2 -99-184.pdf

98 EDGAR R. LEE well as the other sermons of Acts (3:12-26; 4:8-12; 7:1-53; 10:34-43; 13:16-41; 17:22-31; et al.). Its content is further fleshed out in the letters of the New Testament, the messages of which would by and large have been preached and taught in the early churches before being commi...

98 EDGAR R. LEE well as the other sermons of Acts (3:12-26; 4:8-12; 7:1-53; 10:34-43; 13:16-41; 17:22-31; et al.). Its content is further fleshed out in the letters of the New Testament, the messages of which would by and large have been preached and taught in the early churches before being committed to writing.13 In missionary and evangelistic settings, the message of the cross and forgiveness of sins seem to have been paramount. In communicating to believers, doctrinal and ethical issues were regularly addressed. For the apostles, “[the ministry of] the word of God” (Acts 4:31; 6:2) was the focal point of their activity and they, like Paul, all understood that their “message and…preaching” came “with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power” (1 Corinthians 2:4). Throughout the New Testament, the word of God preached by the early Christians remains a selfrevealing message from God to humans, whom He wishes to bring into relationship with himself. Reminiscent of the Old Testament dabar, it is “living and enduring” (1 Peter 1:23), “living and active” (Hebrews 4:12), “at work in [those] who believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13), and “the sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:17). With regard to the Spirit-filled believer’s activities, it is to be spoken “boldly” (Acts 4:31) and “more courageously and fearlessly” (Philippians 1:14). It is not to be distorted but set forth plainly (2 Corinthians 4:2). It is to be “correctly” handled (2 Timothy 2:15), presented “in its fullness” (Colossians 1:25), proclaimed (Acts 13:5), and taught (18:11). It is not to be peddled for profit (2 Corinthians 2:17). Acceptance of the word means conversion to Christ (Acts 8:14; 11:1) and as preaching elicits conversions, the word of God spreads (Acts 6:7). The emphasis throughout is upon a spoken word infused with the INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION power and presence of God as Jesus had promised, “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). A GOD-BREATHED BOOK Both the Old Testament community, and the New Testament community after it, associated the word of God with a book. From the time of Moses onward, the word began to be written down, or “inscripturated” (Exodus 17:14; 24:4,7; 34:27; Numbers 33:1,2; Deuteronomy 31:9,11, et al.).14 It is not surprising that before Paul charged Timothy to “preach the Word” (2 Timothy 4:2), he first pointed him to the Scriptures: “All Scripture [graphe]15 is Godbreathed [theopneustos—theos (God) + pneo (to breathe)]16 and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Note the paradoxical connection—that which is “Godbreathed” can also be written down and communicated in and through a book. The “Scriptures” in this context would have referred to the Old Testament, which Paul and Timothy, with his Jewish maternal heritage (2 Timothy 1:5; Acts 16:1), had in common. Very quickly, however, the Early Church expanded its understanding of the Scriptures to include the New Testament writings we now regard as canonical.17 Certainly by the time 2 Peter was written, Paul’s letters were regarded by the church to be among the Scriptures: “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures [graphas]” 99 100 EDGAR R. LEE (2 Peter 3:15,16). The very position in the canon of Paul’s statement about the nature of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 has been taken to be providential and the church has come to understand it to apply to the entire canon.18 In any event, it is obvious that the written texts of the New Testament letters became more and more important in the spread of the young church (cf. Colossians 4:16). But our primary focus here is on the God-breathed [theopneustos] quality of Scripture. Addressing theopneustos, B. B. Warfield pointed out long ago that the Scriptures are “the product of the creative breath of God” and “[t]he ‘breath of God’ is in Scripture just the symbol of His almighty power, the bearer of His creative word.” Warfield went on to cite Psalm 33:6, “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.”19 While Warfield attempted to build a strong lexical case to restrict the effect of theopneustos to the origin of Scripture and strongly rejected Hermann Cremer’s lexical “reinterpretation” of the term to mean “breathing God’s Spirit,”20 it nonetheless remains true that the Spirit is frequently seen as speaking or empowering the words of Scripture. Jesus prefaced one Scripture quotation with the assertion, “David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared…” (Mark 12:36; cf. Matthew 22:43). In citing Isaiah, Paul said, “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers…” (Acts 28:25). The writer to the Hebrews wrote, “The word of God is living and active” (4:12) and regarded it not only as what God says (1:5,8,12,13; 4:3; et al.) but also what “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Rather than being merely a deposit of propositional truth about God and eternal life that people may rational- INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION ly examine as they would any other book, and choose to believe or not believe, “Scripture as theopneustos…[is] ‘alive with the vitality of God, which He, himself, breathed into it when He created it.’”21 “[I]t is penetrated and filled with the Holy Spirit. It is God-breathed, and the creative breath of God remains in and with Scripture.”22 “The theopneustia of Scripture is not a passive characteristic of Scripture but rather a vital saving activity.”23 Without any implications of magic, Paul was saying to Timothy through the breath metaphor that the Bible was produced and continues to be energized by the presence and activity of God. It continues to express the mind of God and brings the power of God to the believing heart. Just as in the dabar YHWH in the Old Testament, God is both the originator and the continuing force in its ultimate victory and fulfillment. Peter captures something of this vitality of Scripture when He writes, “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [pheromenoi] by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). The verb phero means literally “to bear” or “to bring” but was occasionally used of the force of the wind on the sails of an ancient vessel driving it across the sea.24 The Holy Spirit is the divine agent who breathes out these divine words expressed in the human words of the unique and varied persons God chose and prepared to use. It is the Spirit who oversees both the inscripturation of these words into our Bible and their continuing relevance to searching hearts. JESUS AND THE SCRIPTURES The apostolic regard for Scripture simply follows that of Jesus, who demonstrated complete trust in its author- 101 102 EDGAR R. LEE ity and reliability. