Understanding Inerrancy–Part 6
1 Peter 1:10–11
Opening Prayer
“Father, we’re so very
grateful and thankful for all You’ve done for us, for Your grace and Your
goodness to us. We all know that we do not deserve any of it. You have done
this freely from Your own integrity, from Your righteousness, Your justice, and
Your love.
Father, we’re so thankful we
have a salvation that is not dependent upon anything we do or don’t do. It’s
not dependent upon any human activity on our part but the trust in Jesus as
Savior. We know that He paid it all on the Cross and we don’t do anything and
we can’t do anything or add anything to it. We are saved by faith alone in
Christ alone. Thank You for that.
Father, we continue to pray
for our missionaries. We pray for George Meisinger. We pray for the Chafer
Seminary Board and the decisions they have to make. The leadership there. We’re
thankful that things are moving well for the seminary. We pray that You’ll
continue to guide and direct us there.
Thank You for Your Word,
Your inspired, infallible, inerrant Word. We pray that we might recognize that
it’s the most important authority in our life. We need to understand it,
internalize it, and apply it. We pray this in Christ’s name. Amen.”
We’re studying the sixth
lesson as we have diverged out of 1 Peter to study this critical doctrine on
the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. Scripture seems to always come
under attack in one form or another but the overt attack has developed since
the mid to early 1700s when that thinking came out of the Enlightenment.
It wasn’t until you get into
the early 1800s that things really began to pick up momentum. Then you had the
rise of the 19th century religious liberalism and those various
assaults. You also had assaults that continued in each generation successively
in the 20th century. Now it’s in the early part of the 21st
century.
I’ll go into that a little
more next week. The history helps us understand and have perspective on what is
going on and where we are within this flow but we need to first understand what
the Bible says and why we believe what we believe.
The reason we got into this,
as I’ve stated in each of these lessons, is the references in 1 Peter 1:10–12
talking about the revelation by the Holy Spirit through the prophets. This
gives us a little window of insight into the mechanics of revelation.
Just because revealed
information came through the prophets doesn’t mean they really understood it.
They still had to study it. They had to compare it with other revealed
Scripture. The process of canonization when a book was a candidate to be
included in the Old Testament Canon was that it had to be studied thoroughly to
make sure it was consistent with all previous revelation. That was one of the
standards that was used.
Also, it had to be written
or authorized by a prophet and other things of that nature. That’s our starting
point.
We got into the Doctrine of
Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture.
This is our definition
coming out of the West Houston Bible Church doctrinal statement that “God the
Holy Spirit so supernaturally directed the human writers of Scripture, that
without waiving their human intelligence, their vocabulary, their
individuality, their literary style, personality, or personal feelings, or any
other human factor, God’s complete and coherent message to mankind was recorded
with perfect accuracy in the original languages of Scripture, the very words
bearing the authority of divine authorship.”
That line is an important
line because what you see in the Old Testament is that when God speaks He
doesn’t have to present a federally authorized photo ID to show to people that
He’s God. When God speaks, people fall on their face, as if dead, as they are
confronted with a righteous, just God.
God’s very voice carries authority
with it. It’s embedded in the Scriptures, in the voice of the Scriptures.
Key verses which we’ve
looked at: 2 Timothy 3:16–17 which introduces the concept of inspiration, that
God breathed out the Word through the human authors.
We used this image last week
talking about Biblical/Divine authority which is built upon a three-legged
stool: inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy.
I defined each one of those.
These definitions are important. Inspiration means that God-breathed out the
Scripture. It emphasizes that the origin of Scripture is God. It is not man.
Other views that come along
talk, especially in neo-orthodoxy, talk about that which is the Word of God
[they view the Bible as containing the Word of God but it has other stuff in
it, too] is a witness to the Word of God. It testifies to the Word of God. They
don’t believe it’s the inerrant, infallible, and inspired Word of God.
So inspiration addresses the
original of the Bible. Neo-orthodoxy’s emphasis on the human side is that it
somehow clutters, taints, and corrupts the process of inspiration. We would say
that no, God in His sovereignty is able to preserve His Word through tainted
receptacles who write it so that the product is without error.
Infallibility emphasizes the
authority and enduring nature of the Bible, that this is the authoritative
revelation of God to man. Inerrancy addresses the accuracy of God’s Word in the
original languages and in the original autographs.
