If Scripture is to determine how we live and regard life,
others and even ourselves, it must be trustworthy. However, many, even within
Evangelical circles, are contesting its trustworthiness.
In The Evolution of
Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins, Biblical
scholar Peter Enns writes:
·
If we begin with assumptions about what
inspiration “must mean,” we are creating a false dilemma and will wind up
needing to make tortuous arguments to line up Paul and other Biblical writers
with modes of thinking that would never have occurred to them. But when we
allow the Bible to lead us in our thinking on inspiration, we are compelled to
leave room for the ancient writers to reflect and even incorporate their
ancient, mistaken, cosmologies into their scriptural reflections. (94-95)
Enns claims that Scripture can be fully inspired and yet
“even incorporate their ancient, mistaken,
cosmologies.” However, can Scripture be fully God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17) –
inspired - and yet be mistaken in certain ways? Hardly! Besides, if this were
so, how would we be able to make use of Scripture, not knowing which parts or
aspects are trustworthy? If we don’t know, how then can we stand upon it and
apply it with any confidence to our lives?
In contrast to Enns’ claims, Scripture instructs us to
regard it all as the actual Words of
God:
·
"Do not think that I have come to abolish
the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I
tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter,
not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until
everything is accomplished.” (Matthew
5:17-18)
·
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does
not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of
God.'" (Matthew 4:4)
·
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy
of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For
prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as
they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20-21)
·
The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the
word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah
40:8)
Despite these assertions, theologians have confidently claimed
that not all of Scripture need be trustworthy. Instead, the Holy Spirit can
give us discernment to know what is trustworthy and what isn’t. The late Clark
Pinnock claimed:
·
“What keeps us sound in the faith will not be
our strenuous rationalistic efforts to make the case for the Bible air-tight.
It is the Spirit of God in mighty power moving through the church.”
However, it’s not a question of choosing between the Spirit
and fully trustworthy, God-breathed Scriptures. Thankfully, we don’t have to
make such a choice, since it is both.
However, if we did have to rely exclusively on the Spirit to determine which
verses to trust, several problems arise:
1. We
are often wrong in determining the leading of the Spirit.
2. Well-intentioned
people disagree about His leading. Without a fully trustworthy Bible, there is
no way to settle differences.
3. This
places us in the unfortunate position of ultimate judge. We have to judge what
the Spirit is telling us regarding which verses are trustworthy. Consequently,
instead of Scripture judging us, we place ourselves in role of judging the
Spirit’s guidance and Scripture. Besides, if we have such wisdom, then we don’t
even need Scripture. We can just read the New
York Times.
How do these “Evangelicals” prove that certain aspects of
Scripture are errant? They might point out that certain verses, namely in
Genesis 1 and 2, fail to conform to the theories of mainstream science, namely
evolution. They also might try to demonstrate how the New Testament (NT)
writers have twisted Hebrew Scripture (OT) to conform it to their New Testament
theology.
For instance, Matthew 2:14-15 quotes Hosea to demonstrate
how the life of Jesus fulfilled the prophecy that God would call Him back to Israel from Egypt:
"When Israel
was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” (Hosea
11:1)
However, it seems that Matthew used this verse
wrongly:
1.
Hosea mentions “Israel” and not the Messiah, as
Matthew had indicated.
2.
The surrounding context is all about Israel and not
Messiah.
3.
Hosea writes it as history not prophecy. There is no
indication in this context of the coming Messiah.
Enns therefore writes:
·
It would take a tremendous amount of mental
energy to argue that Matthew is respecting the historical context of Hosea’s
words, that is, there is actually something predictive in Hosea 11. (Inspiration and Incarnation, 133)
Matthew might not have respected the “historical context” of
Hosea, but is this a problem? Is it too much of a stretch to hold that “there
is actually something predictive in Hosea 11?”
Matthew seems to
have taken an interpretation from Hosea’s account that Hosea never intended. For
many critics, this is evidence that, although the NT writers might have been
inspired in some sense, their cultural and human limitations led them to misuse historical and Biblical material
(namely, the OT) but in an inspired manner.
This, of course, is oxymoronic – misusing Scripture in an inspired
manner! Consequently, some critics simply dismiss Scripture and its
trustworthiness in its entirety.
However, there is a better way to explain this phenomenon –
the NT use of OT verses in ways that the OT writers never intended – in a way
that is consistent with divine inspiration.
It is unscriptural to
expect to unlock the totality of the meaning of a verse by merely apprehending the
intent of the human author. This is because the primary author is God
Himself. It is His intent that counts, and it might not coincide with the
intent of the human author! Consequently, the human authors might not have understand
the totality of what they were led to write or even speak.
