “let us not fall into temptation” is more accurately rendered as it is currently,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h5 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></h5>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“<em><strong>Do not</strong> lead</em> us into temptation.”</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<h3>
<br /></h3>
<h2>
Theology or Methodology</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
This conclusion brings us to another point: if the reason for the change cannot be defended<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUoPlz9H4Mqtq2xFfoC_rS0QFq1JG9mzZCe3lY1xKJQTL37_-vDqhYBHkk8FwpzyABSH4q7ovsHUuPAxx_9hlAsduL0obqNqGqhs7FO8k-SyfBM_ziVwZFMV6dy9k72SrH7lVHTe9TJvXJ/s1600/method-300x221.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="221" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUoPlz9H4Mqtq2xFfoC_rS0QFq1JG9mzZCe3lY1xKJQTL37_-vDqhYBHkk8FwpzyABSH4q7ovsHUuPAxx_9hlAsduL0obqNqGqhs7FO8k-SyfBM_ziVwZFMV6dy9k72SrH7lVHTe9TJvXJ/s1600/method-300x221.jpg" /></a>grammatically or syntactically, it must be that it is being determined theologically. In fact, the most <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a> An important point must now be made: when it comes to translation, an individual’s theology should not be their primary methodology. Translation from one language into another is never exact, but the determinative factors for proper word choices should be the context of the passage itself and the semantic range of the Greek word(s) being translated. This can be determined from the word’s usage in other Greek texts and the use of forms such as the prohibitive subjunctive in other Greek texts. As Christians, our theology must come from the Scripture, not be imported into it, therefore the method by which we properly translate that Scripture should be the means by which our theology is shaped, not the other way around.<br />
recent report on this discussion comes from the Daily Express wherein the council advising the Pope is quoted saying that the reason for the change is “theological, pastoral and stylistic.”<br />
<br />
<h2>
But….Does God “Lead” us into Temptation?</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
Having established that a proper translation of this section of the Lord’s prayer is how it has always been, we now have to answer the theological question behind the proposed change, “Does God lead us into temptation?” For many, the immediate response is “no.” After all, the epistle of James says as much,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h5 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></h5>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“Let no one say that when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he, himself, tempts no one.” (James 1:13 ESV)</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
In this case, how do we understand this section of the prayer? Unfortunately, there is no, clear consensus of interpretation through the years of Christendom, leaving us today still struggling in many ways with what we are praying for, exactly. I do not believe that I have the only answer to this question, but I would like to offer, what I feel are some clarifying thoughts:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>The passage in James is specifically referring to temptation to sin. In such a case, were a man or woman to sin in the face of temptation, they alone bear the responsibility for this sin. Because of this, it can rightly be said that God does not tempt anyone to sin in such a way that alleviates them from personal responsibility.</li>
<li>The word used in both passages translated “temptation” (πειρασμόν) can also mean “testing”. This is the same word used in the LXX reading of Genesis 22:1 where it clearly states that God “tested” Abraham.</li>
</ol>
<br />
What we are left with is a difficult position. Namely, that God does “test/tempt” individuals, but not in such a way as to alleviate their responsibility if they sin. Certainly, most Christians would not object to saying that God “tests” His people, for many of us have faced times of trial wherein our faith has been tested. So, perhaps the struggle for English speakers really is a semantic one.<br />
<br />
But there is one more point to consider, the second part of the verse, “but deliver us from evil/the evil one.” Many, such as John Chrysostom and John Calvin, recognized that these were not two separate thoughts, but one and the same, merely stated in two ways. If this is the case, “Lead us not into temptation = Deliver us from evil.” Wherein it may be that the point of this prayer is that God, through His daily guidance and direction of our lives, would spare us from the attack of evil and sin. In essence, it is a request for sanctification.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
I will point out that the Vatican has not made this change official, and it has been met with a great deal of resistance, mostly from Protestant circles. Even if the Vatican decides on the change, it is unlikely it will be implemented in any translation other than that used in the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope’s exegetical council has yet to release their reasoning for such a change, so, as yet, my opposition to the change is based on knowledge of the grammar without being able to respond directly to their position. While this passage is a difficult one for many of us, it must be allowed to remain difficult, for if our theology determines how we translate God’s Word, then it ceases to be God’s Word and becomes nothing more than our own. I will leave you to ruminate on this passage for yourself, as it stands, but also leave you with the words of Charles Spurgeon in his elucidation of what is meant here:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“In the course of providence, the Lord tests our graces and the sincerity of our profession;</span><span style="color: blue;">and for this purpose, he does ‘leads us into temptation.’</span><span style="color: blue;">We entreat him not to try us too severely.</span><span style="color: blue;">Lord, let not my joys or my sorrows become temptations to me.</span><span style="color: blue;">As I would not run into temptation of myself, I pray thee, do not lead me where I must inevitably meet it.</span><span style="color: blue;">But if I must be tried,</span><span style="color: blue;">Lord, deliver me from falling into evil,</span><span style="color: blue;">and specially preserve me from that evil one,</span><span style="color: blue;">who, above all, seeks my soul, to destroy it.</span><span style="color: blue;">Temptation or trial may be for my good, if I am delivered from evil.</span><span style="color: blue;">Lord, do this for me, for I cannot preserve myself.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="color: blue;">[6]</a></span></h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<hr />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42279427<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Andreas J. Kostenberger, Benjamin L. Merkle and Robert J. Plummer, <em>Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament</em>, (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 289.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> Kostenberger, et al., <em>Going Deeper</em>, 202.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42279427<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1056839/pope-francis-lords-prayer-bible-translation-christianity-prayer-pater-noster<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a>Charles H. Spurgeon, <em>Exposition to the Gospel of Matthew</em>.<br />
<br />Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-42454092565062708302020-02-10T20:47:00.001-08:002020-02-10T20:47:21.059-08:00Plead my Cause: A Hint of the Trinity in the Old Testament<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYNA72cRUNOSyXoXDketrBmTMvWADN9AZ8FbHQs1KlqEw0xru4e-i0i0p6kXo7vFpCKqh-fcqv4BOL4ejr4V2qbgWb_D8fP_oAHscRkntx7yAdxj1pDRf0kl41fzGF-IH48dXIM7YF1072/s1600/1260px-Courtroom-300x115.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="115" data-original-width="300" height="153" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYNA72cRUNOSyXoXDketrBmTMvWADN9AZ8FbHQs1KlqEw0xru4e-i0i0p6kXo7vFpCKqh-fcqv4BOL4ejr4V2qbgWb_D8fP_oAHscRkntx7yAdxj1pDRf0kl41fzGF-IH48dXIM7YF1072/s400/1260px-Courtroom-300x115.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />December 23, 2018<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
For most readers, regardless of culture, the image of a courtroom is familiar. Certainly, the design and specificities of the legal procedures may differ, but the overall concept remains the same. There is typically a room with locations for the person on trial to sit or stand, in most cases with a legal defense. There is another place nearby, in the same room, for the representative of the state or the wronged party arguing against the person on trial. And then there’s the place at the head of the room for the judge. In some cases there are jurors, but not all, so we’ll leave that out.<br />
<br />
If you’ve read thus far, you’ve likely already pictured the courtroom in your mind. It might surprise some readers to know that the Old Testament often depicts the realm of God as a divine court room. It could be argued that this is the case in Job 1:6-12 wherein Satan comes before the Lord and accuses Job. God acts as the judge while Satan serves as the accusing party. Perhaps the clearest image of this courtroom is found in the vision of Zecharaiah 3:1-16 where the prophet witnesses the high priest Joshua standing before the LORD and Satan, again acting as accuser, pointing out all of his sins. This imagery has been written about in the academic world for many years, often acknowledge g the familiar motif of divine courtrooms in other religions, particularly those of the Greco-Roman world.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>The Divine Courtroom</strong></h2>