Corruption could have leaked
in as a result of human error in making copies but if you start with a document
that is a hundred percent perfect, it’s really easy to recover if you have a
lot of copies, even though some may have errors. If you start with a document with
errors, how do you ever get back to an inerrant document? You don’t.
Then I had a quote here from
Dr. Ryrie in his “Basic Theology”. I mentioned last time that I had Ryrie for
Bibliology my first semester at Dallas Seminary and he emphasized the positive
side. The “in” prefix on inerrancy is a negative meaning not errant so that’s
defining the Bible from a negative.
He says that defining it
from a positive means the Bible tells the truth.
Again, looking at 2 Timothy
3:16–17, that it’s breathed out by God.
It’s pointing out that
inspiration was in words. It’s not the ideas that are inspired, because if you
change a word from one synonym to another, it modifies the nuance of what is
said. It’s not just the ideas. It’s the very words, the specific words that are
inspired. 1 Corinthians 2:13 and Joshua 23:14 which says at the end, “Not one word of
them [the things that God spoke] has failed.”
We looked how in some
passages God wrote such as He wrote the Law with His finger but dictation is
not the normal modus
operandi. By the way, that’s the Orthodox Jewish view—that God dictated the
Bible to the writers of Scripture. He dictated all of the Torah, not just the
Ten Commandments, but all of the Torah, they believe.
Now, moving on. If we think
about what the Scripture says about the Word of God and about God as the Author
of the Word of God, we can develop a syllogism which expresses the deductive
logic, coming up with a conclusion about the inerrancy and the infallibility of
Scripture.
There are two types of
logic. Actually there are three types of logic but I’m not going to get into
that tonight. The first is what flows out of rationalism. You’re starting with
certain premises. So a deductive syllogism begins with a major premise and then
states a minor premise and then a conclusion.
So we could say that all men
have a soul. That is a major conclusion, a broader statement. Then your minor
premise is that Bill is a man. That’s a narrower statement. Therefore, Bill has
a soul. It draws a conclusion from the parts of the major premise and parts
from the minor premise.
If the elements in the major
premise are true and all of the elements in the minor premise are true, then
the conclusion is, by definition, true.
So we can set up a deduction
[this is deductive logic]. The other form of logic is inductive logic.
Inductive logic is consistent with empiricism. Induction is what we use in
Bible study. We have a lot of data in the Bible. We have a lot of different
verses that relate to what God says about His Word and so, as we study those
passages, we draw conclusions, inferences, from the data. That is induction.
First of all we’ll look at
deductive logic. In deductive logic, we have a clear statement in Scripture
that God is absolute veracity. Veracity is a word that means truth. It is a
synonym for truth. God is absolute truth.
Jesus said, “I am the way, I
am the truth, I am the life.” He defined Himself as the truth in John 14:7.
Now the statement is clearly made in Romans 3:4 when Paul says, “May it never be!
[replying to a rhetorical question] Rather, let God be found true, though every man be
a liar.” He states the clear truth that God is truth. He is veracity.
Another verse that states
this is Numbers 23:19 in the Old Testament, “God is not a man that He should lie nor a
son of man that He should repent. He said and will He not do it? Or has He
spoken and will He not make it good?”
So the major premise is that
God is absolute truth. That is the nature of His character.
John in 1 John 1:1–4 uses
the metaphor of light, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.
Light is used as a metaphor not only for purity in terms of righteousness but
also in terms of truth.
So the major premises is
that God is absolute truth.
Now the minor premise is
that the similarity between the two premises is the term God. The minor premise
is that God is the Source of the Scripture, 2 Timothy 3:16. So if God is
absolute truth and God is the Source of the Scriptures, then the conclusion
would be that the Scriptures are absolute truth.
This would be confirmed in
John 17:17.
You see what we’ve done. We
didn’t just take a major premise that had a biblical foundation and a minor
premise that had a biblical foundation and then move to a conclusion that might
not be stated specifically in the Bible. You can do that. That’s called “doing
theology” but the conclusion in this case is confirmed by a specific statement
in the Scripture.
In Jesus’ priestly prayer in
John 17:17 He prays to the Father, “Sanctify them by means of truth; Thy word is truth.”
That is a precise statement. So we have a major premise and a minor premise.
The rule is in logic that if the premises of a syllogism are correct then the
conclusion must be correct.