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus affirmed without hesitation the perpetual accuracy and dependability of God’s Word: “‘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 5:18). As has often been noted, Jesus made His point by apparently referring to the Hebrew yodh [ y ], the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and possibly the little horn, or projection characteristic of certain Hebrew letters, as beth [ b ] or daleth [ d ].25 Not one yodh or one “horn” (or brush stroke) of the Hebrew letters conveying the Law of God will disappear before it is all fulfilled (and the kingdom of God has come). Jesus went on to emphasize in no uncertain terms the responsibility of His disciples to believe and practice the Scriptures by sounding a negative judgment upon those who do not: “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). To disregard and break even the least of the commandments, and to teach others to do so, jeopardized one’s kingdom status. What appears, at first glance, to be almost an incidental saying in the Gospel of John further enhances Jesus’ absolute confidence in Scripture that was noted in Matthew: “‘If he called them “gods,” to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken…’” (John 10:35). In this case, Jesus hung His whole argument on the one word “gods” in the Hebrew text of Psalm 82:6, which most might consider a very obscure passage of Scripture. Then, with regard to the truthfulness and reliability of that word, He immedi- INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION ately went on to state, “The Scripture cannot be broken.” Leon Morris comments, “The term ‘broken’ [luo] is not defined, and it is a word which is not often used of Scripture or the like (though it is so used in John 7:23 and cf. 5:18; Matt. 5:19). But it is perfectly intelligible. It means that Scripture cannot be emptied of its force by being shown to be erroneous.”26 That kind of confidence in Scripture was something Jesus and His Jewish adversaries held in common. What is significant here is that Jesus not only considered the Scriptures to be the Word of God, He considered them accurate and unassailable. Throughout Jesus’ life and ministry, the Scriptures were His source of spiritual wisdom and authority. They thoroughly shaped His worldview. Not only did He rely on the Scriptures in His teaching and debate, He turned to them in the crucial moments of His personal life. At the outset of His ministry He countered the attacks of the devil with Scripture (Matthew 4:7,10), and at the end of His ministry He interpreted His betrayal with “it is written” (Mark 14:21,27). The Scriptures were woven into the warp and woof of His life. R. T. France has identified 64 quotations or allusions to the Old Testament in the Synoptic Gospels alone, demonstrating how well the disciples understood Jesus’ sense of Scripture.27 It should be noted, however, that Jesus did not become a polemicist for the Scriptures; He simply lived, taught, and ministered out of the power of the Scriptures as the authoritative and absolutely trustworthy Word of God. AN INFALLIBLE AND INERRANT BOOK Guided by the regard of Jesus and the New Testament writers for the power and truthfulness of the 103 104 EDGAR R. LEE Scriptures, historic Christianity has, in effect, always proclaimed the Bible to be “infallible,” thereby meaning it is completely truthful and without error. “While there has not been a fully enunciated theory until modern times, nonetheless there was, down through the years of church history, a general belief in the complete dependability of the Bible.”28 As the Bible in the modern era was subjected to more intense scientific scrutiny, the commonly used term “infallibility” became increasingly elastic among theologians and came to be understood in some quarters as applying only to the soteriological purposes of Scripture. The historical and scientific details under attack were not considered to be necessarily infallible. As a result, “inerrancy” has gradually come to be a more definitive term for evangelicals who wish to contend for the truthfulness of both the redemptive and historical details in Scripture. It should be remembered, of course, that the two terms “infallibility” and “inerrancy” are synonyms. “Infallibility” is derived from the Latin fallere, “to deceive, err,” and has as the first meaning “not fallible; not capable of error; never wrong.” Similarly, “inerrant” derives from the Latin errare, “to wander, err,” and has as its meaning “not erring; making no mistake; infallible.”29 The problem with the two terms is not in their lexical meanings; the problem is how different writers choose to define them. For its statement on Scripture, the Assemblies of God adopted the term “infallibility,” which was current and sufficiently definitive at the time, and, strictly speaking, remains so: “The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct (2 Timothy 3:15-17; INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21).”—Statement of Fundamental Truths, No. 130. While “inerrancy” is among evangelicals the more popular term to describe Scripture accuracy today, there are still different meanings attached to it in opposing theological quarters. The watershed issue between them remains whether or not the Bible is true in just redemptive content (faith and practice) or whether it is true in all the facts that it affirms, including scientific and historical matters. While fine lines of distinction can be drawn between various scholars on both sides of the issue, this paper briefly will contrast two views: Full Inerrancy. Millard Erickson, an influential evangelical of Baptist persuasion, in his popular seminary textbook Christian Theology, uses this term. By “full inerrancy” Erickson affirms that the Bible in the original manuscripts (the “autographa”) is completely true even in historical and scientific details. He does, however, allow for what seems obvious in Scripture, that these details are often stated as “general references or approximations.”31 Doctrine and Practice Inerrancy. This term is used by Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider, who writes “Wesleyan-holiness evangelicals hold the confidence that Scripture is inerrant on doctrine and practice but that it might contain error on matters relating to mathematics, science, geography, or such like.”32 This view would be typical of others who might identify their positions by such terms as “limited inerrancy” or “inerrancy of purpose.”33 These positions are characterized by a general indifference to the historical and scientific accuracy of Scripture with regard to non-salvific details. There are many theologians, of course, for whom the 105 106 EDGAR R. LEE whole infallibility/inerrancy debate is irrelevant to their understanding of divine revelation. Dealing with those positions is beyond the purview of this paper.34 At the height of the inerrancy debate in 1978, a group of