The Holy Scriptures: Brief Notes on its Inspiration, Preservation, and Interpretation
Nicolas Simon
Table of Contents
The Holy Scriptures: Under Attack
The Word of God is under attack as never before. There appears to have been a renewed interest, especially in the media, regarding subjects pertaining to the Bible. As you can imagine, this attention is not favorable; its general tenor is to undermine the authenticity and credibility of the Scriptures. It seems as if Satan is making a final push — using all means and methods at his disposal — to lay an axe to the root in the hope of once and for all destroying the Bible’s authority and influence. In the Western world, at least, he is succeeding, and one might say that in certain circles he has succeeded.
We, who believe the Word of God, know what the sad outcome of this onslaught will be. For all the tremendous advancements in technology and scientific understanding, for all mankind’s proclaimed intelligence and rationalism, the Western world will ultimately succumb to an incredible delusion. “Then shall that Wicked be revealed ... whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thess. 2:8-11). Whenever the truth of God is rejected, people will receive that which is false and give themselves over to gross immorality. It happened after the flood when idolatry took hold on man (Rom. 1:21-32), and it will happen again, though perhaps in a more sophisticated guise, before the second coming of Christ.
The Holy Scriptures: Refuting the Gainsayers
Just as in the days of Elijah (1 Kings 19:18), God has His faithful remnant. These have an open ear to hear His word. “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Rev. 3:22). In the times of the Apostles, the Christians from among the Jews were such a remnant. But some, having owned Christ as the Messiah, were in danger of rejecting the doctrines of Christianity and returning to the dead works of Judaism. Things were not turning out as they had hoped. Christ had not returned, they had not been freed from Roman rule, and they were suffering persecution — as believers in the midst of an unbelieving nation, their lives were often in jeopardy. Doubts arose in their minds. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews had these individuals especially on his heart. In the sixth chapter he urges them on: “leaving the word of the beginning of the Christ, let us go on to what belongs to full growth, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and faith in God” (Heb. 6:1 JND).
A parallel may be drawn today. Outwardly there are those going along with Christianity. Perhaps they have been brought up in a Christian home and they attend the assembly meetings. There may even be a desire to live the Christian life, but there has never been that inner work of salvation. As we read in the parable of the sower, Satan is always ready to snatch away the precious seed before it sprouts and bears fruit (Matt. 13:1-23). When one is truly a child of God, Satan cannot succeed; but for one who has never believed to the saving of the soul, then that individual stands in great danger.
There appears to be a sifting going on in this present day. People are being tried and large numbers of those who once identified with Christianity are no longer doing so. Even for those who are genuine, that voice of doubt can be troubling. The danger is especially great when we, as with the Hebrew Christians, have difficulty reconciling the things we see and hear with the Scriptures. Nevertheless, God and His Word must ever be that immutable Rock upon which faith rests (Heb. 6:18).
The purpose then, of a book such as this, is to encourage those whose faith is being challenged. I trust, also, that it will be an aid to those seeking to help others. It is not intended to be a book of apologetics; even if I so desired, I am not qualified to undertake such a task. Nevertheless, we will touch on some apologetics. For one to whom the Bible is foreign there may be many questions and just as many preconceived notions. If the inquiries are genuine, it is good to have sound answers rather than pat replies. To be able to refute some of the more common accusations made against the Scriptures will be helpful. Paul instructed Titus to establish elders who could, on the one hand, “encourage with sound teaching” and on the other, to “refute gainsayers” (Titus 1:9 JND).
I do not wish to suggest that we need to defend the Bible as if it were an ancient edifice that needs propping up. No, in that sense, the Bible needs no defense. It stands perfectly well on its own and has withstood the onslaught of the enemy for millennia. Nevertheless, being able to expose the deception and falsehoods employed by those who would seek to undermine the Word of God can be a real help to one with legitimate questions. Just as we deplore the hand waving and sweeping generalizations of those who attack the Bible, we, likewise, should avoid the same when giving answers to honest inquiries.
The Holy Scriptures: An Outline of Sound Words
It’s not just the attacks on the Bible from without that we need to watch for; Satan has also been very busy within Christendom. Anything that distorts the truth of God weakens the Word of God. Paul in writing to Timothy says: “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (2 Tim. 3:13-14). Man is never content with merely taking a position, he will also attempt to deceive others.