Therefore, we’re locked down
by an absolute conclusion that the Word of God, the revelation of God, must be
absolute truth.
A problem that we get into
that is raised on the other side of the aisle here is the question about human
involvement. What about human involvement?
The question that’s raised
here is that because of the assumption that this pure light is filtered through
a corrupt soul, that what comes out can’t be pure light. Of course, that’s just
based on autonomous reason. Where do you get the idea that God cannot supervise,
superintend, or override human error? Where do you get that idea from the
Scripture?
They’re making an assumption
in their logic chain that isn’t evident from the text.
Do we have another example
in the Scripture of God using corrupt, fallible, sinful people to bring about
absolute perfection?
What about the conception of
Jesus? Mary is a sinner. Now Roman Catholics don’t believe that. Their Doctrine
of Immaculate Conception [you probably don’t this if you’re not a Catholic]
doesn’t refer to the conception of Jesus. It refers to the conception of Mary.
Now I want to rant about the
Pope a little bit. The Pope’s been down in Mexico. I should never do this on my
way here but I try to make a couple of phone calls and often talk to Dan
Inghram on the way in. Dan was busy and there was no one to talk to.
I turned on talk radio. I
don’t know who was doing the interview but they were interviewing presidential
candidate John Kasich, the governor of Ohio. I have no idea what his religious
predilections are but he was trying to be very politically correct and
non-offensive in his answer. He was being asked what he thought about the
Pope’s visit to Mexico.
He answered, “Well, I’m
pro-Pope.” The contrast he’s making is the comment the Pope made apparently today
or yesterday that were very negative about Donald Trump because Donald Trump
wants to close the borders. Of course, the Pope is not so smart. He wants to
have everything open.
They’re going to be so
brave. Didn’t you love it back when last year everyone is coming in across the
border into Europe and the Pope said, “Everyone needs to take in refugees?
We’re going to set an example. The Vatican is going to take in one family.”
Yeah, right. Okay?
So the Pope is down there
and he’s basically making some comment about Donald Trump not acting like a
Christian. The first thing I thought of was, “How would he know?”
They’re asking Kasich this.
Americans are pretty much ignorant of anything about Christianity or religion
or anything today. They just don’t have a clue. They’ve just heard all kinds of
mythology. The thing that you have to understand if you’re a Protestant and
you’re asked what you think about the Pope, the answer is “I’m a Protestant.
Protestants haven’t cared about what the Pope said since 1517.”
We don’t. It’s irrelevant.
The guy’s meaningless. That’s what it means to be a Protestant. We don’t listen
to the Pope. So there’s my rant on the Pope. It doesn’t matter what the Pope says
except he’s going to lead a lot of people astray, which he’s doing down in
Mexico. He always wants to fight for the wrong side, it seems.
The question is what about
the involvement of humans? In the example of the conception of Jesus, God the
Holy Spirit was able to cause the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ to be
conceived in the womb of Mary without human male involvement.
The sin nature is passed
down through the male so Mary was able to conceive a perfect embryo. That gave
birth to a perfect human being who was without sin. That is, He did not inherit
corruption. He did not inherit a sin nature from Joseph, from Adam through
Joseph. He was born sinless as Adam was created sinless.
God has the ability because,
what’s that word? Omnipotent. Hello. People who say He can’t do something need
to know that there’s somewhere in the Bible that says “With God nothing is impossible.” Maybe
they took a razor blade and they had a textual problem there and it wasn’t in
the Living Bible so they didn’t know.
So God can do that. What we
see here in the passage we’ve looked at a couple of times is this wording in 2
Peter 1:19–21 and especially in verse 21 it says, “For prophecy never came by the will of man.”
It did not originate in human will or in human volition but “holy men of God”.
That doesn’t mean they were morally pure.
Holy means set apart to the
service of God. The word kadosh in the Hebrew and HAGIOS in the Greek doesn’t mean righteous. It’s
not a synonym for being perfectly righteous and sinless. It doesn’t have a
moral connotation at all.
Two lines of reasoning to
demonstrate that is that first of all the word “holy” applies to all the
furniture that’s in the Tabernacle and in the Temple. Now last time I looked a
chair, a bowl, spoons, and knives, and tables can neither be moral or immoral.
They are amoral. They are without morality.
Holy doesn’t mean morally
pure. It means set apart to the service of God.
