Writing About Yourself In The Third Person

Critics of the Bible are often ignorant of ancient (and sometimes modern) literary practices that undermine their analysis of the Bible. For example, people will sometimes object to a document like the gospel of Matthew or the gospel of John on the basis that those documents shouldn't speak of Matthew and John in the third person if those men wrote the documents. But as Richard Bauckham explains:

"All of these passages [in the gospel of John] refer to him, of course, in third-person language. This is in accordance with the best and regular historiographic practice. When ancient historians referred to themselves within their narratives as participating in or observing the events they recount, they commonly referred to themselves in the third person by name, as Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Julius Caesar, or Josephus." (Jesus And The Eyewitnesses [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006], 393)

Years ago, a skeptic told me that the phrase "I, Paul" in some of the Pauline letters was clear evidence that the documents are forgeries. Paul wouldn't have written that way. (See my response to that skeptic here.)

A lot of critics don't make much effort to consult Biblical commentaries or other relevant scholarship. They make judgments based largely on their own ignorant impressions and poor reasoning as they read the Bible or other sources without much assistance. The results are often disastrous.

Pope Francis denies Sola Scriptura, affirms Sola Ecclesia

“The Word of God Precedes and Exceeds the Bible”: Pope Francis on Scripture and the Church

Leonardo De Chirico: http://www.reformation21.org/articles/vatican-files-no-20.php

The first weeks of the new papacy were marked by what seemed new and extraordinary, but now the Popes has begun to do what a Pope in Rome normally does … the Pope highlighted the nature of Scripture and its relationship to the Word of God. The Bible, according to Francis, is “the testimony in written form to the Word of God”. Scripture is not associated with the Word of God on a one-to-one basis, but is rather perceived as a witness to something co-inherent, yet different. Following this comment, the Pope adds that “the Word of God precedes and exceeds the Bible”.

In other words, the Pope does not endorse an identity view between Scripture and the Word but supports a dynamic view of the relationship between the Word of God and the Bible whereby Scripture witnesses to a Word that is before and beyond the Bible. The Word is present in the Bible but not confined to it. The Word is spoken and told by the Bible but the two do not coincide, being that the Bible is only a (partial) witness to the (fuller) Word. According to this view, what the Bible says is what the Word says, but what the Word says is not necessarily what the Bible says.

“Bishop of Rome” Bergoglio. Associated Press photo.

Scripture is Subject to the Church
Once the identity between the Word and the Bible is refused and substituted with the dynamism of a “living” Revelation that exceeds the Bible, there stems the need for an arbiter that is able to recognize the living Word in and beyond the Bible. While Protestant Liberalism submits the Bible to the final judgment of conscience or reason, Roman Catholicism believes that the Magisterium of the Church has ultimate authority over Scripture. This is what Pope Francis believes as well. In quoting Vatican II (which is actually a quotation of Vatican I), he says that “all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God” (Dei Verbum, 12).

Of course, here Francis is recalling the Roman Catholic view that there is a profound unity between Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, to the extent that one cannot be pitted against the other two and vice versa. The critical point here is that the Magisterium represents the only “living” voice of the Word, and its interpretation of Scripture is what really matters and what finally counts. So, instead of letting Scripture speak to the Church and over the Church by the Spirit, the Church is the only authorized voice of the Word which is witnessed in Scripture, and which also extends beyond it. Again, the Pope quotes Vatican II (which in turn quotes the Council of Trent) when he says that “it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence” (Dei Verbum, 9).

There will be other times when Pope Francis will address theological issues to express his views. However, this speech to the Pontifical Biblical Commission is an indication of the fact that the Pope will presumably not bring change to basic doctrinal issues and that he is rather conservative in his Roman Catholic theological outlook. Actually, the emphasis and tone of the speech seem to be willing to draw a [sharper] line between what the Roman Catholic Church believes and the “Scripture Alone” principle of the Protestant faith.

What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur'an – A Review

 Get the book here!

 http://store.aomin.org/what-every-christian-needs-to-know-about-the-quran-book.html

Here is TurretinFan's review:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2013/05/what-every-christian-needs-to-know.html

Grubbiness is next to godliness

There are conservative Bible scholars like Ken Mathews (in his commentary on Genesis) and E. J. Young (in his popular monograph entitled In the Beginning) who consider the depiction of God in Gen 2:7 to be anthropomorphic. In addition, Mathews considers 2:21-22 to be anthropomorphic, as well as 3:8. I have problems with that interpretation:

i) I freely grant that Scripture contains many anthropomorphic depictions of God. However, it’s insufficient to classify a representation as anthropomorphic. You need to be able to say what that stands for. Otherwise, what distinguishes an anthropomorphic depiction from a figurative depiction? If it’s not literal, what really happened? Did anything really happen?