prominent evangelical scholars under the auspices of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy came together to frame The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. With that statement, the inerrancy debate has largely receded into the background of contemporary theological discussion (though different camps have retained their distinctive views). The Chicago Statement reflects what may be termed a centrist evangelical understanding of inerrancy. Item four of the summary statement reads as follows: “Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation and the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.”35 This understanding is essentially the “full inerrancy” position of Millard Erickson expressed above. It is the position I have adopted for the following four reasons: 1. The didactic teachings of the Bible, that is, what the Bible teaches about its own nature, declare it to be a trustworthy message from God accepted as such by Jesus and the New Testament writers. These teachings, some of which are spelled out in this paper, should be definitive in one’s doctrine of Scripture. No New Testament writer ever suggested that Scripture errs. (There is nothing in the biblical text, however, to suggest that all subsequent copyists are protected from error, and the science of textual criticism does in fact recognize and correct errors of copyists, establishing the original text of ancient Scripture to an amazingly high degree.) INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION 2. God who speaks truth and cannot lie is the final author of Scripture. Repeatedly all through the Bible there are attestations of God’s truthfulness. In Jesus’ high priestly prayer, He affirms to God, “Your word is truth [aletheia, not alethes; that is, “truth,” not “true”]” (John 17:17). Paul, writing to Titus, spoke of “God, who does not lie” (Titus 1:2). The writer to the Hebrews mentions things in which “it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). “Every word of God is flawless” (Proverbs 30:5). “Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89). “O Sovereign Lord, you are God! Your words are trustworthy, and you have promised these good things to your servant” (2 Samuel 7:28). “God is not a man, that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19). Numerous other passages bear the same message. Truth is an attribute of God; it is manifested in Scripture.36 3. The Bible is a historical book that purports to give correct historical information. The trustworthiness of the Bible hinges on the accuracy of vital historical details. Grudem, for example, cites about 25 passages in the New Testament that refer to the historical details in the Old Testament, ranging from Jesus’ reference to Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:40) to Peter’s reference to Baalam’s donkey (2 Peter 2:16). “This list indicates that the New Testament writers were willing to rely on the truthfulness of any part of the historical narratives of the Old Testament. No detail was too insignificant to be used for the instruction of New Testament Christians. There is no indication that they thought of a certain category of scriptural statements that were unreliable and untrustworthy (such as ‘historical and scientific’ statements opposed to doctrinal and moral passages).”37 The church has never rested its case for the authority of Scripture on its ability to prove every historical or scien- 107 108 EDGAR R. LEE tific detail, feeling that theopneustic Scripture is selfauthenticating; nonetheless, the demonstrable historical accuracy of the Bible, written and compiled by many authors in a span of time well over 1,000 years, is truly amazing. Bruce Lewis and Gordon Demarest cite the following concession from Time magazine: “After more than two centuries of facing the heaviest guns that could be brought to bear, the Bible has survived, and is perhaps better for the siege. Even on the critics’ own terms—historical fact—the Scriptures seem more acceptable now than they did when the rationalists began the attack.”38 Donald Bloesch voices similar convictions. “It should be noted that both archaeology and historical science tend for the most part to support rather than call into question the biblical accounts of historical events.”39 Hostile critics have not given up the fight, but in the light of historical and archaeological research they speak with less and less authority. 4. If the Bible is proven to be in error in its historical and scientific details which humans can often verify, how can it be assumed to be reliable in matters of faith which they cannot verify? “If the truth claims of a purported revelation can be shown to be false on a factual level, we can hardly claim it to represent the truth about God and man on any other level.”40 Devout scholars have acknowledged throughout the history of the Church that there are some inconsistencies in the text of Scripture for which completely satisfying answers are not always immediately available.41 Some of those problem passages may be explained in terms of copyists’ errors. Others may be somewhat more difficult, but plausible solutions exist for all. Grudem observes, “But while we must allow the possibility of being unable to solve a particular problem, INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION it should also be stated that there are many evangelical Bible scholars today who will say that they do not presently know of any problem texts for which there is no satisfactory solution.”42 The Bible has a remarkable record of proven accuracy that the passage of time continues to embellish. Believers affirm that when all the facts are in, the Bible will continue to be proven true. Supporters of an errantist view of Scripture commonly apply the strict standards of modern technical and scientific writing to Scripture and thereby assume it to be in error. While the Church historically has insisted on the accuracy of Scripture on whatever matters it addresses, the Church has insisted that Scripture be understood in its particular cultural context. Erickson offers the following principles for an appropriate understanding of biblical inerrancy, which when rightly applied will resolve most of the questions raised about the reliability of the biblical text: 1. Inerrancy pertains to what is affirmed or asserted rather than what is merely reported. 2. We must judge the truthfulness of Scripture in terms of its meaning in the cultural setting in which its statements were expressed. 3. The Bible’s assertions are fully true when judged in accordance with the purposes for which they were written. 4. Reports of historical events and scientific matters are in phenomenal rather than technical language. 