Why are three of the New Testament Gospels so similar? This seems suspicious to the modern reader. Whatever they are, they are not mere slavishly-produced copies. Each uses its own words to describe the same incidents. This is especially clear in the Greek. Also, there are incidents in any one of the three that are not in the other two. There are also incidents found in any combination of two gospels that are not found in the other. There are also descriptions of incidents, particularly in Luke, that are so different from the others that they argue for an independent source and perhaps even for different but similar incidents (Luke 4:16-30; 5:1-11; 7:36-50). (For comparison, see Matthew 13:53-58; 4:18-22; 26:6-13.) The logical conclusion is that each of the gospel writers chose those particular things he wanted to include out of the information he had. While there may be cases where some writer knew information the others did not have, I would not conclude that every incident left out proves the author's ignorance of it.
There are also cases where the same or a similar saying is spoken in different contexts in different gospels. This is not surprising since, as anyone who as listened to a speaker over a long period of time knows, there is a tendency for speakers to repeat the same statements and illustrations. This is not only a characteristic of a bad speaker, but a good speaker. Repetition is one way to firmly plant an idea in a hearer's mind. But writing is a different medium, and a writer would want to reduce such things to a minimum. Nor does it make sense to believe that the sayings of Jesus were lost and later recovered. If there is anything we remember about famous people, it is generally their sayings. If Mark left them out, it was because he not did see Jesus as mainly a moral philosopher, but the Son of God who came to pay the ransom for sin (Mark 10:45).
Why then the repetition? It was common in the ancient world for writers to have the idea they should repeat the record as they heard it. (See the similarities between Samuel and Kings, and Chronicles.) Or if you look at the Roman historians you will see the same tendency. They valued consistency over originality. But even today, if you read a number of biographies of the same person, there is a tendency to find an accepted way that person's story is told; the same sayings and incidents tend to crop up. I suspect that there grew up early a standard way to tell the story of Jesus. I also suspect that in that time, when books were scarce, this record was normally memorized. When the writers wrote the gospels they used this standard narrative, taking from it those parts that fit their purpose. John, which was probably the last written, emphasized things not already found in the other gospels. But I see no reason to believe they simply copied from one another.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Supernatural
Do we as Christians really believe in the supernatural? This seems a silly question; of course we do. We believe that God became a Man, was born of a virgin, worked miracles, died on a cross to pay the price for our sins, and rose again the third day. Certainly we believe in the supernatural. But do we believe in the supernatural today, in our lives and in our churches? My purpose here is not to become entangled in the complicated question of spiritual gifts, though I believe it is relevant. Rather I want to ask, on a more general basis, do we really believe God is supernaturally at work in us? Francis Schaeffer asked, if God were to come mysteriously in the night and remove every reference from the Bible to the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of prayer, would we live our lives any differently?
Now the Scripture says that the supernatural power of God is at work in our lives to transform us (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Ephesians 2:10). It also says that His power is at work through us to accomplish His purposes in the world (1 Corinthians 3:6,7; 2 Corinthians 3:5,6; Colossians 1:29) and that we will be victorious (Romans 8:37; 2 Corinthians 2:14; 1 John 5:4,5). That does not mean God will miraculously take away every problem; often God brings us through problems (John 16:33; 2 Corinthians 12:9,10; Romans 8:18). There is no condition given for these promises, though God does call us to respond in obedience (Romans 12:1,2; Titus 2:11-14; Galatians 5:16). But the conclusion is that we should trust in God to accomplish His goals in our lives (Psalms 127:1,2; Proverbs 3:5,6; Romans 8:28).
If this is so, why do we so often trust in our plans, our methods, and our cleverness to accomplish God's will in the world. We trust in our organizations, our programs, our techniques, and our showmanship to impact those around us. We are like the Israelites of old, who trust in our horses and chariots rather than God (Isaiah 31:1). Now do not get me wrong; I am not against planning or doing things well (Galatians 6:9,10; Colossians 3:23,24: Romans 12:11). But I am asking the question, what are we trusting in? And if we are trusting in God's power, it will put what we do into perspective. It will not discourage diligence and hard work. But it will lead us away from gimmicks, manipulation, and self-aggrandizement. It also works against discouragement, despair, and acting out of desperation. For it puts in focus who we are really serving and where the power comes from.
Now the Scripture says that the supernatural power of God is at work in our lives to transform us (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Ephesians 2:10). It also says that His power is at work through us to accomplish His purposes in the world (1 Corinthians 3:6,7; 2 Corinthians 3:5,6; Colossians 1:29) and that we will be victorious (Romans 8:37; 2 Corinthians 2:14; 1 John 5:4,5). That does not mean God will miraculously take away every problem; often God brings us through problems (John 16:33; 2 Corinthians 12:9,10; Romans 8:18). There is no condition given for these promises, though God does call us to respond in obedience (Romans 12:1,2; Titus 2:11-14; Galatians 5:16). But the conclusion is that we should trust in God to accomplish His goals in our lives (Psalms 127:1,2; Proverbs 3:5,6; Romans 8:28).