<div class="has-medium-font-size">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div class="has-medium-font-size">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
In most, if not all, cases the gods argue for or against the events that should transpire on earth. Mankind is typically on trial, with the gods choosing sides and the chief god (Zeus in this case) acts as judge. While it may be a reach too far to suggest that the depictions in the Old Testament rely on these other religious views, but it would equally be disingenuous to ignore them altogether. The purpose for such imagery is to reinforce the belief that God holds dominion over creation. All must come before Him and plead their case. What sets Christianity apart in this imagery from the other religions of the world is the recognition that no deeds of man can ever satisfy the guilt they bear. By example, in Zechariah 3, the high priest, the holiest of the people, stands before the LORD in filthy garments, illustrating his sin. He has no righteousness of his own to use as a defense, and it is only by the direction of the LORD that he is covered in pure robes and declared innocent.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>Judge and Defense?</strong></h2>
<div class="has-medium-font-size">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div class="has-medium-font-size">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
What does this have to do with the Trinity? In several Old Testament passages, we read a particular phrase. This can change based on the translation used but, it ultimately says something to the effect of, “The LORD will plead my case…” The word in Hebrew for “plead” is רִיב (rîyb). In some cases it can mean to strive with or contend with (Deut. 33:7), but a secondary definition of the word is forensic, meaning “to plead” as in arguing a case before a court. Where we find this form often is in the Psalms and the prophets, but also once even in the narrative of 1 Samuel.<br />
<br />
In 1 Samuel 25:39, King David declares,<br />
<br />
<div class="has-text-color" style="color: #2506e5; text-align: center;">
“Blessed be the Lord, who has pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal and has kept back His servant from evil. The Lord has also returned the evildoing of Nabal on his own head." (NASB)</div>
<div class="has-text-color" style="color: #2506e5; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
and while more functional translations like the ESV have chosen to render the statement as the “The LORD has avenged the insult…” the formal translation of the Hebrew is what is found in the NASB. IN this case, Nabal treated the king unfairly and subsequently died. The ESV has sought to translate this as David praising the vengeance of the Lord upon is enemy, and this is perfectly accurate, but it does so by avoiding the legal language. It is inescapable that the praise of David is that God has pled the king’s case and won justice.<br />
<br />
In Micah 7:9 we also read,<br />
<br />
<div class="has-text-color" style="color: #0d00a3; text-align: center;">
I will bear the indignation of the Lord<br />because I have sinned against him,<br />until he pleads my cause<br />and executes judgment for me.<br />He will bring me out to the light;<br />I shall look upon his vindication. (ESV)</div>
<div class="has-text-color" style="color: #0d00a3; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
wherein even the ESV renders the text formally as “he pleads my cause”. In both instances, as in several others, the imagery reverts to the divine courtroom, with the King as the defendant, in the case of 1 Samuel, or the prophet, in the case of Micah. In the prophecies of Isaiah, it is the entire nation of Israel that stands on trial. What makes passages like this worth a second look is the idea that it is God pleading the case.<br />
<br />
In typical divine courtroom, the supreme god is the judge, not the defense attorney, yet in both instances above, it is the supreme God who is acting as the defense for the people. The accusing attorney is already identified, as in Zechariah and Job, as Satan. We might safely assert that this is always the case, as the very name Satan, means “accuser”. But here is the question,<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>“If God is the defense attorney, who is the judge?”</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
There can be no answer for this unless God acts as both defense <em>and</em> judge, but if God were strictly one in person as well as essence, this could not be. In Hebrews 7:25, the preacher states of Christ that,<br />
<br />
<div class="has-text-color" style="color: #1200a3; text-align: center;">
"Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." (ESV)</div>
<div class="has-text-color" style="color: #1200a3; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
This word, “intercession” has also been used in classical Greek to mean a legal pleading or petition before a king or court. We read in Hebrews that, in his function as the Great High Priest, Jesus now intercedes with the Father on behalf of the elect. We read also in the letter to the Romans that the Holy Spirit acts in a similar way,<br />
<br />
<div class="has-text-color" style="color: #1700a3; text-align: center;">
"And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." (8:27 ESV)</div>
<div class="has-text-color" style="color: #1700a3; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="has-text-color" style="color: #1700a3; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<h2>
<strong>Conclusion</strong></h2>
<div class="has-medium-font-size">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div class="has-medium-font-size">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
While I’m not trying to say that the imagery of the divine courtroom in the Old Testament is an explicit declaration of the Triune nature of God, it does portray God as both judge and as the defense. In the New testament we also see God the Father as judge (James 4:12; 5:9) and the Son as defense (Heb. 7:25). In other instances, we are told that he Son will act as judge (Jn. 5:22) and the Spirit acts as defense (Rom. 8:27). In either instance, what the Old Testament conceals with God, the New Testament reveals, and the divine courtroom begins to look far more trinitarian than it had before.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-79032338851151992612020-02-10T19:35:00.000-08:002020-02-10T19:35:01.772-08:00Apologetics in the Valley: Can Apologetics Help With Suffering?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRUVdR4Hjk-y6phBIyiVqwL-vL1QVa_Hiq_TWD_iPGAHotgcjl-FCOhZjBTnA9BMCGz5CXAwEnfR6viVSCBeskCMA4RPmjcNYakd-b0Zof-jIwrKMxl-ln94eyx4FbXnzpd3C2CyjKIdH2/s1600/umbrella-300x169.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="169" data-original-width="300" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRUVdR4Hjk-y6phBIyiVqwL-vL1QVa_Hiq_TWD_iPGAHotgcjl-FCOhZjBTnA9BMCGz5CXAwEnfR6viVSCBeskCMA4RPmjcNYakd-b0Zof-jIwrKMxl-ln94eyx4FbXnzpd3C2CyjKIdH2/s400/umbrella-300x169.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />November 8, 2018<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">The LORD is my shepherd, I shall</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">not want.</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">He makes me to lie down in green</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">pastures.</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">He leads me beside still waters.</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">He restores my soul.</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">He leads me in paths of</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">righteousness</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">for his name’s sake.</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Even though I walk through the</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">valley of the shadow of death</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">I will fear no evil,</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">For you are with me;</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">your rod and your staff,</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">they comfort me.</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">You prepare a table before me</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">in the presence of my enemies;</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">you anoint my head with oil;</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">my cup overflows.</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Surely goodness and mercy shall</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">follow me</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">all the days of my life,</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">and I shall dwell in the house of the</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">LORD forever.</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<br />
It’s not uncommon in the climate of apologetics to think of the practice as purely intellectual. This is the perception from many Christians outside the field of study, as well as those who are not Christians at all. In fact, while the intellectual aspect of doing apologetics often appeals to those <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJbR1SFYjklSaqV-SwSEdsmOg1a-J-FRpYUdT0TF_L9apDVVVgHn_MkwoL1zXGOTPXPsJsXxfOBWLSoajB2ivJ14uW3cqKGsD69NZrK4QANW7Br-nOYSnDy496Xd2yPhHxgBmwVY8IGgUI/s1600/empty-box-300x200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJbR1SFYjklSaqV-SwSEdsmOg1a-J-FRpYUdT0TF_L9apDVVVgHn_MkwoL1zXGOTPXPsJsXxfOBWLSoajB2ivJ14uW3cqKGsD69NZrK4QANW7Br-nOYSnDy496Xd2yPhHxgBmwVY8IGgUI/s1600/empty-box-300x200.jpg" /></a></div>