5. Difficulties in explaining the biblical text should not be prejudged as indications of error.43 Finally, in seeking to demonstrate the accuracy of the facts of Scripture, it should not be assumed that the power of Scripture is tied to our ability to find acceptable solu- 109 110 EDGAR R. LEE tions to every single Bible “inconsistency” that may be raised. As the late Kenneth Kantzer so aptly put it, “Evangelicals do not try to prove that the Bible has no mistakes so that they can be sure the Bible is the Word of God. One might prove that a newspaper article is free from all mistakes, but that would not prove that the newspaper article is the Word of God. Christians hold the Bible to be the Word of God (and inerrant) because they are convinced that Jesus, the Lord of the church, believed it and taught His disciples to believe it. And ultimately their conviction of its truth rests on the witness of the Holy Spirit.”44 It goes without saying that an effective preacher must have confidence in the truthfulness and dependability of the word of God written. The preacher must approach the text with the attitude of Jesus and the apostles that it is theopneustos, vibrant with the breath of God and utterly dependable. In the final analysis, that has everything to do with a personal knowledge of the Living Word. AN INDWELLING WORD With intense emphasis currently being on the theological, homiletical, and pastoral competence of the minister in preparation for a shifting postmodern environment, it is easy to forget that the Scriptures not only are to be learned and defended intellectually but also are to be internalized in a transformational way. As the Bible is engaged, the Spirit illuminates and quickens it to the hearts of willing and eager disciples. To be a believer in Christ is already to have received the indwelling Spirit, the very Spirit who inspired and breathed out the Word in the first place. “And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living [oikeo] in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives [enoikeo—en “in” + oikeo “lives”] in you” (Romans 8:11). Colossians 3:16, for example, has special import: “Let the word of Christ richly dwell [enoikeo] within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (NASB). The “within you”45 of this passage is addressed to all the people of God and has particular relevance to their meeting together and ministering to each other in the context of joyous worship. However, the pastor-preacher of the Word is a gifted leader of the congregation, in no small measure responsible for their teaching and admonition, and a leader and guide for their worship, which is a time of wise teaching and admonition, even in the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs! The pastorpreacher ministers through the illuminating and transforming Word that literally comes alive in him or her. F. F. Bruce suggests, “It would ‘dwell richly’ in their fellowship and in their hearts if they paid heed to what they heard, bowed to its authority, assimilated its lessons, and translated them into daily living.”46 Similarly, John wrote, “The word of God lives [meno] in you, and you have overcome the evil one” (1 John 2:14). Paul told Timothy, “Guard the good deposit [the Word of God] that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives [enoikeo] in us” (2 Timothy 1:14). The foregoing texts show that the theopneustic word has to be welcomed and cultivated in one’s personal life. Therefore, the first responsibility for preachers is to ensure the vibrancy of the word for their own spiritual growth and that of their congregation. Preachers are not biblical technicians. The Bible is not to 111 112 EDGAR R. LEE be superficially mined for clever sermons to tickle postmodern ears or to advance ambitious pastoral agendas. It is to be cultivated as the Living Word of God transforming both preacher and parishioner in the service of the kingdom of God. INTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURES The acid test for the preacher is the actual use of Scripture in ministry. The way Jesus used the Scriptures to address the crucial issues of His times is instructive. Most of the religious establishment came to despise Jesus because His preaching and miracles among the masses spoke to their needs and, in effect, challenged the establishment and the status quo. The Jerusalem religious leaders constantly spied on Him and made every effort to discredit both His teaching and His miracles—and shortly concluded that the only way to limit His influence was to kill Him. His teaching and preaching were always under scrutiny, and it was crucial for Him to accurately interpret and expound the Scriptures in very trying times. Several examples follow: Divorce (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). The Pharisees challenged Jesus to respond to a common Jewish controversy over divorce: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (19:3). In posing the question, the Pharisees were reflecting their own divided opinions on the issue and wanted Jesus on the record. The school of Shammai taught that divorce was permitted only for marital unfaithfulness on the part of the wife. The school of Hillel taught that a wife could be divorced for any cause.47 Rather than overtly identify with either school (He seems to have been more in sympathy with the teaching of Shammai), Jesus turned directly to His INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION knowledge of the Scriptures and countered with the Genesis mandate of marriage as a permanent union under God, which humankind were not to fracture (Genesis 2:24). Then pressed for an explanation for Moses’ divorce law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), Jesus went on to explain, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard” (19:8), and asserted that anyone who inappropriately divorced his wife was guilty of adultery (19:9). Jesus did not simply offer a technical explanation of the divorce law that would make divorce more or less difficult. He set the law within its larger context of God’s affirmation and protection of the marriage covenant and made unjustified divorce a moral issue at a time when divorce was a social problem. Taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22). As a part of their continuing efforts to trap Jesus, the Pharisees teamed up with the Herodians (apparently a political party supportive of Herodian leadership) and devised a doublededged plot—to portray Jesus as either a Roman rebel or a Roman sympathizer. Their question: “Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” (v. 17). There was no one text for Jesus to appeal to, so He called for a coin used for paying the tax. Presented with a Roman denarius, Jesus asked them about the identity of the portrait and the inscription. “‘Caesar’s,’ they replied” (v. 21). Despite their supposed aversion to images of Caesar, the Jews carried coins that bore his image and inscriptions of his divine claims.48 Aware of their hypocrisy, Jesus answered adroitly but in keeping with wider biblical revelation (cf. Romans 13:1-7; Jeremiah 29:4-7), “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (v. 21). Jesus upheld the legitimacy of government on the one hand without approving its sins on the other. The Greatest Commandment (Matthew 22:34-40). The 