The other line of reasoning
is that in the ancient world the masculine and feminine forms of the noun kadosh were
used to describe the temple prostitutes who served in the fertility religions.
They’re not morally pure, either.
The idea means simply to be
set apart to the service of God.
The men of God, the prophets
who were writing the Scripture are set apart for the service of God and they
spoke, not on their own, but as they were moved by God the Holy Spirit.
Now this verb that’s
translated “moved” is the Greek very PHERO. It’s used in one other significant place,
Acts 27, describing what was happening to the ship Paul was on that was about
to be shipwrecked as they were taking Paul from Caesarea-by-the-Sea to Rome.
In Acts: 27:15 we read, “So when the ship
was caught, and could not head into the wind, we let her drive.” This
indicates that the ship was passive to the wind. The wind did the action. This
is the idea that the Holy Spirit performs the action.
He’s moving the writers of
Scripture. They’re not moving on their own. Then the same verb is used two
verses later in Acts 27:17, “When they had taken it on board, they used cable to undergird the ship;
and fearing lest they should run aground on the Syrtis Sands, they struck sail
and so were driven [or were moved by the wind].”
The wind just carried them.
They were rudderless and they just went wherever the wind carried them or moved
them.
In a work called
“Inspiration and Authority of the Bible” which was written by the well-known
and one of the foremost theologians in the late 19th and early 20th
century, Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, B. B. Warfield. He followed A.A.
Hodge. You have to have abbreviations. There was Charles C. Ryrie, C.C. Ryrie.
You had all these guys who had the same two initials at the beginning of their
names.
B.B. Warfield was the head
of the theology department at Princeton University, the heir of the Hodges. The
Hodges established a dynasty of theologians at Princeton which was the
Presbyterian Seminary in the United States and did not go liberal until 1927.
In the 19th
century it was the brilliant output of men like Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and
Casper Hodge, the third one in the line who also served on the faculty
alongside Warfield. Their writings defending the infallibility and inspiration
of Scripture established the foundation that we have built on everything I’ve
said on today.
Many people today say it was
Princeton theology that built the bulwark to defend biblical infallibility in
the assault of liberalism in the late 19th century.
Warfield is also known by
the fact that he wrote a scathing book review of a little book that Lewis
Sperry Chafer wrote that is called “He that is Spiritual”. He misunderstood
Chafer. He thought Chafer was a victorious life theologian and he wasn’t.
But because Chafer hung out
with a lot of the men that were victorious life and taught at those same Bible
conferences such as Niagara Bible Conferences and the North Hampton Bible
Conferences that Moody had in Massachusetts, he had picked up some of that
victorious life vocabulary. If you want to get into some of the emphasis on
that, go back to the 2011 Chafer
Conference and read some of the papers and listen to some of the
speakers that deal with this issue. It’s a very important issue in
understanding there is a dispensationally distinct sanctification.
Warfield’s book “Inspiration
and Authority of the Bible” was a collection of articles that he had written
dealing with these things. There’s a picture of him as a young man and as an
older man. That was one of the first books I bought and read through before I
ever went to seminary. Fabulous book.
In this he says related to 2
Peter 1:20–21, “In this singularly precise and pregnant statement there are
several things which require to be carefully observed. There is, first of all,
the emphatic denial that prophecy—that is to say, on the hypothesis upon which
we are working, Scripture …” So he says, “The emphatic denial that prophecy,
that is Scripture, owes its origin to human initiative. No prophecy of
Scripture is of one’s own interpretation.”
He says, “No prophecy ever
was brought—‘came’ is the word used in the English Version text, with ‘was brought’
in the Revised Version margin—by the will of man.”
He goes on, “Then, there is
the equally emphatic assertion that its source lies in God: It was spoken by
men, indeed, but the men who spoke it ‘spake from God.’ And a remarkable clause
is here inserted, and thrown forward in the sentence that stress may fall on
it, which tells us how it could be that men, in speaking, should speak not from
themselves, but from God: it was ‘as borne’ [driven]—it is the same word which
was rendered ‘was brought’ above, and might possibly be rendered ‘brought’
here—‘by the Holy Spirit’ that they spoke. Speaking thus under the determining
influence of the Holy Spirit, the things they spoke were not from themselves,
but from God.”
This is the biblical view.
One of the reasons I do this is the same reason Lewis Sperry Chafer did this.