involved in it, it’s that same aspect that deters others. For many Christians, apologetics detracts from the “spiritual” and “devotional” side of the Christian faith. And yet, while most apologists I know would quickly say that it’s still spiritual and theological and that it can help with one’s devotional life, we don’t generally practice it that way. In practice, there’s the apologetics box, where all the philosophical, historical and textual questions regarding the faith go, and then there’s the devotional box where all the questions about how a Bible passage helps us navigate through life go. Those two boxes, in practice, rarely connect. Because of this, when struggles come, we open the devotional box and leave the apologetics box sealed. But I don’t think it has to be that way.<br />
<br />
So, the question is,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“Can apologetics help, like devotional practices do, in times of suffering and struggle? How do you do apologetics in the valley of the shadow of death?"</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
My personal life rarely gets shared on this web page, and sometimes I think that’s a weakness in what I do. The truth of the matter, is that while I study for hours every day over a great many things, and I consider myself to be well-read and learned, I struggle with the same things every one else does. I doubt. I cry out to God when I don’t understand. I struggle with seemingly senseless pain and suffering in the world. And I even have dark nights of the soul. I’ve had many, to be honest.<br />
I am in one right now.<br />
<br />
For the last few months my family and I have suffered greatly, and many would say unjustly, at the hands of someone who seeks nothing more than to hurt us. We have incurred a great deal of loss. There are many questions that have no answer. There are more fears and stressors than can be counted, and there are sleepless, tear-filled nights of anguish more often than there are not. But there is also peace and comfort and even joy… at times. How is that possible? And what does this have to do with apologetics?<br />
<br />
<h2>
There's a Psalm for That</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
When I am struggling in life I often turn to the Psalms. They’re a safe place for all of my emotions. Am I scared? There’s a Psalm for that. Am I sad? There’s a Psalm for that. Am I angry? There’s a Psalm for that. Do I need to praise? There’s a Psalm for that. And what’s beautiful about the Psalms is that they don’t try to sugar coat the emotions or soft pedal my feelings. When the Psalmist is angry at God in Psalm 88 it doesn’t end with him being happy. Sometimes, suffering doesn’t end right away, and sometimes we aren’t happy with the outcome even when it does. The Psalmists new that, and it shows in their songs. But what else it shows is that God is okay with me pouring out every range of emotion on Him; even those that would get me in trouble in church.<br />
<br />
How does apologetics play into this though? Because it’s through apologetics that I have the confidence for the very groundwork of all that gives me strength in my sorrows. I have spent many nights crying out to God for help. Why? How do I know that there is a God? Because I live in a world of design, amongst galaxies of design, possessing rational and logical thinking that could not come about through natural processes. Because I have a sense of injustice and wrong that points me to the need for an objective moral good and “right” ness that doesn’t exist in the material world.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaZlAgrfUsfxyQmdv5Joq3F2ipy-P1uXNJRGOXPi4FRVFkEAYWuaKL9zQeuZjYKDy5YiRLRPbP8dAPXwk9YJNxJswclyHgFABC7PbssiPvEtU8G-q9Gkb0f2M4FZDammnG2J0x8EO1jEXA/s1600/prayer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaZlAgrfUsfxyQmdv5Joq3F2ipy-P1uXNJRGOXPi4FRVFkEAYWuaKL9zQeuZjYKDy5YiRLRPbP8dAPXwk9YJNxJswclyHgFABC7PbssiPvEtU8G-q9Gkb0f2M4FZDammnG2J0x8EO1jEXA/s1600/prayer.jpg" /></a></div>
I cry out to God for help because I know that He cares about His creation. I know this because of the cross of Christ. The life, death and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth are the embodiment of a God that cares deeply about the sufferings of His people. I know this because Jesus wasn’t just crucified for being a political upstart but for claiming to be the very God who designed the universe! And he proved that it was true through his resurrection from the dead. I know that he was resurrected because a physical resurrection is the only answer for all the questions surrounding the onset and spread of Christianity. A hallucination can’t appear to 500 people in the same way. A hidden corpse or conspiracy cannot be maintained by 12-500 individuals, and it cannot explain the conversion of someone like Saul of Tarsus. A Jesus who never died on the cross is a physical impossibility. And if the resurrection is true it means that the God I cry out to hears me and cared enough about me to not leave me in my sins but come and suffer and die for me; and then to conquer death, so that I might have hope in eternity.<br />
<br />
What’s more, this same Jesus that I am crying out to suffered in every way, just as I am suffering. He was mistreated. He faced injustice on a scale that I will never know. His family left him. He felt lonely and tired and scared. He even cried out to God to spare him from his final act of suffering. And yet, in all of this, he did not become self-righteous or vengeful, or even slip into pity; though he had every right to. I’m reminded that I’m following after the one who came to redeem the world but that the world hated him for it, and that suffering comes with the territory. I’m also reminded that I’m not crying out to someone who doesn’t know what I’m going through. To cry out to Jesus is to cry on the shoulder of a friend that not only knows me best, but experientially knows everything that I’m feeling.<br />
<br />
How do I know any of that is true? Because it comes from the stories of his life, the gospels. It comes from the message of the Bible, the most well-attested book of ancient history. It comes from documents that show evidence of first-hand reporting and inter-connected coincidences that cannot be designed by a storyteller, let alone multiple storytellers far removed in time, location and experience. It comes from texts that possess more manuscript evidence than any existing body of work and have been repeatedly demonstrated to contain accurate details of the life, teachings, and death of Jesus.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
Do I consciously think through every one of these aspects during these weeks as I wonder what comes next? No, of course not. I don’t run through the teleological argument prior to prayer, and as much as I love working with manuscripts, I don’t do a quick count on the LDAB to tabulate the number of NT manuscripts before I open my Bible. I don’t do that because I already know the evidence. They’re not just a series of carefully crafted arguments that I’ve memorized to look smart in a crowd or win an online argument. They’ve become part of my foundational belief. They are part of my devotional life in the truest sense, because they come out from my heart in praise and fear and worship. They are my confidence in the God I serve. Do they tell me when the suffering will end? No. But they give me the strength to suffer well. They give me a peace in the storm that I could never have otherwise. They give me the mindset to suffer as Christ.<br />
<br />
And as a believer, that’s all I really want.<br />
<br />
If you read this and are a Christian, I would like to ask that you lift my family up in your prayers.<br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-70128932867264498612020-02-10T19:15:00.000-08:002020-02-10T19:15:08.036-08:00What Do You Do When The Church Fathers Quote the Non-Canonical Gospels?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO7sQi6Xz_kYX3xHL7tF_KTFdmTyWuaQioElWTLaIQ9L8usgjCN4Ln6m7tFhZFKyo7YvGahTK9XcWDO11RgWlSJVigVinWI0ITRsKjnDZ1ioPcH5csZNtiv6U5rvYdyo6tbxQg-IBfmPoN/s1600/heresy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO7sQi6Xz_kYX3xHL7tF_KTFdmTyWuaQioElWTLaIQ9L8usgjCN4Ln6m7tFhZFKyo7YvGahTK9XcWDO11RgWlSJVigVinWI0ITRsKjnDZ1ioPcH5csZNtiv6U5rvYdyo6tbxQg-IBfmPoN/s400/heresy.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by Clark Bates<br />October 18, 2018<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Something that has always impressed me when reading the church fathers, particularly the apostolic fathers<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a>, is the amount of Scriptural quotations and allusions that they contain. You can’t read 2 pages into Polycarp’s <em>Letter to the Philippians</em> without encountering 8 references to Scripture. The Same could be said of Ignatius, <em>1 Clement</em>, <em>The Epistle of Barnabas</em>, and others. The overwhelming influence of both Old and New Testament writings serves as a constant reminder to me that the faith upon which I stand has always been based in the traditions and teachings of the Old and New Testaments!<br />
<br />
But there’s a problem….<br />
<br />
They didn’t JUST quote from the Old and New Testaments.<br />
<br />
Allow me to offer a case study using the book commonly called <em>2 Clement</em>.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>Why 2 Clement?</strong></h2>
<br />
While it’s often referred to as the 2nd epistle of Clement, <em>2 Clement</em> isn’t an epistle at all. It reads like a sermon. It may be that, like the epistle to the Hebrews or even the <em>Epistle of Barnabas</em>, it was originally delivered as a sermon or homily and then re-drafted as a letter, but the overwhelming indications, and position of most historians is that <em>2 Clement</em> is a sermon. Its actual date is unknown, but it’s almost certain that it’s not written by the same author as <em>1 Clement</em> and, with the exception of a very small few, it is not related in any way to the events surrounding <em>1 Clement</em>.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> The epistle is accepted by most to be from some time in the 2nd century. Its choice as a case study is fitting for this article because of its sermon-like qualities and the dating, which places it within the time of the early church.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>What’s the Problem?</strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