If this is so, why do we so often trust in our plans, our methods, and our cleverness to accomplish God's will in the world. We trust in our organizations, our programs, our techniques, and our showmanship to impact those around us. We are like the Israelites of old, who trust in our horses and chariots rather than God (Isaiah 31:1). Now do not get me wrong; I am not against planning or doing things well (Galatians 6:9,10; Colossians 3:23,24: Romans 12:11). But I am asking the question, what are we trusting in? And if we are trusting in God's power, it will put what we do into perspective. It will not discourage diligence and hard work. But it will lead us away from gimmicks, manipulation, and self-aggrandizement. It also works against discouragement, despair, and acting out of desperation. For it puts in focus who we are really serving and where the power comes from.
Monday, June 27, 2011
A Touch of Humor - The Excuse
Playing around with sin to see how close we can get without getting hurt is a dangerous thing. Do you agree with this? Have you found it to be true in your own life or the lives of others?
Friday, June 24, 2011
A Voice from the Past - John Calvin
First, then, when they inquire into predestination, let them remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the divine wisdom, where he who rushes forward securely and confidently, instead of satisfying his curiosity, will enter an inextricable labyrinth. For it is not right that man should with impunity pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within himself, and scan that sublime eternal wisdom which it is his pleasure that we should not apprehend but adore, that therein also his perfections may appear. Those secrets of his will, which he has seen it meet to manifest, are revealed in his word — revealed in so far as he knew to be conducive to our interest and welfare.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion,1559, Vol. 3, Chapter 21, Section 1 (trans. by Henry Beveridge, p.1027; Sage Software, 1996 )
What do you think of this quote? What things might it pertain to?
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion,1559, Vol. 3, Chapter 21, Section 1 (trans. by Henry Beveridge, p.1027; Sage Software, 1996 )
What do you think of this quote? What things might it pertain to?
Thursday, June 23, 2011
The Turn-Around
What is real conversion? Some Christian churches require a definite conversion experience, and others do not. What is the Scriptural position? There are in Scripture definite conversion experiences, like those of the Apostle Paul (Acts 9:1-19). But if we look at the original eleven apostles, it is hard to pin down a definite point of conversion. The emphasis in Scripture is on having faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8,9; Romans 4:4,5; Galatians 3:23-26), not on the process by which we come to have faith. Now Scripture does warn us of the possibility that there are those who have the appearance of being genuine believers but are not (Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 John 2:19). But the basic issue is whether a person has real faith in Christ and His death and resurrection (Romans 3:21-25; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11; 1 Peter 1:18-21), apart from anything they can do to earn it (Titus 3:5,6; Romans 11:6; Galatians 2:21). Now there is a danger of a person having grown up in a Christian church and knowing all the facts and having gone through all the motions, and lacking real faith. But there is also the danger of someone having an emotional experience or simply walking an aisle or saying a prayer, and not having genuine faith.
I would therefore conclude that the question to ask is: does a person right now have faith in Christ alone for salvation, apart from any good works they can do? From this arises certain problems. There are those who hold that once a person puts their faith in Christ, they cannot lose their salvation even if they later lose their faith (John 10:27-30; 1 John 5:11-13; Romans 8:29-30). Now I would agree that a genuinely saved person cannot lose their salvation, but I would also claim that this faith is a gift of God, who will preserve it in the heart (Acts 13:48; John 1:12,13; 6:44,45). But even if you would hold there is such a thing as a saved person with no faith, they are in a very dangerous spiritual condition and need to be recalled from it. There is also the question of infant baptism. Now I do not believe there is a clear basis in the New Testament for baptizing infants. But while there are different understandings of infant baptism, it is my impression that most would be uncomfortable with saying that someone who had been baptized as an infant but currently was without faith was a saved individual. And even if they were, they would be like the person previously mentioned, in a deeply backslidden condition, and should be urged to repent. Therefore, leaving aside the marginal cases, the conclusion I would draw is that the issue is a person's current faith. Some may have stories of sudden violent conversions; others may experience a gradual change, without being able to point to a definite point of conversion. But the important thing is the destination, not the journey we have taken to get there.
