Sunday Morning Message, 5/30/20: "The Bible & its Critics" (Part I)

The Bible and its Critics (Part I)

(Pastor Terry L. Reese, Valley GBC, Armagh, PA, May 31, AD 2020)

Text: Jer. 36:1-4; 21-32.

Our text this morning records King Jehoiakim’s response to the Word of the Lord from Jeremiah: a small and wicked man who could not handle the truth.

Isa. 30:9-11: For they are a rebellious people, lying children, children unwilling to hear the instruction of the LORD; who say to the seers, "Do not see," and to the prophets, "Do not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions, leave the way, turn aside from the path, let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel."

Ungodly men have no reverence for the Word, and attempt to destroy it—but in the end, they only succeed in bringing a curse upon themselves. The Word endures.

Isa. 40:8: “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.”

Matt. 24:35: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.”

Last Week we saw that Our Lord Jesus Christ placed his Divine stamp of approval upon the entire sacred Canon... but today we observe that this has not stopped godless men from finding all manner of “difficulties” with the Scriptures.

I. Critics of the Word of God, who abound everywhere from the storied halls of higher academia to the base sewers of the modern internet, often sound like small-minded “Village Atheist” types—no amount of evidence and explanation is ever good or reasonable enough…

Such individuals see errors and absurdities everywhere—even claiming that they number in the “thousands”—and the Bible always presumed “Guilty!” and errant without even so much as a fair hearing. That, of course, is their first and foundational false assumption. Secondly, they automatically assume that anything that is presently enigmatic and inexplicable can have no valid explanation whatsoever. Now, suppose for a moment that this type of thinking was applied to the natural sciences in general: no progress or discovery would be possible! Sometimes, in point of fact, as we shall see in these studies, archeology and historical research have helped to resolve certain alleged Biblical problems and discrepancies. Alas, as Psalm 14:1 puts it…

“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’" 

While no answer will suffice for some (Matt. 7:6), we should have reasonable responses for the sincere and honest questioner (1 Pet. 3:15), as well as for fellow believers who are looking for answers with regard to various Bible difficulties.

OUR assumption, as believers: there are difficulties and enigmas, but not errors. As a DIVINE BOOK, it must be presupposed to be accurate, holy, authoritative, and infinitely

trustworthy! As Jesus reminds us in John 17:17b: "Thy word is truth.”

There are, however, things that are hard to understand: We have not been given a simple tract, but rather, a big book, and a deep book:

2 Peter 3:15-16 “…just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

For this reason, we are looking at alleged problems associated with the Doctrine of Inerrancy. Some basic observations, however, before we begin:

1.    All Doctrines have their “problem passages” that must be reconciled with other passages—including inerrancy.  

2.    Most “problems” are not problems at all, and solid explanations are generally available, but our misapprehensions and lack of knowledge are often the problem and source of most “errors.”

3.    Certain basic principles must be apprehended, with regard to interpretation. Our interpretive methods are often the true source of “error.”

4.    We don’t—and will not attempt!—to answer every individual problem or difficulty that individuals have raised… which would a very long time!

    

a.    Certain exhaustive resources are available, however:

1) Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties;

2) Norman Geisler, When Critics Ask (a.k.a.; The Big Book of Bible Difficulties);

3) Walter Kaiser, Jr., and others, Hard Sayings of the Bible;

4) Josh and Sean McDowell, The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses.

b.    Here, we want to make you aware of certain basic principles that will take care of quite a number of objections simultaneously (e.g., land mine analogy: should attempt to detonate one land mine at a time? Or, does it make more sense to find the switches that detonate a large number at once?).

II. Let us now address some basic principles and common questions, with regard to the matter of interpretation—the source of many difficulties.

A. Two mutually supporting pillars of Biblical Hermeneutics:*

1. The Analogy of Scripture.

2. The Analogy of Faith.

*Hermeneutics: the art and science of Biblical interpretation.

1. The Analogy of Scripture.

This first principle highlights the fact that the less clear portions of Scripture are explained (in the ultimate sense) by the clearer portions. The unclear, difficult, or ambiguous passages are interpreted in light of the clear.

2. The Analogy of Faith.

The second principle states that all doctrine of Scripture is non-contradictory. You cannot, for example, come up with a doctrine of Eternal Punishment using one passage (Matt. 25:46; aiōnios), and derive from another (Eccl. 3:19-20) the contradictory doctrine of Annihilationism. Eternal Punishment and Annihilationism are mutually exclusive and contradictory principles; you simply cannot have both!

Revelation cannot be used to contradict revelation. The Watchtower, for example, misuses Eccl. 3:19-20 to “prove” the false doctrines of Annihilationism, Conditional Mortality, and “Soul-Sleep”—despite Jesus’ clear teaching in Matt. 25:46, and Paul and David’s expectations concerning their own deaths (cf., Phil. 1:21-23; 2 Sam. 12:23).

This is the peril of irresponsible “proof-texting” (i.e., cherry-picking verses out-of-context).