As you read through <em>2 Clement</em>, there are many enjoyable passages. For instance, it reads:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“And also, another Scripture says, ‘I did not come to call the upright, but sinners.’ This means that he was to save those who were perishing. For it is a great and astonishing feat to fix in place something that is toppling over, not something that is standing.” (2.4-6)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
We would say “amen!” and even recognize the author’s use of Matthew 9:13. Or in another place it reads:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“And so we should repent while we are still on earth. For we are clay in the hand of the artisan….While we are still in the world, we should repent from our whole heart of the evil we have done in the flesh, so the Lord will save us – while there is still time for repentance.” (8.1-2)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
Most Christians would again agree with this statement. For the most part, <em>2 Clement</em> says a great many things that are inspirational and convicting, making it an effective sermon for even modern readers.<br />
<br />
But then you come to places like this:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“For the Lord himself was asked by someone when his kingdom would come, he said, ‘When the two are one, and the outside like the inside, and the male with the female is neither male nor female,’ Now the ‘two are one’ when we speak truth to one another and one soul exists in two bodies without hypocrisy.” (12.2-3)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiedL9OGo8hJ3M70YoRjrt9ZrymA4EHe-DUdeClv1PxTXL9vxh1p6lG2dmBIwMH6f3te72SAjxmKfeDN4aGUtZL5-wVokdSxi7lrRMmiR3tkSqgendZknR7b5RuVJirtWLseXbaWn9oesfp/s1600/shock-300x200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="300" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiedL9OGo8hJ3M70YoRjrt9ZrymA4EHe-DUdeClv1PxTXL9vxh1p6lG2dmBIwMH6f3te72SAjxmKfeDN4aGUtZL5-wVokdSxi7lrRMmiR3tkSqgendZknR7b5RuVJirtWLseXbaWn9oesfp/s200/shock-300x200.jpg" width="200" /></a>Setting aside the author’s attempted explanation, it might shock the reader to see this bizarre quote<br />
attributed to Jesus. This doesn’t come from the canonical gospels. Its source lies in three possibilities: The Gospel of the Egyptians, as cited by Clement of Alexandria, The Gospel of Thomas, or a third source from which the other two were drawn.<br />
<br />
The Gospel of the Egyptians reads:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“When Salome inquired when the things concerning which she asked should be known, the Lord said: When ye have trampled on the garment of shame, and <strong>when the two become one and the male with the female <em>is</em> neither male nor female</strong>. In the first place, then, we have not this saying in the four Gospels that have been delivered to us, but in that according to the Egyptians.”</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">(Clement of Alexandria, <em>Stromata</em> 3.13.92)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
And the Gospel of Thomas reads:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples: ‘These little ones being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom.’ They said to him: ‘Then will we enter the kingdom as little ones?’ Jesus said to them: <strong>‘When you make the two into one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside</strong> and the above like the below – that is, to make the male and the female into a single one, so that the male will not be male and the female will not be female – and when you make eyes instead of an eye and a hand instead of a hand and a foot instead of a foot, an image instead of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom].’” (<em>Thomas</em>, saying 22)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
The saying in <em>2 Clement</em> is a combination of the two. But why would the author use this? Does that make these sources Scripture? Before answering, let’s look at one other place:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">“For this reason, the Lord has said, ‘Even if you were nestled close to my breast but did not do what I have commanded, I would cast you away and say to you, ‘Leave me! I do not know where you are from, you who do what is lawless’….For the Lord said, ‘You will be like sheep in the midst of wolves.’ But Peter replied to him, ‘What if the wolves rip apart the sheep?’ Jesus said to Peter, ‘After they are dead, the sheep should fear the wolves no longer…’” (4.5; 5.2-4)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<hr />
<br />
In this section Jesus is cited two times saying things that are found in no available source! We don’t have any record anywhere, in any document, that Jesus, or Peter, ever said these things! So, what is going on?!<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>Take a Deep Breath</strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5AmOfcuB-ySmMJsLpTPhPHxCvkAk12TjT7r6qWQCN9rFqOikKw0REKr3Gz9q5W57s_6NyK4H6yYQygwphui5sfoRtBnTpbpOQhhGaTnIl1SCI_-x7YRPjgfB_Lomk2L8CHdyTLp2-kEBC/s1600/hyperventilating-300x218.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="218" data-original-width="300" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5AmOfcuB-ySmMJsLpTPhPHxCvkAk12TjT7r6qWQCN9rFqOikKw0REKr3Gz9q5W57s_6NyK4H6yYQygwphui5sfoRtBnTpbpOQhhGaTnIl1SCI_-x7YRPjgfB_Lomk2L8CHdyTLp2-kEBC/s200/hyperventilating-300x218.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
To many in the church, this is very disconcerting. The very idea that an author or pastor would be citing non-canonical, and even Gnostic writings must have devastating implications to the faith! But it doesn’t. There are some very careful realities that must be acknowledged when you find writings like these.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>The first few centuries of the church were the time when it had to make its way without apostolic authority. The Twelve had died. A new church age was commencing and they needed an authority to look to.</li>
<li>Not every writing that we have in the New Testament had circulated to every region right away. Some writers seem unaware of the works of Paul and only use the Gospels. Others only use a select Gospel.</li>
<li>It is a matter of history, both in the Gospel of John and in the writings of Papias, that Jesus said and did more than is recorded in the Gospels. Papias even claimed to have a collection of His sayings.</li>
</ol>
What does all that mean? Primarily, it means that church history is not as neat and tidy as most are told. We as Christians, especially apologists, would do well to acknowledge that immediately. It also means that in its infancy the church wanted to gather everything that Jesus ever said. They needed His authority to guide them. Are they all genuine sayings? It doesn’t seem so, and as the years go on, the church as a whole begins to recognize those sayings and teachings that were authentic and those that weren’t. In kind, the quotations from spurious sources becomes less and less until they are non-existent. This is not a result of some government mandate, merely a response both to the work of the Holy Spirit among the body and a recognition of the continuity of the teaching contained in Gospels, epistles and Paul.<br />
<br />
As far as <em>2 Clement</em> is concerned, it’s not even clear why or how he is using the texts. Some say he is using them because he agrees. Others say he’s pointing out the inaccuracies of Gnosticism but only in a subtle way. And some even say he’s adopting Gnostic teachings and incorporating it into the orthodoxy of the church. In many cases, we’ll never know “why” these leaders used what they did, but the fact THAT they used them occasionally is not enough to determine that they were scripture.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>Conclusion</strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
A simple analogy would be the average church service each Sunday morning. Undoubtedly, at least in this country, you will hear a sermon from a biblical text, but it will be mixed with analogies and personal anecdotes and possibly even quotations from (gasp) non-biblical sources! Does your pastor’s use of Robert Frost or Rudyard Kipling in a sermon place them on the same pedestal as the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? Of course not! Therefore, if looked at objectively, that should not be the conclusion reached here with the early church.<br />
<br />
Additionally, it is a modern, primarily American, phenomenon to think that any Christian writing that isn’t canonical should be shunned. This is certainly not the approach of our religious forefathers and it shouldn’t be ours. <em>The Shepherd of Hermas</em> was one of the most influential Christian writings of the 2nd century, yet hardly anyone in the modern church has read it. There are sources that make it clear that <em>Hermas</em> was not placed equally with Scripture, but it was valuable enough to be included at the close of Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete Bible in existence. Even <em>2 Clement</em> with its many oddities conveys important lessons. These books do not have to be Scripture to be valuable. They were helpful to the church then, and they can still be informative to us now.<br />
<br />