I would therefore conclude that the question to ask is: does a person right now have faith in Christ alone for salvation, apart from any good works they can do? From this arises certain problems. There are those who hold that once a person puts their faith in Christ, they cannot lose their salvation even if they later lose their faith (John 10:27-30; 1 John 5:11-13; Romans 8:29-30). Now I would agree that a genuinely saved person cannot lose their salvation, but I would also claim that this faith is a gift of God, who will preserve it in the heart (Acts 13:48; John 1:12,13; 6:44,45). But even if you would hold there is such a thing as a saved person with no faith, they are in a very dangerous spiritual condition and need to be recalled from it. There is also the question of infant baptism. Now I do not believe there is a clear basis in the New Testament for baptizing infants. But while there are different understandings of infant baptism, it is my impression that most would be uncomfortable with saying that someone who had been baptized as an infant but currently was without faith was a saved individual. And even if they were, they would be like the person previously mentioned, in a deeply backslidden condition, and should be urged to repent. Therefore, leaving aside the marginal cases, the conclusion I would draw is that the issue is a person's current faith. Some may have stories of sudden violent conversions; others may experience a gradual change, without being able to point to a definite point of conversion. But the important thing is the destination, not the journey we have taken to get there.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Is Scripture Full of Contradictions?
"The Bible is full of contradictions." This is a statement often taken for granted, even by those who are not quite sure what the "contradictions" are. But I would be dishonest to deny that there are problems. This is not surprising, given that many people have put considerable effort into looking for such problems. How, then, are those of us who believe the Bible is the Word of God to respond to such problems? Now it is beyond the scope of this post to deal with the systematic issues, such as creation versus evolution and whether science disproves miracles, though I have written of them elsewhere. Rather, I would like to deal with the incidental problems that, for many, seem more important than the real, basic conflicts.
Now it is not surprising, in an ancient book, where the cultural and historical background is imperfectly understood, where our knowledge of the language is limited, and where there has been a certain, though minor degree of textual corruption, that there would be problems. We live in a world under sin and a curse, where all things suffer from corruption. While I believe that God has overridden this to a large degree to preserve the substance of His Word (the preservation of the Bible is incredible, compared to books of any similar date), He is not willing to override the principle entirely.
It must also be remembered that many of the problems have solved by further information about the background history. Take, for instance, the King Belshazzar of Daniel 5, who was thought fictitious until he was found in Babylonian records. Others are resolved by a fuller understanding of Christian theology. Take, for instance, the conflict between 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, which is easily resolved based on Job 1 and 2. Many others have good answers. And while there still difficulties, they need to be looked at in view of what has been answered.
But the bottom line is that while I do think that Christians need to address these issues (though to address them all in detail is beyond the scope of a post of any reasonable size), we need to ask if we really want to base our philosophy of life one way or the other on such things. Should we not start by addressing the areas of substance, rather than incidental matters? The individual who, based on broader principles, concludes that the Bible is the Word of God will often not be impressed by such minor difficulties and will be willing to trust God for the answers to them, even if they cannot easily see what they are. The individual who has rejected the Bible based on broader principles will often see the smallest difficulty as inexplicable and will reject all attempts at explanation. Perhaps we should start by dealing with the basic issues, and from our conclusion on those, the details would be put in perspective.
Now it is not surprising, in an ancient book, where the cultural and historical background is imperfectly understood, where our knowledge of the language is limited, and where there has been a certain, though minor degree of textual corruption, that there would be problems. We live in a world under sin and a curse, where all things suffer from corruption. While I believe that God has overridden this to a large degree to preserve the substance of His Word (the preservation of the Bible is incredible, compared to books of any similar date), He is not willing to override the principle entirely.
It must also be remembered that many of the problems have solved by further information about the background history. Take, for instance, the King Belshazzar of Daniel 5, who was thought fictitious until he was found in Babylonian records. Others are resolved by a fuller understanding of Christian theology. Take, for instance, the conflict between 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, which is easily resolved based on Job 1 and 2. Many others have good answers. And while there still difficulties, they need to be looked at in view of what has been answered.
But the bottom line is that while I do think that Christians need to address these issues (though to address them all in detail is beyond the scope of a post of any reasonable size), we need to ask if we really want to base our philosophy of life one way or the other on such things. Should we not start by addressing the areas of substance, rather than incidental matters? The individual who, based on broader principles, concludes that the Bible is the Word of God will often not be impressed by such minor difficulties and will be willing to trust God for the answers to them, even if they cannot easily see what they are. The individual who has rejected the Bible based on broader principles will often see the smallest difficulty as inexplicable and will reject all attempts at explanation. Perhaps we should start by dealing with the basic issues, and from our conclusion on those, the details would be put in perspective.
Monday, June 20, 2011
A Touch of Humor - Priories
Are there times we want to reject what God is doing in our lives because it seems to deprive us of something we want? Do you know of any examples of this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