113 114 EDGAR R. LEE Pharisees also tried to draw Jesus into their debate about the greatest commandment in the Law. With His profound knowledge of the Scriptures, Jesus reached back, not directly to the Decalogue (Exodus 20:2-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21) but to Deuteronomy 6:5, and responded, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’” (v. 37). He, drawing from Leviticus 19:18, then added, “‘And the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments’” (Matthew 22:37-40). This was an important question for the daily lives of God’s people and Jesus answered directly and definitively. These two commandments, although written outside the respective Decalogue texts, actually epitomize them and are indeed central to our Christian ethic.49 The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11). In this story, not present in the earliest manuscripts but one most commentators feel to be a historical account from the ministry of Jesus, a woman allegedly caught in the very act of adultery is brought to Jesus in order to test Him. That the situation has been contrived by the Jewish leaders is apparent in that the male adulterer has conveniently escaped. They pressed Jesus, “‘In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’” (v. 5). Will Jesus uphold the Law by ordering her to be stoned, or will He appear to ignore or disobey the Law by arguing for her release? As one who came “‘not to abolish the Law or the Prophets…but to fulfill them’” and also to insist upon a righteousness surpassing that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law (Matthew 5:17,20), Jesus appeared caught on the horns of a dilemma. But challenged to uphold the literal command of Moses (Leviticus 20:10; INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION Deuteronomy 22:22 [which called for the execution of both the male and the female]), Jesus took a totally unexpected course and demonstrated His superior understanding of the Spirit of the Scriptures and the age of grace He was inaugurating. Without commenting on Moses’ command to execute, “Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger” (v. 6). Pressed for a response, He said, “‘If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her’” (v. 7). Whether Jesus was writing names of women the accusers had been intimate with, as some think, is unclear but, in any event, they quickly dropped their argument and slunk away. Powerful males then, as too often now, held to a double standard and practiced a much looser sexual ethic than was expected of women. Joining righteousness and mercy, so crucial in the modern era as well, Jesus then charged the woman, “‘Go now and leave your life of sin’” (v. 11). On reflection, Jesus as God’s eternal Word incarnate had learned not just the letter of the Law but also the spirit of the Law. He knew how to evaluate the full sweep of the Old Testament, identify the cardinal issues of faith, synthesize them, and set them in proper perspective. Jesus never skewed the Scriptures by seizing on one single proof text and interpreting it in such a way as to violate the larger context of biblical truth. He is the constant model for all interpreters as they handle the Living Word of God for their times. CORRUPT AGENDAS IN INTERPRETATION The perennial temptation of the clergy is to use Scripture to accomplish selfish, if ostensibly well-meaning, agendas. Preachers may use the Scriptures to assert 115 116 EDGAR R. LEE and protect an ungodly and egotistical will-to-power, as, for example, in the oft-cited Psalm 105:15, “Do not touch my anointed ones” (which really in this context refers to God’s people as a whole, not just their leaders). Passages are sometimes stretched in their meanings to justify exorbitant salaries or benefits (e.g., Luke 10:7). Large and ultimately unsuccessful “ministries” and building programs have been launched on the perversion of various scriptural injunctions to give generously (e.g., 2 Corinthians 8:2ff). If “sound doctrine” will not get a crowd, “itching ears” will always respond to popular myths—and pay for the privilege (2 Timothy 4:3,4). In Matthew’s account of the temptation of Jesus, the devil took him to “the highest point [pterugion, “pinnacle” or “summit”50] of the temple,” usually thought to be the southeast corner of the temple wall, which soared high above the Kidron Valley. Then, the devil prodded Jesus to jump. Deploying an excellent technical knowledge of Scripture, the devil quoted Psalm 91:11,12, “‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone’” (Matthew 4:6). If Jesus jumped, God would have to do a miracle to save Him, the devil reasoned; otherwise it was certain death. The miracle would presumably draw the attention of the people, thereby establishing Jesus as a powerful wonder-worker. He could immediately attain power and prestige without the pain of the cross. Jesus understood, however, that to leap from the temple wall would be an act of presumption against His Heavenly Father and would abort the redeeming path to the cross. So He responded to the devil’s corrupt manipulation of Scripture with Deuteronomy 6:16, “‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test’” (Matthew 4:7). INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION The lessons to be drawn here are several: (1) The devil quotes out-of-context Scripture verses to preachers to turn them from the high road of an ethical and disciplined ministry of the gospel. (2) The temptations to twist Scripture for one’s own selfish agendas are great. (3) Preachers who truly love God and reverence the God-breathed Scriptures will carefully evaluate those self-serving impulses to ensure accurate and responsible interpretation. “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1). THE HOLY SPIRIT IN INTERPRETATION “The Blessed Spirit is not only the true Author of the Written Word but also its supreme and true Expositor,” said H. G. C. Moule.51 In the person and activity of the Holy Spirit, the Triune God sends divine assistance to the preacher of His Word who reverently and sincerely seeks His guidance. Jesus promised His followers, “‘The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you’” (John 14:26). This was first a promise of what has been called “total recall” for the apostles. But it correctly represents the ministry of the Spirit to all believers as they struggle to deliver the Word of God. Jesus did not promise that the Holy Spirit would make the preacher’s work easy, but it is clear that God sends His Spirit to faithful ministers of the gospel to quicken and illuminate them as they diligently and prayerfully interpret and apply the Scriptures in preaching. But the promise must not become a pretension of mystical insight to justify some esoteric, allegorical, or 117 118 EDGAR R. LEE self-serving interpretation not rooted in the original intention of the author. Roy B. Zuck offers the following cautions, here adapted for brevity, as one seeks the guidance of the faithful, ever-present Spirit of Truth: 1. The role of the Spirit does not make one’s interpretations infallible. 