The church today is teetering on the edge of collapse in regards to its appreciation of Scripture, and realizations like the one in this article send many away from it. Lay people abandon Scripture as a result, because they were led believe that history was different, and because they weren’t exposed to the truth they weren’t able to handle it. If there’s a disease spreading, the body needs an inoculation to survive. If the church is to survive the challenges of today, the answer is not to hide them away from difficult truths. It’s to expose them, so they can become inoculated to what’s coming.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">Read good books! Know your history! And work through the challenges they present!</span></h3>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> The term “apostolic fathers” first appears in the <em>Hogedos</em> written by Anastasius, the 7th century abbot of St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. Ironically, he used this term in reference to a convert of the apostle Paul, named Dionysius the Aeropagite, whose work is not included in contemporary collections of the “Apostolic Fathers”. This title is used in modern parlance to designate the disparate collection of early Christian writings whose authors are believed to have followed or been companions of the original apostles of Jesus Christ. These works represent the earliest Christian writing after the deaths of the apostles themselves. For more information, consult, Ehrman, Bart D., <em>The Apostolic Fathers</em>, vol. 1 of <em>Loeb Classical Library</em> 24 (Cambridge: Harvard University, 2003)., and/or Holmes, Michael W. ed., <em>The Apostolic Fathers: Translated by J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer</em>, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989).<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Karl Donfried, <em>The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity</em>, Leiden: Brill, 1974. Donfried argues strenuously that both epistles are connected and that the natural rendering of <em>2 Clement</em> is a homily delivered by one of the deposed elders, now re-instated after the letter of <em>1 Clement </em>was received and obeyed. This is not a position held by most in academia, then or now.Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-63035848159282322292020-02-10T18:33:00.000-08:002020-02-10T18:33:11.262-08:00Guest Appearances on the Alisa Childers Podcast<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhYOexPahcY0dkNd-jGNY5dU0PFyHwImsURBIZQyFTOeyjYlYDwwptHtIZgDplP1QyDOeL2EY3X3mQMcFx8ANZJMBNfQjX9y0n_f4cBTTd7MXmlwjZA3pXksvOyi01qWe13M-iCk1r-U8P/s1600/alisasmile-200x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="200" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhYOexPahcY0dkNd-jGNY5dU0PFyHwImsURBIZQyFTOeyjYlYDwwptHtIZgDplP1QyDOeL2EY3X3mQMcFx8ANZJMBNfQjX9y0n_f4cBTTd7MXmlwjZA3pXksvOyi01qWe13M-iCk1r-U8P/s400/alisasmile-200x300.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Over the last year, I have had the honor and pleasure to be a guest on the Alisa Childers Podcast. Alisa is a friend from several years ago and an active apologist, specializing in confronting the teachings of "progressive Christianity". Our discussions have always dealt with biblical interpretation and popularly misused Bible verses. You can access all of htese podcasts and the rest of Alisa's website at the links below:<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/what-are-the-5-most-misunderstood-bible-verses-with-clark-bates-the-alisa-childers-podcast-18">What are the 5 Most Misunderstood Bible Verses?</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/new-series-misunderstood-bible-verses-with-clark-bates-part-1-the-alisa-childers-podcast-27">Misunderstood Bible Verses the Series: Part 1</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/misunderstood-bible-verses-part-2-the-alisa-childers-podcast-28">Misunderstood Bible Verses the Series: Part 2</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/misunderstood-bible-verses-with-clark-bates-part-3-proverbs-and-promises-the-alisa-childers-podcast-33">Misunderstood Bible Verses the Series: Part 3</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-68942502503785402242020-02-10T16:54:00.000-08:002020-02-10T16:54:36.815-08:00Is YHWH "One" or is He God "Alone", and Does it Matter?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW7GudR76lHjIlLiRdg9YGvf6t6dRfu4Wg8PkAHYg_guMLwg4rWRIwnPeMNkK9JFUD58T9WzL1BePDQ6tna1JGSUHQQgOP6CaEg_LY910H33dbBkN1Dfr0ldT8BWq1TK-9Hqouc-XI6j1Q/s1600/shema-298x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="298" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW7GudR76lHjIlLiRdg9YGvf6t6dRfu4Wg8PkAHYg_guMLwg4rWRIwnPeMNkK9JFUD58T9WzL1BePDQ6tna1JGSUHQQgOP6CaEg_LY910H33dbBkN1Dfr0ldT8BWq1TK-9Hqouc-XI6j1Q/s400/shema-298x300.jpg" width="397" /></a></div>
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></h4>
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></h4>
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></h4>
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></h4>
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Posted by Clark Bates<br />September 12, 2018</span></span></h4>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: navy;">“Hear! O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”</span></strong></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: right;">
<strong><span style="color: navy;">- Deut. 6:4</span></strong></h3>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<strong><span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<strong><span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></strong></div>
There may not be a more prized verse in the Old Testament, both for Jews and for Christians. Known as the “Great Shema”, named after the opening word in the verse: שמע (she·mă), which translates to “listen” or “hear”. For my entire life in the church, and in the Bible, I have always read this verse in the way it is written above. This shouldn’t be surprising, considering this is how most English translation render the verse. In the Christian tradition, oceans full of ink has been spilt plunging the depths of this passage. “The nation is being reminded of their monotheistic faith”, says one. “The plurality of the word for God (אלהינו - el·ō·hĭ·nū), combined with the word אחד (“one”) is an implicit recognition of the triune nature of God” says another. And while I don’t fundamentally disagree with either point, I’ve recently looked at this verse anew and come to a startling realization: I think I’ve been reading it wrongly all this time.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>One or Only?</strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
This realization came about, almost entirely, by accident. I happened to be reading this section in Deuteronomy in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible and noticed the different rendering:<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a><br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">“Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord <strong>alone</strong>.”</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8jFLcRhDbFttEfAln-PUKOdxCkdjrOWzTBgPx681d5HXFXrk6ePG31sp1nQEYGSvJLZaZJEQZlvwoEHwdoB4k7a49VZ3QzwiqL7BQu43kRwkXPmBBiSHBeLPB1EbeD9tHcHpOSesrV50P/s1600/Hebrew-Text-300x194.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8jFLcRhDbFttEfAln-PUKOdxCkdjrOWzTBgPx681d5HXFXrk6ePG31sp1nQEYGSvJLZaZJEQZlvwoEHwdoB4k7a49VZ3QzwiqL7BQu43kRwkXPmBBiSHBeLPB1EbeD9tHcHpOSesrV50P/s1600/Hebrew-Text-300x194.jpg" /></a></div>
This is a subtle difference, but one that makes a rather large interpretive point. Could it be that this verse isn’t an ontological statement about the being of God?!<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> Admittedly, my initial response was merely to reject the translation as inadequate or a result of the bias of the particular version of the text, but then I decided the better approach, the approach I often champion to others, would be to investigate the matter for myself.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, there are, to my knowledge, only three English Bibles that translate the verse this way, the NRSV, NLT, and NAB. Therefore, the majority of English translations do not adopt this particular reading. But, as most apologist are often quick to point out, truth is not determined by the majority, so this alone does not negate the need for further study.<br />
<br />
The next question for me was if this English interpretation was grammatically possible from the original Hebrew. <br />
<br />
The Hebrew reads thus:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy; font-weight: normal;">שמע ישֹראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אהד</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
If read from right to left in sequence, it reads very much like the bulk of English translations. The only caveat is that this is a “verb less clause” so the English has to add the “is”. The two most likely options for this verse, as it relates to the word “one” (אהד) are to read it as a noun in the predicate nominative position (i.e. the Lord is our God, the Lord is <em>one</em>), or to read it adverbially (the Lord is our God, the Lord <em>alone</em>). On the basis of the grammar and the lack of any articulated verbs, either is possible. That being said, if there is another passage in the Hebrew Bible that possesses a similar construction and is translates אהד as “alone” this will lend support to the NRSV reading.<br />
<br />
It just so happens that there is.<br />
<br />
In Zechariah 14:9 we read:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">“And the Lord will be King over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the <strong>only one</strong> and his name will be the <strong>only one</strong>.”</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
In Hebrew, it reads thus:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy; font-weight: normal;">והיה יהוה למלך על כל הארץ ביום ההוא יהוה יהוה אהד ושמו אהד</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><strong><br /></strong></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
It’s fairly clear that both the placement of the word אהד (“on”/ “only”/ “alone”) is the same in both Zech. 14:9 and Deut. 6:4, and in this instance, the bulk of English translations render it adverbially as above. What this does, is it provides support for the alternative reading of the Shema as is found in other translations, in contrast to how it is most often read. This is not enough, though. The grammar is still ambiguous enough to allow for both, therefore context must help us determine which seems more appropriate.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>Context, Context, Context…</strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