If you read Chafer’s “Systematic Theology” it’s eight volumes. In the 1980s
John Walvoord abridged it down to two volumes. One of the major reasons he
could do that is that you may not know this but Lewis Sperry Chafer was
ordained in the Southern Presbyterian Church. In the early 1930s he was brought
up on heresy charges because he was a dispensationalist.
There were all kinds of lies
and innuendos and calumnies that were being spread about dispensationalists. In
one sense his “Systematic Theology” is an apologetic for dispensationalism. He
wanted to show throughout that dispensationalists were orthodox in their view
of the Bible, their view of theology proper, their view of Christology, pneumatology,
soteriology, and ecclesiology, but in ecclesiology it begins to shift because
of dispensationalism, and eschatology is, of course, different.
What Chafer did to show that
he was orthodox was just about every other paragraph, he has anywhere from a
half a page to three page quotes from other theologians. He quotes Warfield. He
quotes Shedd. He quotes Calvin. He quotes Luther. He quotes all these different
theologians. If you just take all the quotes out, you’ll shrink it from eight
volumes to two, just about. That was one of the main things that Walvoord did
in shrinking it.
These guys were the noted
theologians of their era. Those who oppose inerrancy today often say it’s just
a construct of Princetonian theology which was built on an enlightenment
foundation of common sense theology and it’s not biblical. Hah! It is but
that’s their argument.
What we see in this is that
the Holy Spirit from 2 Peter 2:20–21 is the Agent of revelation. That’s His
role within the Trinity. The Son’s role is to reveal the Father. The Spirit’s
role is to oversee divine revelation.
The second thing we learn
from this passage is that what men wrote did not originate with them. They
didn’t come up with the idea. It wasn’t their opinions. It came from God who
controlled the process, freeing it from error.
Remember in John 16:13 the
Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth. So He controls it and frees it from
error.
Third, we learn that God
prevented the sin natures of the writers from diverting, misdirecting,
confusing, or erroneously recording His message. God can do that, especially
when He’s not overriding their volition in relation to their salvation or their
sanctification. He’s overriding their volition in regard to what they’re
writing to make sure that it is without error, so that God can accomplish His
purposes.
We’re going to see how Jesus
used Scripture. What is the example that we have of Jesus in relation to the
authority and the infallibility of the Word of God? What does Jesus tell us
about the origin of Scripture?
Now remember, inspiration is
a word that tells us about the origin of Scripture. Infallibility is a word
that tells us about the authority and the power of Scripture. Inerrancy tells
us about the truthfulness and accuracy of Scripture.
Let’s look at how Jesus uses
Scripture. I want you to turn in your Bibles to Matthew, chapter 4. This is the
situation where Jesus is led by God the Holy Spirit into the wilderness where
He is going to be tested, evaluated by the devil.
The word is translated
tempted and that’s certainly one nuance but it’s a test. It’s an objective
test. Temptation occurs two ways. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to be on a
diet or not. When you’re on a diet what I have found is that I have to eat
small amounts or I’ll get real hungry. Once I get real hungry, game over!
If I’ve been eating
correctly all day and my appetite is satiated, you can put a cherry pie and ice
cream in front of me or a Magnum bar and I can say, “No, thanks.”
If I’ve gone too long and
I’ve got the hungries, watch out. I will take the whole box of Magnum bars. I
don’t care anymore. I’m hungry.
If there’s nothing
internally weak, people can put stuff in front of you all day long. Even though
there’s not an internal appeal, there’s still an external offer. It’s still a
test. It’s still a temptation. Just because you’re not going to yield to it
doesn’t mean it’s not a temptation.
Just because you don’t want
to yield to something doesn’t mean it’s not a temptation. People can tempt you
to do all kinds of things and sometimes you’re attracted to it and sometimes
you’re not. That’s not what makes it a temptation.
Our Lord didn’t have a sin
nature. He didn’t have the problem we’ve got and that is the fact that when someone
says, “Let’s go sin” we go “Yeah, right. Atta boy. How soon can I do it?”
That’s what our sin nature wants to do. It’s attracted automatically like iron
filings to a magnet. Our sin nature is attracted to sin.
We’ve got to say, “Down,
boy.” We don’t have to do that anymore.