2. He does not give a “hidden” meaning divergent from the normal, literal meaning of the passage. 3. An interpreter living in sin is susceptible to inaccurate interpretation. 4. The Holy Spirit guides into all truth (John 16:13) [and struggles to steer one away from error]. 5. The Spirit does not normally give sudden intuitive flashes of insight into the meaning of Scripture. 6. The Bible was given to be understood by all believers52 [and the preacher’s exposition of a passage should likewise commend itself to all believers]. The Holy Spirit has a vested interest in powerful exposition of the Word, and He is a faithful friend and guide through all the study and prayer involved. THE CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGE Modern western culture is undoubtedly the most pervasive and invasive in all of history. Carried by television, radio, myriads of music media, newspapers, magazines, books, and so forth, it pours into every nook and cranny of life. Without the population’s even recognizing what is happening, it sets contemporary worldviews and values, even preempting the teaching and preaching of the Church. George Barna recently pointed out that “[m]ore than four out of five Americans claim to be INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION Christian and half as many can be classified as bornagain Christians. Nine out of ten adults own a Bible. Most adults read the Bible during the year and a huge majority claim they know all of the basic teachings of the Bible. How then can most people say Satan does not exist, that the Holy Spirit is merely a symbol, that eternal peace with God can be earned through good works, and that truth can only be understood through the lens of reason and experience? How can a plurality of our citizens contend that Jesus committed sins and the Bible, Koran and Book of Mormon all teach the same truths?”53 What today passes for Christian life is often far more influenced by the culture than by the Scriptures. Culture has succeeded to an alarming degree in muting the voice of the Church with regard to personal and social ethics and public policy. Matters of personal lifestyle, doctrinal belief, personal and social ethics, and public policy desperately need responsible interpretation and application of Scripture so that the voice of God can be heard in the land. Pentecostal preachers must discover again the theopneustic qualities of an infallible Bible and faithfully interpret it for an increasingly skeptical and apathetic generation. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody, 1994. ________. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. Black, David Alan, and David S. Dockery, eds. New Testament Criticism & Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991. 119 120 EDGAR R. LEE Bloesch, Donald G. Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994. Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew (NAC). Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Bromiley, Geoffrey W., gen. ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 4 vols. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979-88. Brown, Colin, gen. ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975-1978. Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. ________. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Danker, Frederick William, rev. and ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Duduit, Michael, ed. Handbook of Contemporary Preaching. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Goodrick, Edward W. “Let’s Put 2 Timothy 3:16 Back in the Bible,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25. No. 4 (December 1982) 479-487. INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION Greidanus, Sidney. The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation, and Authority. Vol. 4, God Who Speaks and Shows. Waco, Tex: Word, 1979. Johnson, Alan F., and Robert E. Webber. What Christians Believe: A Biblical & Historical Summary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. Keener, Craig. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Lewis, Gordon R., and Bruce A. Demarest. Integrative Theology. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Academie, 1987. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, eds. Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997. Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. Mounce, Robert H. The Essential Nature of New Testament Preaching. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. Mounce, William D. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 46, Pastoral Epistles. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000. O’Brien, Peter T. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 44, Colossians and Philemon. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982. 121 122 EDGAR R. LEE Oden, Thomas C. The Living God, Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1991. Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Rev. ed. Boston: W. A. Wilde Company, 1956. Stott, John R. W. Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Weber, Otto. Foundations of Dogmatics. Vol. 1. Darrell L. Guder, trans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. Zuck, Roy B. Basic Bible Interpretation. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1991. Endnotes All Scripture citations are from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise noted; (my emphasis). 2 Frederick William Danker, rev. and ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 233. Hereinafter, BDAG. 3 See, for example, Matt. 15:6; Luke 3:2; John 10:35; Acts 4:31; Acts 13:46; 1 Cor. 14:36; 2 Cor. 2:17; Eph. 6:17; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 4:5; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 2:14; Rev. 1:9. 4 In addition to the above citations from the Pauline letters see also 2 Cor. 4:2; Phil. 1:14; 1 Thess. 2:13. 5 See, for example, Gen. 15:1; Deut. 5:5; 1 Sam. 3:1; 1 Kings 12:15; Isa. 1:10; Jer. 1:2. 6 Colin Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 3:1087. Hereinafter NIDNTT. 7 O. Grether in Brown, NIDNTT, 3:1087. 8 Brown, NIDNTT, 3:1087. See also Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1 INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION gen. ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), s.v. “Word.” 9 Merrill C. Tenney, “The Meaning of the Word,” in The Bible: The Living Word of Revelation, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968), 20. 10 The one New Testament occasion of “the word of God came” relates to John the Baptist, the last of the Old Testament prophets (Luke 3:2; cf. Luke 16:16); normally “says the Lord” in the NT prefaces OT quotations but see Rev. 1:8, 14:13. 11 In John’s Gospel, Jesus repeatedly emphasized that He spoke the words of His Father (John 12:49; 14:10,24; 15:15, etc.). 12 BDAG, 599. s.v. logos (cf. 1 Thess. 1:6, NIV). 