So you can’t just say it’s anthropomorphic and leave it at that. Not, at least, if you adhere to the historicity of the account.

ii) But are the depictions of God in Gen 2-3 anthropomorphic? For one thing, if God actually made Adam and Eve by an act of special creation, how else would the narrator express that idea except by using idiomatic verbs normally employed in human manufacture? That’s the vocabulary he has at his disposal.

iii) In addition, the depictions of God in Gen 2-3 dovetail with Pentateuchal angelology. The Pentateuch contains many angelic apparitions, including the Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is a theanthropic angelophany. Indeed, it’s arguably a Christophany (although the point I’m making in this post doesn’t turn on that identification).

I classify the depictions of God in Gen 2-3, not as anthropomorphisms, but angelophanies. (Theanthropic angelophanies, to be precise.)

In the Pentateuch, angels do rub shoulders with men. Occupy time and space. Interact with their physical surroundings.

iv) Finally, it’s instructive to compare Genesis with the Gospels:

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature (Gen 2:7).

21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man (Gen 2:21-22).

And taking him aside from the crowd privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and after spitting touched his tongue (Mk 7:33).

And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” (Mk 8:23).

Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man's eyes with the mud (Jn 9:6).

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:22).

Seems to me that Jesus has a modus operandi that’s very reminiscent of God in Gen 2. Jesus isn’t afraid to get dirt under his fingernails. If Jesus doesn’t mind getting grubby, up-close-and-personal, when he performs a miracle, why assume God’s method is different in Gen 2?

The Historical Roots Of The Gospel Canon

One of the best books I've read on the historical origins of the four-gospel canon is C.E. Hill's Who Chose The Gospels? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). I want to quote some portions of it, though what I'm about to quote only represents a small portion of the evidence Hill discusses:

Historical Adam discussion

http://blogs.bible.org/bock/darrell_l._bock/historical_adam_discussion

Fiat lux

Nowadays, the interpretation of Gen 1 is often conducted with a view to modern science. Unbelievers attack Genesis as unscientific while believers defend Genesis.

Although it’s important for believers to defend Genesis, when the interpretation of Genesis is framed in terms of how Gen 1 relates to modern science, there’s a danger of shifting attention away from the primary interests of the narrator. Certainly the original audience wasn’t concerned with modern scientific questions. So at least some of the time we need to bracket the scientific controversy and try to approach the text from the historic vantagepoint of the original audience. What did this mean to them? What stood out for them?

For instance, Gen 1 lays great emphasis on the light/dark, day/night motif. For a reader who lived in preelectric times, what was the significance of light and dark, day and night?

i) Darkness evokes fear and apprehension. For one thing, there were dangerous nocturnal predators (e.g. Ps 104:20-22).

ii) Likewise, you could get lost in the dark. That might easily happen to those who had to travel on foot (e.g. Jn 12:35).

iii) Conversely, the major sources of light were sunlight and firelight. In that respect there’s probably an intertextual connection between sunlight and agriculture (Gen 1:14; 8:22). Sunlight was necessary for farming, and farming was necessary for food and wine. Keep in mind that wine was often substitute for water in a dry climate.

iv) The Pentateuch also describes certain types of sacred fire, light, or firelight. There’s the Shekinah, the burning bush, the pillar of fire, the perpetual flame (for burnt offerings), and divine lightning that consumes offerings. These reflect the presence of God or the revelation of God. The accent on light in Gen 1 sets the stage for these examples. 

v) In the ancient world, certain celestial phenomena were interpreted as omens (signs, portents, prodigies).

Lanier theology library

Several lectures on Christian topics by notable scholars here.

Johannine asides

Liberals think the Gospel of John is pious fiction. Lofty theology detached from real history. I’m going to test this theory against some statements in the Fourth Gospel.

22 On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. 23 Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.

25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” (Jn 6:22-25).

This is a cumbersome explanation–made more so by the parenthetical comment about the other boats. The reader already knows from earlier in the narrative how Jesus got across, but the crowd does not. It happened at night. They didn’t see it.