Anyone who is familiar with my writing, speaking or podcast appearances will have heard me say on more than one occasion that context is key when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Many a heretical teaching, or simply a misunderstood Bible verse, has come from removing a single verse in the text out of its context and using it for purposes it wasn’t intended.<br />
<br />
If we look at Deut. 6:4 in isolation an argument for either interpretation stands on equal grounds. But Deut. 6:4 doesn’t exist in isolation. It is part of a larger thought in the verses that precede it and follow it. In Deut. 5, Moses gives the ten commandments to the people of Israel a second time. The next generation of Israelites is about to enter the promised land and they must first commit to the Law.<br />
<br />
In 5:32 he says,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: navy;">“Be careful, therefore, to do just as the Lord your God has commanded you; do not turn to the right or to the left.”</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<hr />
<br />
Turning “to the right or to the left” is idiomatic of forsaking the exclusive worship of YHWH. It is to say, “Don’t forsake the worship of YHWH alone!” Then, we read in 6:1-3 that the people are to be certain to obey YHWH so that they might remain in the land. This is followed by the Shema in 6:4. After the Shema we read, that we are to “love the Lord your God with all your mind, your heart and your being.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> The exhortation continues through v.9, telling the Israelites to teach these laws to their children and to live by them, and vv.10- 12 tell of the land they will be brought to. Verse 13-15 however, read thus:<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;">“You must revere the</span><span style="color: navy;"> L</span><span style="color: navy;">ord</span><span style="color: navy;"> your God, serve him, and take oaths using <strong>only his name</strong>. <strong>You must not go after other gods</strong>, those of the surrounding peoples, for the Lord your God, who is present among you, is a jealous God and his anger will erupt against you and remove you from the land.”</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></div>
<hr />
<br />
These verses reflect the sentiment at the close of chapter 5 mentioned above. When taken in it’s full context, if you were to exclude the Shema (6:4) from the rest of the verses, I believe most would agree that the point of the passage is to remind the nation of Israel that in spite of the other gods in the land they are entering, they are to serve <em>only </em>YHWH. With that in mind, it makes little sense that this discussion of worship exclusively given to YHWH should be disrupted with an ontological statement about His being. Rather, in keeping with the larger subject matter, the Shema would make more sense in the NRSV translation, that Israel is to remember that YHWH is their only God, not any of the gods they will see in the land of Canaan.<br />
<br />
For this reason, I believe, as do some others, that the Shema should be read,<br />
<br />
<hr />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: navy;">“Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is our God alone.”</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: navy;"><br /></span></strong></div>
<hr />
<br />
The effect this has on the overall use of the passage is different than it's typical approach, but no less significant. Rather being used to reveal the nature of God's "oneness", the nation is being reminded that worship is reserved exclusively for YHWH. He and He alone is their God. This reminder is no less soluble for Christians in the modern age. Where do we spend our time? Where do we spend our money? Do our actions demonstrate a divided worship? We live, in effect, in the land of Canaan, with idols of all kinds, gods without number. Perhaps we should always be reminding ourselves of the Great Shema, "Hear O Christian, YHWH is your God alone." Reserve your worship for Him.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>Does it Matter?</strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
I recently posted this position on a forum of language professionals with mixed responses. Those that rejected the position did so for three reasons:<br />
<br />
1. If you change it, it changes the monotheism of the Jews (and makes trinitarianism in this verse difficult),<br />
<br />
2. It’s not how the Jews read it, and/or<br />
<br />
3. There are other, clearer, ways of writing “alone” or “only” in Hebrew. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzFKiKu_wAnJ7Ygmnku7ehBx-pIdDetH1LkqN9UcEp0VCKEcYMuSP1ARWNWmWF1BtKp28322u8NFh7dJZjy9ug9YRjNJiTXThwcSGmwhLeb7P-mBI2vUXl_06jKKVo8vc3eJV3OOEswsph/s1600/rabbi-300x192.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="192" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzFKiKu_wAnJ7Ygmnku7ehBx-pIdDetH1LkqN9UcEp0VCKEcYMuSP1ARWNWmWF1BtKp28322u8NFh7dJZjy9ug9YRjNJiTXThwcSGmwhLeb7P-mBI2vUXl_06jKKVo8vc3eJV3OOEswsph/s1600/rabbi-300x192.jpg" /></a>These are valid concerns and I respect them. In brief response let me just say that changing Deut. 6:4<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a>, do not read it as I have suggested. However, is it a helpful maxim to say that we should read<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a>, however if the argument is that 6:4 should be understood from these other verses, why is it not first understood in light of its immediate context? Does not a proper hermeneutic begin with the passage itself before examining the larger body of Scripture?<br />
the OT in the same way that Orthodox Jews do? Would you read Is. 53 as they do? I don’t believe so. Also, my argument is not based on the majority reading, but the grammatical and contextual probability, which has nothing to do with how others read it. And lastly, it is also true that there are other ways to convey this sentiment in Hebrew that are not ambiguous<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
does nothing to the monotheistic teaching of the Jews. The concept of monotheism is spread throughout the Hebrew Bible and does not rest solely on this verse. In the same way, the triune nature of God, does not hinge on Deut. 6:4, therefore it is not detrimental to change it. Secondly, it is true that the Jews, both in the past and even today<br />
<br />
I point this out simply to address a broader point. While I believe that my defense of this reading is sound, others will disagree with me, and that’s okay. I admit that either reading is possible. Some who react extremely to this suggested change, tend to do so out of a desire to clutch a long -held tradition of the reading, not out of a desire to examine the evidence. This was my first response when exposed to it as well. We must be very cautious about this reaction, and be willing to recognize it, not just in others but in ourselves. Do we interpret Scripture, or derive our understanding of God simply from the repeating of the standard we have been taught? Or should we investigate all that we have been taught in order to lay hold of a faith that is our own? Don’t we tell non-believers and those of other faiths that this is exactly what they should do? Do we not tell them that they should be willing to examine what they’ve been taught, either in the mosque, the temple or the university, and seek the truth even if it contradicts their traditional understanding? How can we expect others to do what we are not willing to do ourselves?<br />
<br />
The larger point is this, when faced with the possibility of having misunderstood Scripture for many years, or even some aspect of the nature of God, the natural reaction is revulsion. We want to defend how we’ve always done it. But how we’ve always done it may not be right. And if truth matters to us, like we say that it does, we must be willing to challenge even those sacred beliefs. I recommend a few questions for everyone when faced with this dilemma:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><strong><span style="color: navy;">Ask yourself, “Does the alternative make sense?”</span></strong></li>
</ol>
<br />
Some alternatives are clearly contradictory to the revelation of God. Others are not. Take a moment and ask if the alternative view, even if it is not your own, makes sense in light of this revelation.<br />
<br />
<ol start="2">
<li><strong><span style="color: navy;">Ask yourself, “What’s at stake here?”</span></strong></li>
</ol>
<br />
Not every issue is a gospel issue. Be willing to ask if the alternative view really makes any difference to the main message of the Christian faith. If this verse changes, does it affect others? Or is it incidental? Knowing the difference between a mountain to die on and valley of compromise makes a world of difference.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<strong>Conclusion</strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
I set about writing this article to defend an understandably minority opinion. I did this knowing it may upset some people. I wrote it, knowing that it might upset some people, because I think it serves as an excellent point for the larger discussion. As Christians we strive, or at least should strive, for unity with one another. However, in the age of social media, we often are known for division and strife. Rather than fall victim to the age of constant offense that we live in, let us strive to be counter-cultural and do the hard work of analyzing opposing views, assessing their value, and seeking concord rather than discord.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> Some readers may balk at this, given that the committee that translated the NRSV stated that they did so “without theological bias”, resulting in a largely biased translation in favor of neutral or non-spiritual nuances to the text. That being said, this, in and of itself, is not reason to reject every reading <em>carte</em> <em>blanche</em>, but simply to read with a critical eye. Also, the reading above is not unique to the NRSV, but is found in the NAB and the NLT.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Ontology - The science or study of being; that branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature or essence of being or existence.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> Famously repeated by Jesus in Matt.22:37-39; Mk. 12:29-30 and Lk. 10:27.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> Many thanks to an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine for her insight into the modern understanding of this passage!<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> See Deut. 4:35 and Deut. 32:39<br />