The Prophet Jeremiah admits as much. God had surprisingly
told him to buy a field which would soon fall into the hands of the Babylonians
(Jer. 32:25). Jeremiah didn’t understand this waste of money. However, God
subsequently explained this oddity to Jeremiah (Jer. 32:36-44).
The
author of Ecclesiastes repeatedly admitted his perplexity about life. God never
explained to Job why He had allowed Job to suffer so. In does not seem that the
Psalmist David was ever given an adequate answer to his question, “Why have you
forsaken me.” Likewise, the prophet Habakkuk remained in perplexity regarding
his question: “How long, O Lord,
must I call for help, but you do not listen?” (Habakkuk 1:2).
Such examples are so common that it hardly is necessary to
mention any more. Obviously, the Prophets – the writers of the OT – didn’t
understand everything that the Lord had instructed them to say, write and
perform. Consequently, the NT interpretation of OT verses shouldn’t be bound by what the original OT writers had intended.
This is because they only had a limited understanding of what they were
writing. Instead, it is obvious that Scripture has far more depth than what the
writer could possibly have conceived. Therefore, we should not be surprised that
the NT has interpreted their verses in ways that the OT writers never intended.
After all, the Prophet was never the primary
author. Instead, it is the God who inspired them.
Nevertheless, the historical context is very important.
However, Scripture acknowledges that there are deeper meanings that transcend the immediate historical context. (However,
we should not assume from this that we
have the liberty to interpret Scripture apart from its Scripture-imposed
limits. We have to let Scripture interpret Scripture. We must not go beyond
what has been written – 1 Cor. 4:6)
The NT confirms that
the Prophets were aware that much of what they were writing was beyond their
understanding:
·
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who
spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the
greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the
Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of
Christ and the glories that would follow. (1 Peter 1:10-11)
The
Prophets knew that what they were writing had been inspired by the Spirit.
Consequently, even they sought to penetrate the depths of what they had written
and proclaimed. However, they couldn’t understand everything embodied by their
writings:
·
It was revealed to them that they were not
serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been
told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent
from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things. (1 Peter 1:12)
Their prophetic writings would not be
understood, even by angels, until later. It is therefore reasonable to assume
that much of what the Prophets hadn’t understood about their own writings had
been later revealed to the writers of the NT:
·
Now to him who is able to establish you by my
gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the
mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the
prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might
believe and obey him. (Romans 16:25-26)
The
“prophetic writings” contained mysteries that were finally revealed by the
Apostles. Therefore, our understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures shouldn’t be
limited to their original historical contexts. Instead, we need to understand
that these Scriptures were multi-layered and contained transcendent truths,
truths that eluded even those who penned them.
God purposely hid certain truths. They
were hidden beyond the historical context but in plain sight:
·
We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among
the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who
are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has
been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the
rulers of this age. understood it, for if they had, they would not have
crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor.
2:6-8)
The
“rulers of this age” had this wisdom, in the form of Scripture, in front of their eyes but did not understand
it. It awaited Apostolic revelation. Similarly, Paul argues that, while Israel had the
Scriptures, they didn’t understand them:
·
But their minds were made dull, for to this day
the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed,
because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a
veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is
taken away. (2 Cor. 3:14-16)
Intelligence alone couldn’t penetrate the
deeper meanings of Scripture. They remained hidden until the veil was removed
by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore
the charge of the critics and the Rabbis – that the NT often fails to respect
the historical context and the intent of the OT writers – lacks sufficient
merit.
Nor is their
insistence that interpretation should not
go beyond the original intent and context, a Biblical insistence. Clearly, there is much that God has kept
hidden from His Prophets (Proverbs 25:2; Deut. 29:29; Psalm 25:14). However,
Hebrew Scripture does reveal much in a hidden manner, in the form of symbols
and shadows, which later would be fully revealed.
His Temple
revealed hidden truths in plain sight. The Temple
curtain separated Israel
from the presence of God. This symbolized the fact that, before Jesus died for
our sins, we could not bear to be in His presence or He in our presence. The
Cherubim spread their wings to obscure the central truth of God’s plan – the
mercy seat covering the Law. Even the high priest was prevented from seeing the
truth of this provision (although it had already been cryptically revealed in
many instances):
·
He [the high priest] is to put the incense on
the fire before the Lord, and the
smoke of the incense will conceal the atonement cover above the
Testimony [Law], so that he will not die. (Leviticus 16:13)
The
“incense,” which also served to “conceal the atonement cover,” symbolized the
fact that the way of mercy had not yet been revealed.
There
is no indication that Moses understood everything that he was writing. If this
is so, then:
- There is much that awaited
subsequent illumination.
- The scholarly insistence
that proper interpretation should not go beyond the historical context and
the intent of the author is misguided and denies the possibility of
further OT illumination.