Jesus is going into the
wilderness and Satan is going to put these tests in front of Him. As he offers
these tests, Jesus is going to respond and He gives us an example of how we
should respond. It happens during a period of weakness when He’s gone forty
days and forty nights without food. Now He’s hungry.
Let me tell you. Anyone here
can go forty days and forty nights without food. Anyone of you can do that.
Some of you look a little thin so you maybe won’t make it. But there’s some of
you, sixty days, maybe. Any human being can go forty days without food. You
can’t go forty days without water but you can go forty days without food. What
happens is that after about a day your appetite begins to diminish and
disappear. Then you’re good to go for the next thirty-eight days. When you get
to about day thirty-eight or thirty-nine, that appetite begins coming back with
a vengeance because your body is saying that if you go much longer everything
will shut down. You’re going to die.
My point on this is that
Jesus is not doing this in the power of His deity. Any human being can do this.
So He’s fasted forty days and forty nights. Now He’s hungry. The tempter comes
along and says to Him, “If you are the Son of God …”
Satan uses a first class
condition there because he knows Jesus is the Son of God. He’s basically
saying, “If you are, and you are, command these stones to become bread.”
He knows Jesus is omnipotent
and all Jesus has to do is just look at rocks. If you’ve been to Israel before,
there are a lot of rocks. It’s almost like Connecticut. A lot of rocks. Jesus
would just have to look at the rock and say, “Bread.” It is immediately going
to be the best bread around.
How does Jesus respond?
Matthew 4:4, “But
He answered and said, It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ” [Deuteronomy 8:3]
What we see here is that the
way Jesus answers a temptation is by quoting Scripture. He doesn’t quote a
doctrinal principle or an abstract principle or a philosophical idea. He quotes
the very words of Scripture from Deuteronomy 8:3. He says in the quote that
it’s by “every” word. It’s not most words or some word but it’s by every word. “Man shall not
live alone, but by every word” because every word is breathed out by God.
He also says “It is written.”
He doesn’t say it testifies or it witnesses to the Word of God. It says it is
the Word of God, period, over, and out. Jesus responds by quoting Scripture
verbatim.
In the second temptation the
devil took Him up into the holy city, Jerusalem, and set Him on the pinnacle of
the Temple. That is the southeastern corner of the Temple wall which at that
time was about 130 to 140 feet above the Kidron Valley. That’s a nice drop and
when you hit bottom, you go splat.
Satan takes Him up there and
says, “If you
are the Son of God, [and You are], throw Yourself down. For it is written…” Now
he’s going to quote Scripture but he’s going to misquote Scripture. “He shall give His
angels charge over you and in their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash
your foot against a stone.”
I want you to notice the
important word there in Satan’s statement is that word “and”. The line before
that is a quote and the line after that is quote but he left something out.
This is a quote from Psalm
91:11 and 12. The part he leaves out is “To keep you in all your ways [to guard you in
all your ways].” The implication of those words is that God is going to
preserve His people but that doesn’t mean they should take needless risks. They
are to be doing what they’re supposed to be doing, walking in the path of God.
What Satan is doing is
proposing to Jesus to take a needless, irrational risk just to test God.
Jesus’ response is in
Matthew 4:7, “It
is written.” Once again He is quoting directly from Scripture from
Deuteronomy 6:16 where He says, “It is written” again, “You shall not tempt the Lord your God.”
He is parrying each one of these thrusts from Satan with a direct and specific
quote from Scripture. He does the same in the rest of these temptations.
What we see here is that
Jesus has an extremely high view of Scripture and it extends down to the
various words.
There are other things we
find in Jesus’ teaching. He confirms that Adam and Eve were created by God in
His image. If Jesus believed God created Adam and Eve in His image [Matthew
19:3–5 where Jesus quotes from both Genesis 1:26–28 and then again from Genesis
2] He shows that He views both chapters as equal authority.
That’s going to come up if I
get there tonight, because that’s one of those chapters that liberals try to
challenge and say there’s a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. They
come up with two or three things that seem to be contradictory. They think that
Genesis 2 is one creation account and Genesis 1 is another creation account.
Jesus quotes from both of them as if they have equal authority and he believes
in a literal Adam and a literal Eve.
That immediately gets rid of
all the attempts of theists and evolutionists and others who try to compromise
in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2 who have some form of evolutionary development
that culminates in early mankind. Jesus believed there was Adam and Eve.