13 Robert H. Mounce, The Essential Nature of New Testament Preaching (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), especially the summary, 150. See also Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, eds. Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), s.v. “Kerygma and Didache.” 14 See the discussion in Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 117-126. 15 The meaning of graphe is literally “writing” or “book.” However, in the New Testament the word regularly refers to the Scriptures. 16 BDAG, s.v. theopneustos. 17 Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 317, cites Fred Gealy’s treatment of this passage [Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1955) 11:504-506] and notes that he “presents a cogent case that this passage does not limit inspired Scripture to the Old Testament writings.” 18 For a discussion of the nature of canon criticism see Mikeal C. Parsons, “Canonical Criticism,” in David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, eds., New Testament Criticism & Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 255-294. 19 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), s.v. “Inspiration.” 20 Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration (New York: Oxford, 1927), 229-280. 21 Edward W. Goodrick, “Let’s Put 2 Timothy Back in the Bible,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25, no. 4 123 124 EDGAR R. LEE (Winter 1982): 486. 22 Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 129. 23 Otto Weber, Foundations of Dogmatics, trans. Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 1:245. 24 BDAG, s.v. phero. 25 See Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (NAC) (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 104, n. 26. 26 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 527. 27 R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1971), 27. 28 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 251. For a review of historic Christian teaching on the nature of Scripture see John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982). 29 Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language. 2d. ed. (Collins World, 1978). 30 Minutes, 49th General Council of the Assemblies of God (7-10 August 2001), 89. 31 Erickson, Christian Theology, 248. For a helpful discussion see Roger Nicole, “The Nature of Inerrancy,” in Roger R. Nicole and J. Ramsey Michaels, eds., Inerrancy and Common Sense (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 71-95. 32 J. Kenneth Grider, A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 1994), 75. 33 See Erickson, Christian Theology, 248-250, for discussion of various positions and supporting bibliographies. 34 The works of Bloesch, Erickson, Grudem, and Henry cited in this paper may serve as good guides into that literature. 35 The Chicago Statement may be found in a number of systematic theologies and journals. This citation is from Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority. Vol 4, God Who Speaks and Shows (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1979), 212. 36 See the discussion in Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England/Grand Rapids: InterVarsity/Zondervan, 1994), 82-84. 37 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 94. 38 Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis, Integrative Theology, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Academie/Zondervan, 1987), 164, citing “The Bible: The Believers Gain,” Time Magazine (30 December 1974), 41. INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 323 n. 88. See the bibliography on the subject that Bloesch has included. 40 Brown, NIDNTT, 334, s.v. “Revelation in Contemporary Theology.” 41 Donald Bloesch discusses some of these alleged inconsistencies in Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 109110, as does Erickson, Christian Theology, 255. For a more exhaustive treatment, see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982). 42 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 99. 43 Erickson, Christian Theology, 259-263. 44 Kenneth S. Kantzer, foreword to Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 7. 45 ”Within you” in this context must be interpreted not only individually but also and primarily corporately, with the entire congregation in view. For exegetical comment see Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 649. See also F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 157-158, and Peter T. O’Brien, Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 44, Colossians and Philemon (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 210. 46 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 157158. 47 Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 463. 48 Keener, Matthew, 523-526. 49 Ibid., 530-532. 50 BDAG, s.v. pterugion. See also Bromiley, ISBE, s.v. “Pinnacle.” 51 Cited by Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, IL: Wheaton Books, 1991), 23. 52 Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 24. 53 ”Barna Identifies Seven Paradoxes Regarding America’s Faith,” http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/home.asp (accessed 12/18/02). 39 125 4 Preaching the Bible as the Word of God Randy Hurst Friends often borrow my car when visiting Springfield, and sometimes they leave things in it. I don’t know who left the tape of a well-known pastor in my car, but having never heard him preach, I popped it into the player to listen as I drove. The sermon was interesting, well delivered, and emotionally uplifting. But one thing was missing. Not even a phrase of Scripture was quoted or used as an illustration, much less a text as a foundation. Tragically, an increasing number of pulpits today are characterized by preachers who seemingly do not understand the essential power of God’s Word to transform lives. For a variety of reasons, including a desire to be more interesting or relevant, many have exchanged exposition of Scripture for mere sermonizing, forsaking both their God-given privilege of being His messenger and their responsibility of spiritually feeding His people. Pentecostals are people of the Word. When our Pentecostal forefathers commissioned the design of a logo for our Fellowship, they did not incor- 126 PREACHING THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD porate the phrase “Not by might, nor by power…” (Zechariah 4:6), displayed on the cover of the Pentecostal Evangel for many decades. Rather, playing off the initials of “Assemblies of God,” they chose the simple phrase “All the Gospel.” Further, the only symbol on our logo is not a flame, a dove, or even a cross (all of which had been proposed), but more in keeping with the phrase itself is the image of a book—the Bible. In our Fellowship’s Statement of Fundamental Truths, the first of the sixteen doctrines singled out concerns the inspiration and authority of Scripture. It is foundational to all the rest. The authority of Scripture is our standard for belief and living. A split chancel with a central altar is common in mainline