Instead,
we need to, first of all, understand the intent of Scripture’s heavenly Author. How do we do this?
Primarily from NT revelation! This revelation informs us that God’s truth – His
Gospel – has been revealed in the OT, but in a cryptic form, later revealed in
the NT, apart from the historical context of the OT:
·
In reading this, then, you will be able to
understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to
men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's
holy apostles and prophets. (Ephes.
3:4-5)
The revelation
was made know to the OT Prophets but not with the fullness with which it had
been revealed to the Apostles. Hence, there is much truth in the proverb:
·
The NT is the OT revealed; the OT is the NT
concealed!
Why
then should the critics insist that the NT writers be restricted to what the OT
authors understood and intended? There
is no Scriptural basis for this insistence.
What “mystery” had not been understood? -
“The mystery of Christ!” (Isaiah 49:2; 51:6; 52:10; 53:1-3). Jesus informed
His pharisaical adversaries that their Scriptures were all about Him (John
5:39). He is the fulfillment of all the promises of God (2 Cor. 1:20). He is
the reality behind all of the Hebrew symbols (Col. 2:16-17). Consequently, the
entire law is just a shadow of His presence (Heb. 10:1). Of Him, all the
Prophets bore witness (Acts 3:24; 10:43). Why then shouldn’t the NT illuminate
what it was that cast the shadows?
I had
reacted strongly against Martin Luther’s assertion that, in order to understand
Scripture, we had to perceive Christ in them. Instead, I thought, “How
contrived!” However, this is the very thing that Scripture affirms.
Often,
types, things, or institutions cast a reflection of Messiah. Even a bronze
serpent served as a shadow of the healing of the cross:
·
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert,
so the Son of Man must be lifted up. (John 3:14)
There
are hundreds of such examples that demonstrate a deeper meaning beyond the
historical context. Even people are types of the One to come. Jonah swallowed
by the big fish was a foreshadowing of Christ:
·
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in
the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights
in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)
However,
these many examples transcend the historical OT context and the intent of its
writer. We can therefore ask, “Are NT writers deriving interpretations that the
Hebrew Scriptures never intended? Perhaps Scripture contains only the explicit
superficial meaning?” However, these questions fail to perceive the depths of
meaning embedded within the OT, where we sometimes find history serving as
prophecy. Let’s take an example from the Prophet Zechariah, where the Prophet
is invited to observe the hidden purposes of his God:
·
Then he showed me Joshua the high priest
standing before the Angel of the Lord,
and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him…Now Joshua was clothed with
filthy garments, and was standing before the Angel. Then He answered and spoke
to those who stood before Him, saying, "Take away the filthy garments from
him." And to him He said, "See, I have removed your iniquity from
you, and I will clothe you with rich robes." And I said, "Let them
put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head,
and they put the clothes on him. And the Angel of the Lord stood by…'Hear, O Joshua, the high priest, You and your
companions [other priests] who sit before you, for they are a wondrous sign;
for behold, I am bringing forth My Servant the BRANCH [of David, the Messiah]…And
I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.” (Zech. 3:1-8).
This
example is interesting because it demonstrates, as do so many prophetic
passages, that the Prophet wrote about something that transcended the
historical context, penetrating to a depth beyond a simple inauguration
ceremony for the high priest. It also reveals the Messiah. As the Angel of the
Lord cleansed the high priest Joshua from sin, so too would the BRANCH cleanse Israel.
Did
Zechariah understand everything about which he wrote? Did Moses? Certainly not!
Zechariah’s revelation is even punctuated by his own questions about what God
was showing him! Therefore, there is no adequate reason to limit the
interpretation of what the Prophets wrote to what they understood.
Zechariah
recorded as history what he had seen. However, this history also served as
prophecy - a shadow of the coming Messiah. Perhaps we should also understand
Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 in this manner:
·
So he got up, took the child and his mother
during the night and left for Egypt,
where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord
had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." (Matthew 2:14-15)
The
high priest “Joshua” embodied a double meaning. His cleansing also reflected the cleansing at the
coming of the Messiah. According to Matthew, “my son” also had a double
meaning. In the historical context, it referred to “Israel.” However, the inspired Matthew
was shown through “Israel”
her ultimate Son and Savior, the seed or descendent of Abraham, through whom
all the nations would be blessed.
Is
such an interpretation illegitimate? If the entire NT is the disclosure of the
OT – and it was awaiting disclosure - then it can’t be illegitimate in the way
that Enns suggests.
The
critics want to prove that the Bible is not entirely trustworthy and
God-breathed. They cite the NT’s use of the OT as evidence, claiming that the
NT writers didn’t care about the facts or the context. Instead, it seems that
the NT writers were illuminated by different
facts and a transcendent context.