<br />Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3935420584552314968.post-17058862483431102822020-02-10T16:04:00.001-08:002020-02-10T16:04:55.759-08:00The Walking Dead: Bible Editio<div class="featured-image" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
</div>
<header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif;"><div class="entry-header-row" style="box-sizing: inherit;">
<div class="entry-header-column" style="box-sizing: inherit;">
<h1 class="entry-title" style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; font-size: 2.5em; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.2rem 0px 0.8rem; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvUEfH6rQ6x4-WJdE5sf-2hrb9dK18QpN4YZzG9YQPfR2TB8QpLOJS2wPjQ3rLvdv4tmGMqG3ijekGnFAcVJvWuOvsoN081Lwk99oZjjfrRI4_TW35aUCe46M09KC7DV3qwV9WRdo9hVSN/s1600/grave.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="525" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvUEfH6rQ6x4-WJdE5sf-2hrb9dK18QpN4YZzG9YQPfR2TB8QpLOJS2wPjQ3rLvdv4tmGMqG3ijekGnFAcVJvWuOvsoN081Lwk99oZjjfrRI4_TW35aUCe46M09KC7DV3qwV9WRdo9hVSN/s400/grave.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
posted by Clark Bates<br />August 28, 2018</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
</h1>
<h3 style="font-size: 16px; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“The unknown author of Matthew unwittingly made it obvious that the New Testament (NT) is a work of fiction a ― deception of history, a façade ― thereby proving that it is indeed NOT ‘godly’ inspired.”</span></h3>
<h1 class="entry-title" style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; font-size: 2.5em; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.2rem 0px 0.8rem; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
This is a quote from an online atheist website known as “Christianity Revealed”. If you can ignore the invective filled rants that pervade every paragraph of the site, you might still ask what the author is referring to in this quote. What exactly did the author of Matthew do, unwittingly or otherwise, to make it obvious he was writing fiction, or deception, or a façade? The author’s example: Zombies.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
Yes, you read that right, Zombies. Now, I’m not the first person to write about zombies in relation to the Bible, and I’m sure I won’t be the last, but the particular “zombie” incident in question is found in Matthew 27:51-53, where it reads:</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<hr style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;" />
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,<strong><sup> </sup></strong>and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”</span></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;" />
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
For many skeptics, as demonstrated by the quote above, a passage like this is demonstrable proof that the Bible can’t be trusted. To be honest, I sympathize. And, I wish more Christians took the time to struggle with passages like this as well. While many apologetics blogs have acknowledged this verse, very few ever actually interact with it. Most simply use it as a starting point to discuss inspiration of the text or even arrangement of the text, or genre of the text. The problem is, they never discuss the text itself!!</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
In this week’s article, I want to attempt to do just that. Most apologists are only concerned with the historicity of the event; did it happen? While I don’t want to avoid or discount that question, I will suggest that the historicity of the event is a secondary question. What’s more important than “Did it happen?” is “Why is it here?” So, for the purpose of this article I’ll tackle both questions, but in reverse order.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
</h1>
<h2>
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">The Cheese Stands Alone</span></strong></h2>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<h1 class="entry-title" style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.2rem 0px 0.8rem; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
It’s acknowledged by Christian and non-Christian scholars alike that Matthew is the only </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 2.5em; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV92MUd0GwinMmJQBzh2qbacqT6-BcjEkDlL9RoFSfxdbk9-8i2SS3kyxxcqPQ-umC-HZrVVdDp6GBPOuDFxENZpbCBRdenEgnPRpDboTshwIgPTfzqswUWUzvnKOU6uUVH4YyeEXLZNpn/s1600/zombie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="174" data-original-width="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV92MUd0GwinMmJQBzh2qbacqT6-BcjEkDlL9RoFSfxdbk9-8i2SS3kyxxcqPQ-umC-HZrVVdDp6GBPOuDFxENZpbCBRdenEgnPRpDboTshwIgPTfzqswUWUzvnKOU6uUVH4YyeEXLZNpn/s1600/zombie.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">gospel to contain this story. Neither Mark, nor Luke, nor John say anything about the earth shaking or the dead coming out of their graves. This has been one of the reasons it is so difficult to understand and to ratify with the other gospels. Not only is the story very strange to us, it seems logical that if this event happened, others would want to write about it! The uniqueness of this account in Matthew shouldn’t discourage us, though. In fact, the uniqueness of this event to the gospel of Matthew should give us a clue. The clue is that Matthew has a reason for including this that no other author did, and maybe the answer to why, lies in the message that’s unique to Matthew.</span><br />
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
</h1>
<h2>
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">The Hebrew Gospel</span></strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<h1 class="entry-title" style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; font-size: 2.5em; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.2rem 0px 0.8rem; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
Matthew is recognized as being the most “Jewish” of all the gospels. He appears to be addressing a Jewish audience. The language offers very little explanation of the Jewish legal customs, assuming the readers would be familiar. Matthew contains more Hebraisms (sentences structured in a Hebrew way, but written in Greek, or familiar Hebrew idioms) than any other gospel. Matthew presents the Gospel through the repeated scenes of engagement with Jewish authorities. Overall, there is a largely Hebrew element to this Gospel, and, importantly for our discussion here, Matthew uses more Old Testament allusions and citations than any other Gospel.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
In a recent article published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, author Catherine Sider Hamilton, reveals just how much Matthew relies on the Old Testament in the narration of Judas’s repentance and suicide.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> It’s not inconsequential that this story of Judas immediately precedes the “zombie” account of vv. 51-53, and it is to professor Hamilton that I credit much of the discussion that follows.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
</h1>
<h2>
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Why was it Written?</span></strong></h2>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<h1 class="entry-title" style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; font-size: 2.5em; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.2rem 0px 0.8rem; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
The suicide of Judas is recorded in Matthew 27:3-9, and is given prophetic significance by Matthew in v. 9, where he writes:</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<hr style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;" />
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me.’”</span></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;" />
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
This has often been another area of contention because the verse cited by Matthew and attributed to Jeremiah is actually found in Zechariah 11:12-13. However, the reference to the “valley of blood” made in Matthew 27:8 is taken from the Jeremiah 19:6. Resolving this issue can really be categorized in two ways: 1. It was customary for Jewish scribes, when citing two or more prophets, to only identify the more prevalent,<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> and/or 2. There is a unity of content in both Jeremiah 19 and Zechariah 11, and as such, both are in view.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
As it relates to the Judas narrative, the disciple experiences deep regret for his betrayal of “innocent blood”, in this case Jesus. The innocent blood in the Jeremiah and Zechariah was the people of Israel. Judas returns to the chief priests and returns the money, begging forgiveness. The chief priests (or the spiritual shepherds of Israel) reject him. This parallels exactly what happens with the shepherds of Israel in Zechariah.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTkiS7kliH1g98KdZdXSnI0KnjB6kQdKy2-hvpLRNKRKZwHud3ZKfbPACCNvnzIPxTlVz-9uL7aXwBIfPOod0ubCwNx30-JpfUoRPpp6mimFH7T88HhzPGjEl4UqEfX4XnLjOuZ26EUass/s1600/coins-300x240.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTkiS7kliH1g98KdZdXSnI0KnjB6kQdKy2-hvpLRNKRKZwHud3ZKfbPACCNvnzIPxTlVz-9uL7aXwBIfPOod0ubCwNx30-JpfUoRPpp6mimFH7T88HhzPGjEl4UqEfX4XnLjOuZ26EUass/s1600/coins-300x240.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