If Jesus was wrong then what
else was He wrong about? Maybe He was wrong about who He was. Maybe He was
wrong about what He accomplished on the Cross. Maybe He was wrong about
everything. Maybe He was just some nut job, so let’s go party. That’s the only
option that we have.
Jesus must be taken at His
Word.
Another event is that Jesus
confirms the reality of the flood of Noah. In Luke 17:26–27 we read Jesus
saying, “And
as it was in the days of Noah…” He affirms the historicity of Noah, that
Noah existed and was a person. He makes this comparison, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be
also in the days of the Son of Man. They ate, they drank, they married wives,
they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark …”
He believes that Noah built
an ark. “And
the flood came and destroyed them all.” He also affirms worldwide, a
universal flood. The only ones that survived were Noah and his family.
He also confirms the episode
of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In light of the same-sex marriage
issue, this is interesting that of all the other events Jesus could have
recognized and confirmed in the Old Testament, He affirmed that, so we know
that Jesus was clear on the concept of what was going on at Sodom and Gomorrah.
He says, “Likewise as it
was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they
planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire
and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.”
He recognizes and affirms
the reality of what happened at Sodom and Gomorrah.
Another miraculous episode
that took place in the Old Testament has to do with Jonah. This is questioned
by some today. There are some New Testament scholars who are evangelical who
claim to believe in inerrancy have redefined Jonah in terms of the genre. They
say it’s sort of a prophetic myth and there wasn’t necessarily a literal Jonah,
a literal fish, or a literal three days or three nights.
But that’s not what Jesus
says in Matthew 12:40, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great
fish [it wasn’t a whale] so will be Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of
the earth.”
From what I’ve read whales
have small throats so they couldn’t swallow a man whole. There are fish that
are capable of swallowing a man whole, and there are examples of that where
it’s happened out on the ocean. Then they managed to catch the fish and they
cut him out and he survived. What’s interesting is that the stomach acids have
bleached the guy white while he’s in the belly of the fish.
If that’s what happened to
Jonah, then Jonah looked like an albino walking into Nineveh. He would be a
sight that would gain much attention as people were looking at this strange
apparition.
Moving on. A couple of other
verses that show Jesus’ high view of Scripture. In Matthew 5:17–18 in the
context of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law
or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For surely I say to
you, until heaven and earth pass away [that’s a pretty long time, the
destruction of the current heavens and the current earth after the Great White
Throne Judgment] not
the smallest letter or stroke [one jot or one tittle] shall pass away from the Law, until all is
accomplished.”
This is a really important
verse because He says that’s what is important in the Scripture is not the
words but the forms of the words, the very letters of the words. A letter, a
slight or small stroke, can change the whole meaning of a word. He’s saying
that inspiration extends down to the minutia of the words.
For example, when He says the word
“jot” this is the Hebrew letter Yodh which looks like an apostrophe. It’s
pretty small. It represents the letter “y” or “j”. It’s the smallest Hebrew
letter. A tittle is the smallest part of a letter.
In Hebrew you can see the
first letter [on slide 32] there’s a little bitty gap there and there’s no gap
over on the right. Those are two completely different letters. If you had one
or the other it would change the word and therefore would change the meaning.
In English we have similar
things. I have examples here like the “o” and “p”. The lower case “o” differs
from the lower case “p” only that it has a line on the left that descends below
the line.
You have the letter “b” and
the letter “d” and the only thing distinguishing them is you have a vertical
line on the left for “b” and a vertical line on the right for the letter “d”.
This can make quite a
difference. For example we have the words bog and dog. If you’re reading
something and you see the word bog it’s going to have a different meaning than
the word dog.
Another example would be the
words Rug and Pug. The only difference between an upper case R and an upper
case P is that leg on the R. That’s a tittle. It’s just a stroke, the smallest
part of a letter.
We look at words in English like
lit, hit, and bit. Those are three different words. The only distinction is a
tittle.
Or the words cat and oat.
The lower case o is closed fully to make the difference with the lower case c.
Fun, Pun, Run, and Bun all are
words that are distinguished by just a tittle. That little mark changes the
meaning of the word or the whole meaning of a sentence.
In Hebrew you have the difference
between the letter Beth and the letter Kaph. In a Beth that horizontal line extends just a little
bit beyond the vertical line whereas it’s a smooth transition in the letter Kaph which is
a K.