churches, but our churches place the pulpit central on the platform because we reverence God’s Word, and its proclamation is principal in our worship services. The Bible is not the object of our worship, but to truly and faithfully worship God we must worship Him as He is. This means, in essence, that we can worship Him only as He has revealed himself to be. The apostle Paul addressed this issue clearly and succinctly: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!”1 Because the judgments of an infinite and holy God are “unsearchable” and His ways “unfathomable,” humanity can know about God only what He has chosen to reveal of himself. People cannot worship Him as they conceive Him to be or wish Him to be but only as He truly is. God is known by experience, but that experience must be rooted in His revealed truth. It was not the experience of the Holy Spirit baptism alone that motivated so many Pentecostal people to 127 128 RANDY HURST leave their churches and move to rented halls and storefronts. It was their hunger for the Word of God— ”the whole counsel of God.”2 In crude and poor surroundings faithful servants used the Word as more than a source of quotations to season their oratory. Instead, they offered up Scripture as the main course. This is why early Pentecostal churches often were referred to as “full gospel churches.” In fact, the largest church in the world, a Pentecostal church in Seoul, Korea, still calls itself Yoido Full Gospel Church. The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica: “We…constantly thank God that when you received from us the Word of God’s message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the Word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.”3 Notice that Paul states that the Word of God “performs its work” in those who believe. The preacher must clearly understand the nature and power of God’s Word. The Word is not merely a resource for sermons but is “living and active and sharper than any twoedged sword…piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”4 Every Pentecostal preacher should be of the same mind as the apostle Peter when he wrote, “As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Whoever speaks is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and forever.”5 PREACHING THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD The Bible preached and taught as God’s Word demands servants of the text, people who are, as Martin Luther expressed it, “under the Word.” The pulpit made available because of the authority of God’s Word is not for conveying personal opinion. People do not assemble to hear what the preacher thinks but what God thinks. Solomon said, “Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law.”6 Without the guidance of divine revelation human nature will always lead to destruction. The one primary, foundational source of all divine guidance is the written Word of God. He has provided various means for revealing His will to us, such as the inner witness of the Holy Spirit and circumstances. But all other means of guidance must come under the authority of His inspired Word. The Bible is our final source of authority for all that we believe and do. Early in the last century when the Pentecostal revival spread throughout the United States and much of the world, some groups elevated immediate personal revelation of the Spirit to the level of Scripture. Orthodox Pentecostals always strongly denounced this practice as an aberration or even heretical. Unfortunately, in recent decades some Pentecostal and charismatic circles have again treated immediate personal revelation as equal to Scripture, even if they do not verbally espouse such a practice. But personal revelation must always be subjected to the authority of Scripture. God has spoken in different ways throughout history. In Old Testament times, He spoke through His prophets. The record of their words and deeds are God’s recorded revelation to His people. But the Old Testament was not the complete revelation of God. 129 130 RANDY HURST Humanity could not know God truly and fully until His Son came to earth. Jesus came to reveal what God the Father is like. Philip, one of Jesus’ disciples, said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father.” Jesus replied, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”7 Jesus Christ is the living Word. He was God in human form.8 The writer of Hebrews tells us, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.”9 After Jesus came, died, rose from death, and ascended to heaven, God inspired men to record His life and teachings and those of the apostles—constituting the New Testament. It ends with Jesus’ future return to earth and the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom. The written revelation of God’s truth is complete. However, the Church still needs to hear from God, and God still speaks directly by His Spirit to believers. But the timeless truth of God’s written Word has not changed and remains complete. Since the New Testament was written, the church has suffered times of spiritual deterioration, and revival has been needed. These times didn’t indicate a need for new truth but rather a fresh move of the Holy Spirit, who guides us into truth. In the Reformation, Martin Luther and other reformers did not introduce any new truth. They took the church back to the truth of God’s written Word, truth that was there all along but had been forsaken. Its truth is timeless. The messenger of God’s Word has a responsibility to proclaim the whole truth. We would do well to learn from our own legal system (which was established on biblical principles). When the truth is sought from a PREACHING THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD witness in court, the witness is required to pledge to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Preachers and teachers of God’s Word should subscribe to the same pledge. For this reason the apostle Paul could say, “I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God.”10 As Paul mentored young Timothy, he told him, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”11 For “accurately handling” the word of truth—preaching the Bible as it requires— we examine three issues: inspiration, illumination, and application. INSPIRATION God used human writers as His messengers, but it is His message they have left us. The Holy Spirit moved them to write, “breathing” (God’s word choice) the truth of God through what they said. The writers did not pen God’s Word simply from their own initiative or from their own natural knowledge and wisdom. The apostle Peter said, “No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”12 The Assemblies of God doctrinal statement makes this clear in its first fundamental truth: “The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct.” God used the experiences, thoughts, and vocabulary of the prophets and apostles. Furthermore, He directed 131 132 RANDY HURST their thoughts. When we study God’s Word to understand what the writers’ inspired