So we have this explanation about the source of their confusion. They know that Jesus didn’t take the same boat as the disciples. That much they saw. And that boat is gone. Until the other boats arrive, that’s it.

In addition, John pedantically distinguishes between the boat the disciples used and the other boats.

If John is writing pious fiction, why this unnecessary complication? Why this interlude? Why not have the crowd witness Jesus walk across the lake–either in broad daylight or under a full moon? Wouldn’t that be impressive?

Instead, the reader is treated to the kind of fastidious explanation you’d expect from a narrator who was there and went to great pains to sort out who did what, when, and where.

After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him. 2 Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was at hand. 3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. 4 For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For not even his brothers believed in him. 6 Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee.

10 But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private (Jn 7:1-10).

Commentators struggle over the discrepancy between what Jesus said and what he did. Did Jesus change his mind? Did Jesus lie to his stepbrothers?

The correct interpretation isn’t my immediate concern. I’d like to make a different point. If John was writing pious fiction, why would he interject this conspicuous aboutface into the story? He could smooth everything out with the stroke of a pen.

21 So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” 22 Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus Jn 12:21-22).

What a convoluted description! The Greeks come to Philip. The narrator throws in the extraneous detail about Philip’s address. After then talk to him, he–in turn–talks to Andrew. Then Philip and Andrew relay what the Greeks said to Jesus.

If John was writing pious fiction, why such a roundabout process? This only makes sense of that’s the way it actually happened.

2 In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? (Jn 14:2).

Commentators puzzle over the fact that there’s no record of Jesus telling them that beforehand. They sometimes try to solve the problem by ingenious punctuation.

Of course, Jesus undoubtedly said many things to the disciples that went unrecorded. So that omission is not surprising.

But if John was writing pious fiction, wouldn’t we expect him to include that in the backstory? Why write fiction, then refer the read back to something he didn’t write?

These are just a few examples. The Fourth Gospel has lots of editorial asides like these.

John’s practice reminds me of a family reunion where the oldest relative sets the record straight. A younger relative begins to relate a bit of family lore, then the older relative jumps in to correct him.

John writes like an eyewitness who “sees” these events in his retentive memory–as if they happened yesterday–and painstakingly records what he saw and heard, complete with parenthetical comments to forestall any confusion on the part of those who weren’t there.

Questions To Ask Advocates Of Homosexual Marriage (Part 3)

(Part 1 of this series can be found here. Part 2 is here.)

Since all heterosexual marriages promote unity between the sexes in a way that's beneficial to society, don't we have reason to give all heterosexual marriages preferential treatment (including couples who are infertile, for example)? Notice that it's not just a matter of the unity of individuals, but also unity of the sexes. Homosexual marriage could be said to promote the unity of individuals, but heterosexual marriage has the added benefit of promoting unity between the sexes. The differences between the sexes and the complementarity involved in their union are of significant interest to a society. Even if somebody were to argue that homosexual marriage benefits society in other ways, the fact would remain that the benefits coming from the two relationships are different. Heterosexual marriage already exists, has existed for thousands of years, and involves a far larger number of people. Thus, if either relationship should be expected to accommodate the other, it ought to be homosexuality accommodating heterosexuality. The heterosexual relationship has traditionally been identified as marriage. Don't categorize the homosexual relationship in the same manner. Call it something else, and treat it differently. It is different.

The Abject Failure of the (Unique) 'Humean' Objection to Theological Determinism

http://shadflyofathens.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/the-abject-failure-of-the-humean-objection/

Is Apologetics a Failure?

Gregory Koukl is both exceptionally insightful, and exceptionally concise in this video.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/05/is-apologetics-a-failure-video.html





“I don’t think it’s the goal of apologetics to win the culture. I think it’s the goal of apologetics to win people, and once you win people, then you disciple them, and once you disciple them, in the process of their growing in Christ, then they have an impact in the culture.”

“We have success stories all over the place, we just have to do more of it.”

Questions To Ask Advocates Of Homosexual Marriage (Part 2)

(Part 1 of this series can be found here.)

If you make your son go to bed at 8 P.M. when he's a five-year-old, but you let him stay up later when he's fifteen, are you an inconsistent hypocrite? Advocates of homosexual marriage often accuse their opponents of being inconsistent and hypocritical. For instance, why do you want to base our nation's public policy on Biblical prohibitions of homosexuality, but you don't want us to have laws based on something like the dietary rules found in the Pentateuch? Or if you think the government has reason to give preferential treatment to the heterosexual relationship, because that relationship can biologically produce children, then why don't you outlaw marriage between infertile heterosexuals? Aren't opponents of homosexual marriage being inconsistent and hypocritical?