In the letter Daleth you notice there’s a little
extension of the horizontal line and in the letter Resh there’s no difference.
If you’re reading footnotes in the
Hebrew Bible you will need glasses soon. It’s a lot of fun. Those make a
difference. Jesus is asserting that inspiration extends down to the minutia,
the minute letters in the text so we can count on the Bible. It’s not just the
ideas; it’s not even the words; it’s the form of the words.
Like the difference between run
and ran, present tense and past tense. Or the difference between seed and seeds
as we’ll see in Galatians. Doctrine is built on that difference. Minutia is
important.
For example in John10:30
Jesus makes a dramatic claim to have unity with the Father. He says, “I and the Father
are one.” This doesn’t come across in the English because the word “one”
doesn’t have necessarily a grammatical significance to it. But in Greek this is
the word: it’s HEN which is a neuter singular for the word,
and HEIS is the masculine singular for the word “one”.
The difference is that if
Jesus is using the neuter singular, He’s talking about one thing. I and the
Father are one thing. We’re identical.
If He’s using the masculine
singular, He’s saying we’re one person. That would be unitarianism, modalism,
actually. They would be the same person.
Jesus isn’t saying they’re
one person. He’s saying they’re both fully divine, fully God.
Another example of where Jesus
uses a tense to emphasize the truth when He’s confronting the Pharisees. He’s
been talking about Abraham and they say well, who are you? You’re pretty young
to be talking about Abraham. He says, “Truly, truly I say before Abraham was, I AM.” I AM is the meaning of Yahweh. He’s claiming deity. Some
people think we’re making that up and it seems too abstract.
It wasn’t abstract to the
Pharisees because they bent over and picked up rocks to stone Him for
blasphemy. They understood He was making a claim to deity. It’s based on the
fact He’s using a present tense, “I AM”, and not saying I was. That’s significant.
Galatians 3:16 says, “Now to Abraham
and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say ‘And to seeds’, as of
many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ.” He’s going to
build a doctrine on the fact it’s a singular noun, not a plural noun. Paul is
saying that promise in Genesis is a reference to Christ.
What do we see here? That God has
given us everything. This is the conclusion here.
Going to 2 Peter 1:3–4, “Seeing that His
divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness
…” This is the doctrine known as the sufficiency of Scripture. He didn’t give
us most things, some things, or 90% of it. He gave us everything pertaining to life and
godliness.
We’re talking about the Word
because in the next sentence He says, “For by these He has granted to us His precious and
magnificent promises.” It’s by those promises that we became partakers of
the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
Okay I’m going to give you four
corollaries.
If we believe in the
inerrancy of Scripture these are four things that are true. If that’s true,
then these are four things that are true.
The first is: Though every
word is equally infallible, and authoritative, not every word is equally
applicable to every believer.
When we’re reading in the
genealogies, that’s not necessarily applicable to us but in the Old Testament
it identified who the clans and tribes were.
You read in the Mosaic Law that if
you have a rebellious teenager, you’re supposed to take him out into the public
square and stone him to death. That applied under the Mosaic Law. I don’t think
they ever applied it in Israel but it was never applied to Gentile nations and
it’s not applied to the Church.
So every word is infallible
and inerrant but it is not equally applicable to every believer.
Second corollary: If every word is
breathed out by God, then it is the responsibility of the Pastor-Teacher to
investigate and exegete every word, the entire counsel of God, though not every
word need be necessarily taught in terms of its detail. Time is a factor.
We could spend hours just doing
word studies but we have to present conclusions and keep going forward.
Third corollary: If every word is
breathed out by God then the Bible is absolutely and totally sufficient for
salvation, spiritual growth, and problem solving.
We don’t need to go elsewhere to
understand how to solve problems. We just need to trust the sufficiency of
Scripture and bury ourselves in the Word of God. This is the point in 2 Peter
1:3–4 which I looked at just a minute ago.
Fourth corollary: If every Word is
from God to us, nothing should be more important than learning and applying
God’s Word.
This is God’s correspondence to
every believer. Nothing is more important than understanding what that means.
Closing Prayer
“Father, thank You for this
time to study Your Word this evening, to realize how important this is and how
authoritative it should be in our lives.
Father, we pray that we
might be challenged to read it, memorize it, learn it, and to apply it in every
area of our lives. We pray this in Christ’s name. Amen.”