B. The radical importance of CONTEXT…

1. What is the surrounding context in which a given Scriptural word or statement appears?

In what Book does it appear? What is the context of the surrounding verses? For example, there are multiple meanings for key doctrinal words like Justification (note Romans 3-4 vs. James 2) and Sanctification…

Rom. 3:28: For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Gal. 2:15-16, 21: "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” 21"I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

James 2:24: You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [cf., Matt. 11:19b: “But wisdom is justified of her children.”]

CONTEXT will determine the meaning of “Justification.” Paul is using the term in its formal judicial sense: a legal declaration before God. James using the same term in a vindictive or demonstrative sense; our good works demonstrate the reality of our faith before men. CONTEXT determines meaning!

2. Question: Does inerrancy mean that we should always interpret “literally?”

Answer: The Bible is, like Christ, both human and Divine—and like Him, utterly without sin and error. As a HUMAN BOOK, ordinary standard rules of literal, normal interpretation apply—as opposed to mystical allegory! We use the same standard rules we would apply to any other literary effort in order to come to an understanding of the original author’s original intent.

Also, the Bible contains many different types of literature (history, poetry, prophecy, doctrine, ethics, etc.). Each should be read as it was written, in accordance with the author’s intention (e.g., Genesis is history; Psalms is a book of poetry). History should be read as history, poetry should be read as poetry, etc.

It also employs figurative and symbolic language (e.g., Ps. 36:7: “How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings.”).

Some have erred greatly, not taking this simple principle into account (e.g., Mormonism’s belief that God, intrinsically, is a man with a body (e.g., Ps. 118:16 “The right hand of the LORD is exalted…”)—despite the plain teaching of Jesus on this point (John 4:24).

Also, the Early Church Father Origen, who despite his usual tendency to allegorize, tragically took a figurative saying literally and mutilated himself, in order to deal with his predilection to lust:

Matt 5:29-30 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.”

The Bible employs similes, metaphors, hyperboles, satire (Matt 23:24: "You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!), parables, etc… CONTEXT!

3. WHO said it, and WHEN?

Question: “If a given statement or something like a particular practice is recorded in the Bible, does inerrancy demand that the given statement, in and of itself, be regarded as true or exemplary?”

Answer: Remember: CONTEXT! For example, the Devil’s lies are accurately recorded in Gen. 3—but they are obviously not true; in fact, they are lies! A more difficult example:

Col. 2:21: “Touch not; taste not; handle not…”

While this statement is in the Bible, Paul is, in CONTEXT, quoting the false, proto-Gnostic teachers of his day! This is an example of their false instruction—it is not Divinely mandated instruction for us to follow!

4. Should we ways follow Biblical examples as model behavior?

Question: “If a given behavior is described in the Bible, does that mean that we should follow suit?” For example, is Abraham’s use of a concubine, the bigamy of Jacob, or the outrageous polygamy of Solomon—an apologetic for Mormon polygamy? Also, what about the blood crimes of Simeon and Levi? Or what about slavery?

This is the folly of using historical narrative (as opposed to direct, didactic teaching) as the basis for establishing doctrine or morals… again, we must be mindful of CONTEXT! While these things are in the Bible, and thus recorded accurately as having transpired, the Bible is NOT encouraging us to do likewise!

5. Where are we in the Plan of God? What are the “House Rules?”

We also have to be conscious that the Bible contains Dispensational distinctions—some things are uniquely appropriate to the Theocracy of the Mosaic Covenant that are NOT appropriate to the Church Age (e.g., Holy War, the severe legal penalties for various types offenders, dietary restrictions, etc.). Note Daniel 2:24; Acts 10, 15)…

Israel was a unique theocratic nation—America is not… In due time, the Lord will establish a new Theocracy—the Kingdom. In the meantime, our responsibility is in carrying out the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20).

This, incidentally, is tragically misunderstood by Barack Obama in The Audacity of Hope, where he argues that while the Bible contains moral precepts, it must be made to accommodate the culture, human reason, and modern sensibilites. The reason, he thinks, why we Christians today reject the Mosaic Law is because we are more “sophisticated” and humane today. If you want to literally follow the Bible, he asks…

“…should we go with Leviticus, which suggest that slavery is all right and eating shellfish is an abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?”

Our response, again, is CONTEXT! We as believers do NOT reject various Mosaic practices because the values and sensibilities of our modern culture overrule the Word of God; rather, we do so because the Word itself has instructed us that we are living in the context of a different Dispensation, and we are thus under different House Rules. CONTEXT, Mr. Obama!

III. Conclusion: our weekly challenge…

We have an obligation, before God, to know this Book, to handle this Book correctly, and learn the principles that make for sound interpretation. If we fail, we are subject to the judgement of God Almighty.

Friends, do we have the burden and concern to handle this Word correctly? Do we fear God? Let us meditate upon the farewell directives from the two great Apostles, Peter and Paul:

2 Peter 3:15-16 “…just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

2 Tim. 2:15: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.