Questions To Ask Advocates Of Homosexual Marriage (Part 1)

Not all of these questions will be relevant to every advocate of homosexual marriage, since different individuals use different arguments. And you may think of some better questions than mine. But these questions are quick, easy ways to redirect conversations and get people to rethink their position on the issue. Depending on who you're interacting with, you may have to go into more depth.

Did Matthew Write The Gospel Attributed To Him?

This is a typical way of downplaying the significance of Matthew's gospel:

"We do not know the name of its author: the title found in our English versions ('The Gospel according to Matthew') was added long after the document's original composition. It is true that according to an old tradition the author was none other than Matthew, the tax collector mentioned in Matt 9:9. This tradition, however, arose some decades after the Gospel itself had been published, and scholars today have reasons to doubt its accuracy. For one thing, the author never identifies himself as Matthew, either in 9:9 or anywhere else. Also, certain features of this Gospel make it difficult to believe that this Matthew could have been the author. Why, for example, would someone who had spent so much time with Jesus rely on another author (Mark) for nearly two-thirds of his stories, often repeating them word for word (including the story of his own call to discipleship; 9:9-13)? And why would he never authenticate his account by indicating that he himself had seen these things take place?…Since he produced his Gospel in Greek, presumably for a Greek-speaking community, he was probably located somewhere outside Palestine…Matthew, an anonymous Jewish leader of the Christian community (assuming that his strong literary skills, indicative of a higher education, gave him a place of prominence there), penned a Gospel narrative to show that Jesus was in fact the Jewish messiah, who like Moses gave the law of God to his people." (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012], 114-115, 132)

As The Church Drifts To Sleep

Earlier this month, I wrote a post about the intellectual negligence of Christians and many of their allies, such as political conservatives. A recent thread on homosexual marriage at Kevin DeYoung's blog, found here, is an example of what I was referring to. Notice the disproportionately high level of participation by defenders of homosexual marriage. Notice how few people, at a popular conservative Evangelical blog, have been speaking up in defense of the Christian position on the issue. Notice how many of the claims made by the pro-homosexual-marriage side go unanswered. Notice how many good arguments against their position, good arguments we've brought up at this blog many times, go unmentioned. Some of the Christian participants make good points, but the Christian side of the exchange falls well short of what it ought to be. The arguments of the pro-homosexual-marriage side can and should be answered persuasively and by a large number of people, given that the discussion is occurring at a popular conservative Evangelical blog. Yet, that hasn't happened so far. And the same sort of scenario has played out in other places many times, in many contexts. It happens frequently at Christian web sites, at conservative political web sites, on television programs, etc.

I'm glad that a tiny minority of Christians do study issues like homosexual marriage in significant depth and provide good arguments for the Christian position. And that tiny minority receives support from other Christians to some extent. In that sense, I wouldn't say that the church is asleep on this issue. But given the astonishingly small percentage of Christians who do the sort of work that ought to be done on the issue, it seems accurate to say that the church is drifting to sleep, even if we aren't asleep yet. The culture is rapidly declining around us, and we're still so apathetic.

The same is occurring with a lot of other issues, not just homosexual marriage. As I said in my post earlier this month, we need to adapt to the changes that are occurring. We're not living in an equivalent of the 1950s or 1980s. There's been a significant societal shift, and the vast majority of Christians, as well as many of their allies in some contexts, aren't acting like it. Quoting Bible verses, telling people that your view of something like homosexual marriage is "just obvious", etc. isn't enough.

I also wonder what's going on in the lives of Christian men. Why aren't they showing leadership? Where's their desire to fight? When they see something like that thread at Kevin DeYoung's blog, why don't they have a stronger desire to argue for the truth and defend it against counterarguments? Even if some of them are occupied with other worthwhile things, surely (for reasons like the ones I discussed earlier this month) that can't be said of everybody who's remaining silent in these contexts. There's something radically wrong with the church, especially men, when so many people are so silent so often, with so much at stake.

Church v. parachurch

I’m going to comment on this post:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/05/church-vs-parachurch_14.html

But here's the problem. Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her (Eph. 5:25). Not the parachurch.

In what sense does Dan think Christ died for “the church”? In his post he seems to differentiate a church from a parachurch in terms of polity. So is he saying Christ died for church office? Did Christ die for eldership? Is that Paul’s point in 5:25?