Further, In Zech. 11:11-13 the 30 pieces of silver are given to the “treasury”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a>. The chief priests in Matthew 27 take the 30 pieces of silver from Judas and place them in the treasury (v.6). In Zechariah, the sheep merchants pay for the blood of the innocent sheep, and in Matthew they pay for the blood of Christ. Even with his repentance, Judas is unable to stop the crucifixion of Jesus and departs in sorrow, killing himself. The cost of the innocent blood in both Zechariah and Jeremiah is the land turning into a “Valley of Slaughter”, defiled with innocent blood. The land will become a burial ground full of the bones of the dead.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
But this is where Matthew changes the narrative.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
</h1>
<h4>
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Finally, to the Zombies</span></strong></h4>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<h1 class="entry-title" style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; font-size: 2.5em; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.2rem 0px 0.8rem; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
After the account of Judas, we read of the crucifixion of Jesus, and the earthquake that follows his death. This brings us back to the “zombies”. Given Matthew’s propensity for citing OT prophets, especially within this same section of verses, it is reasonable to ask if he has made any other allusions to the prophets in the rest of this section. If you do this, you’ll see that references are made to the prophetic Psalm 22, Amos, Joel, Zephaniah, and Ezekiel.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
It is the allusion to Ezekiel that concerns the rest of this discussion. In Ezekiel 37:11-14 we read,</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<hr style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;" />
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">“Then he said to me, ‘Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are indeed cut off.’ <strong><sup> </sup></strong>Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord God: <strong>Behold, I will</strong> <strong>open your graves and raise you from your graves</strong>, O my people. <strong>And I will bring you into the land of Israel</strong>. And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. <strong><sup> </sup></strong>And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the Lord; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the Lord.’”</span></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<hr style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;" />
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
As I’ve tried to demonstrate with the bold letters above, Ezekiel 37 contains a prophecy containing the very elements found in Matthew 27. If we compare the Greek of the LXX with that of the Greek of Matthew it is even more exact:</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<hr style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;" />
<table><tbody>
<tr><td width="312"><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">Ezekiel 37:12</span></div>
</td><td width="312"><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">Matthew 27:52</span></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td width="312"><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀνοίγω ὑμῶν <strong>τὰ</strong> <strong>μνήματα</strong> καὶ <strong>ἀνάξω</strong> ὑμᾶς <strong>ἐκ</strong> <strong>τῶν μνημάτων</strong> ὑμῶν καὶ εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς <strong>εἰς τὴν γῆν τοῦ Ισραηλ</strong></span></div>
</td><td width="312"><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">καὶ <strong>τὰ</strong> <strong>μνημεῖα</strong> <strong>ἀνεῴχθησαν</strong> καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν, καὶ ἐξελθόντες <strong>ἐκ τῶν μνημείων</strong> μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ εἰσῆλθον <strong>εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν…</strong></span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;" />
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
Which brings us to the reason for the “zombies” of Matthew. At the close of Zechariah/Jeremiah the innocent blood pollutes the land, turning it into a tomb. Matthew follows this narrative until the he replaces the innocent blood with Jesus. The one who’s blood doesn’t bring death, but rather brings life. The tombs are opened, and the dry bones of Israel are given new life. This prophecy of Ezekiel was to be fulfilled so that they would know that Yahweh is Lord, and it is Matthew inserts it into his narrative to demonstrate to his readers that Jesus is the fulfillment of that prophecy. The innocent blood that once brought temporal death, is replaced with the innocent blood that brings eternal life.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
The “zombies” of Matthew, are meant to point to the divine fulfillment of Yahweh’s eternal plan of redemption.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
</h1>
<h4>
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Did it actually happen?</span></strong></h4>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<h1 class="entry-title" style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; font-size: 2.5em; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.2rem 0px 0.8rem; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
Having addressed this odd moment within the purposes of the text itself, we can then ask the secondary, and arguably less important, question of the historicity of the event. I only have a few points to make in this regard.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
Given that this is the only historical record of the event it is impossible to verify through any secondary literature. Because of this, on strictly historical grounds there is not enough evidence to answer positively with confidence that this happened.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
However, the reliability of a claim must also be weighed against the reliability of the source. The document itself is proven reliable in other historical features, and therefore provides no reason, within itself, to be doubted.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
Therefore, if we combine these two elements with the internally consistent theological conviction of the NT as the Word of God, I believe there is reason to accept the event as historical, even with the limited data.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
An important note: I’m not believing in something CONTRARY to evidence, as there is no contradictory evidence of this event. I am believing in something on the basis of the only evidence for it and the reliability of the witness.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
</h1>
<h4>
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Conclusion</span></strong></h4>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<h1 class="entry-title" style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; font-size: 2.5em; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.2rem 0px 0.8rem; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
The event in Matthew 27:51-53 is a difficult passage to reconcile with the parallel accounts in the Gospels as well as our own credulity. Any miraculous event violates our concept of the material world and what is possible. That being said, neither of those should cause us to avoid the text. Rather, it is my conviction, and I believe it is demonstrated above, that if we are willing to wrestle with a text and actively seek to find answers, we will often find a resolution, while simultaneously growing deeper in our understanding of God’s Word.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
The primary purpose for the dead rising in Matthew was theological. A foreshadowing of the eschatological hope, realized at the moment of Christ’s death. It served to reveal the connection of Christ’s sacrifice and subsequent victory over death to the prophesied coming of the Lord. Secondarily, the event is not attested outside of this singular document, but this document is demonstrably reliable in other areas of recording and need not be doubted without cause. Given the lack of contrary reporting, there is no cause to doubt it.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1] </a>Hamilton, Catherine Sider, “The Death of Judas in Matthew: Matthew 27:9 Reconsidered,” <em>JBL</em> 137, no. 2 (2018), 419-437.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> An example of this is found in Mark 1:2 wherein Isaiah is cited but Malachi is quoted.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> Both share themes of shed blood, innocent’s dying at the hands of cruel masters, blood money, as well as the resulting devastation and desolation of the land.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> Some translations read “potter” which is based on the word הָאוֹצָר (treasury) verses הַיּוֹצֵר (potter). I believe that treasury makes the most sense, here, but also would suggest that the OT used by Matthew may have used the term for treasury rather than potter, given it’s usage here.</div>
<div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3935420584552314968#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> It should be noted that the people in Matthew do not qualify as zombies in the popular sense, as reanimated corpses, for they are given life, presumably in the same manner as Lazarus, with souls and life blood.</div>
</h1>
</div>
</div>
</header>Clark Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263824081417055814noreply@blogger.com0