Isn’t 5:25 just a variation on 5:2: “And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.”

According to 5:2, isn’t it equally true to say that Christ died for Christian members of parachurches?

Christ is the Head of the church (Eph. 5:23), not of the parachurch.

Is 5:23 an antithetical statement? Does it mean Christ is the head of the church to the exclusion of other spheres of dominical headship?

But in 1:20-22, doesn’t Paul teach the universal headship of Christ? Christ’s headship of the church is a special case of his general headship over all things. So don’t parachurches come under the universal headship of Christ?

 He gave pastors and teachers for the equipping of saints for the work of service (Eph. 4:11).

Actually, 4:11 says “he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers.”

As a cessationist, Dan has to skip over “prophets.” Does Dan think a local church has to have prophets, as well as pastors and teachers, to be a real church?

What about evangelists? On the one hand, many “churches” have pastors, but no evangelists–while many parachurches have evangelists, but no pastors. So, according to 4:11, which counts as a church?

Likewise, many parachurches have Christian “teachers.” So does that make them churchly?

The church is created for, founded upon, and united in, its allegiance to the person of Christ who exercises His headship through the specific truths of God's Word (Jn. 8:31-32; 17:17, 21, 23; Eph. 4:4-5). The task of enlisting and cultivating students of Christ has been entrusted to it (Matt. 28:18-20).

Except that Mt 28:18-20 doesn’t say anything about “the church.” So why assign or confine those tasks to “the church”?

Let me rephrase that last thought as a question, and come at it from a different angle. Do you feel the need for instruction, for equipping for service? Do you see how much more there is to learn of Christ, of His person and work, of His will for your life? Are you boggled by the maze of differing and competing views, and longing for guidance and guarding amidst them? Christ already thought of all that, and more. He already made provision for those needs (Eph. 4:7ff.). The provision He made is men who are pastors and teachers, His personal ascension-gifts to His church.

But that’s selective. Eph 4:11 isn’t confined to pastors and teachers. In addition, we have a more extensive list in 1 Cor 12:4-11,28. So is Dan saying every local church, to be a real church, must have each category represented?

Likewise, consider Paul’s greetings to leaders of Roman house-churches (Rom 16). Paul greets 9 women (as well as 17 men). But I doubt that Dan classifies the women were elders or church officers. Were these house-churches not true churches unless they had pastors? Do we even know if all 7 or 8 house-churches in Rome had pastors?

BTW, I’ve discussed Heb 13:7,17 elsewhere.

So where do parachurch personnel come in? Well, that's the problem. Their leaders may or may not be (or be qualified to be) pastors.

And what if their leaders are pastors, or qualified to be pastors? Does that make them churches according to Dan’s criteria?

Can anyone see a parachurch organization in the NT?

I guess that depends, in part, on how we define a “church.” Does Dan think all these gifts must be exercised under the same roof to be a church?

If, by contrast, the “church” consists of variously gifted individuals, then shouldn’t we define the church distributively? Whenever or wherever gifted individuals exercise their spiritual gifts, they are doing the work of the church. The church is wherever gifted individuals happen to be exercising their spiritual gifts.

Isn’t that a logical take on Ephesians, which is referring to the universal church rather than the local church? The universal church must have all these categories represented–not every local church or Christian organization.

It looks as though Dan began with his desired conclusion, then cast about for prooftexts–instead of letting his conclusion arise from the prooftexts.

Those deleted tweets

Tony Reinke has written a post wherein John Piper explains his tweets.

Catholicism gone catholic

According to Il Papa:

[Pope Francis] told the story of a Catholic who asked a priest if even atheists had been redeemed by Jesus.

"Even them, everyone," the pope answered, according to Vatican Radio. "We all have the duty to do good," he said.

"Just do good, and we'll find a meeting point," the pope said in a hypothetical reply to the hypothetical comment...

Of course, if Jesus has "redeemed" "everyone" including atheists, then why is doing good a "duty"? Why bother to do good?

Or are we all redeemed, but some are more redeemed than others?

If so, then I suppose one can do good to merit a bigger mansion in heaven. Or a place closer to the throne of God.

Okay, but still, what's wrong with the atheist who says, "Well, if it's all the same to you, I'd rather enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin in this world, and have a lower place in heaven, thankyouverymuch"?

Caught in the cosmic machinery

http://dougwils.com/s16-theology/rachel-held-evans-denies-the-cat.html