In English speaking Christendom we have many different translations of the Bible. These range from faithful renditions of the original text to the most fanciful and blasphemous versions. But it is not simply a question of the integrity of the Word, but also our understanding of it. By and large, Christendom has not rightly divided the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). The most common interpretations imposed upon the Scriptures have done much to rob Christianity of its distinctive character. To better understand the Word of God, and to be able to provide clear explanations of its key doctrines, these are powerful stones to have in our shepherd’s bag. We don’t learn doctrine, however, by a gentle diet, grazing on the tender green tidbits of truth that God offers in His Word. At some point, we have to exert ourselves and really buckle down and study the Scriptures so that we might truly know them.
In times of darkness the faithful have always returned to the Word of God with a renewed sense of its value. “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by Thy name, O Lord God of hosts” (Jer. 15:16). We see it in Josiah’s day (2 Kings 23:2). Again, in the time of Nehemiah, the remnant in Jerusalem felt the need to have the Word of God brought before them. “All the people gathered themselves together ... and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel” (Neh. 8:1). Nothing changes when we get to the New Testament. The Apostle Paul in his departing words to the Ephesian elders exhorted them: “Brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:32). Peter, knowing that his time of departure from this world was at hand, wrote: “I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth” (2 Pet. 1:12). The aged Apostle John wrote: “I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you” (1 John 2:14). As with Job, it is good to cultivate an appetite for the Word of God: “I have esteemed the words of His mouth more than my necessary food” (Job. 23:12).
The Holy Scriptures: Inspiration
This book is written from the standpoint of a believer. We live in a day when neutrality is demanded if one is to be taken seriously. However, when it comes to the Word of God, what does neutrality mean? Does one really suppose that they can sit on the fence of impartiality and judge the Word of God? It’s as ludicrous as the accused in the dock telling the judge he is an impartial observer and he will decide whether the prosecutor or defense is correct! No, we need to let the Word of God judge us.
The Holy Scriptures are divinely inspired. It doesn’t merely contain the Word of God, for it is the Word of God. Furthermore, I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. That is to say, the very words are inspired, not just the thoughts. The Apostle Paul in writing to Timothy says: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Notice that Paul says to Timothy, “all Scripture.” This includes, not just the New Testament (which was still being written), but also the Old. In Hebrews, the Apostle confirms this: “The Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that He had said before, This is the covenant that I will make” (Heb. 10:15, quoting Jer. 31:33). When we speak of inspiration, keep in mind that it does not remove the human element; for it is men who were inspired, men whose language and whose minds have been used.1 The Apostle Peter tells us how this came about: “The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:21). As to how this so-called human element works with verbal inspiration, I don’t profess to know. Nevertheless, I believe it! This is not simply one being naïve. There are many things we can’t explain and yet we accept them.
As a divinely inspired book, we accept that the entire Bible is true. To suppose that God would be party to a book that was a mix of error and truth is an insult to God — and a lack of faith on our part. On the other hand, the transmission and reproduction of the text — having been left to the responsibility of man — we accept as being imperfect. Despite this, God is faithful, and when we consider the subject in more depth, we will see that we have every reason to be confident in the Word that we hold in our hands.
It is also important to recognize that the Bible is not an historic document to which men have attached a spiritual narrative. To the contrary, the spiritual message it conveys is first and foremost, and the history is secondary. As such, the historical record it contains is accurate though incomplete. Events to which men ascribe greatness may be inconsequential in God’s sight, and contrariwise, things of apparent insignificance may carry great weight with God. Of course, rationalism finds fault with this. So be it! Whenever man tries to dissect the Bible using the scalpel of rationalism, he succeeds in nothing but the mutilation of the book. I will close the subject of inspiration with a quote from C. H. Mackintosh: Rationalism deprives us of the only perfect standard of truth, and conducts us into a region of the most dreary uncertainty. It seeks to undermine the authority of the Book in which we can believe everything, and carries us into a field of speculation in which we can be sure of nothing. Under the dominion of rationalism the soul is like a vessel broken from its safe moorings in the haven of Divine revelation, to be tossed like a cork upon the wild, watery waste of universal skepticism. “The Bible; its sufficiency and supremacy,” should be engraved, in deep and broad characters, upon the tablet of our hearts.2
Part I: The Bible
The Bible: The Canon of Scripture
The word canon is an unusual one; it is certainly not one that we use in daily speech. Canon is the English rendering of the Greek word, κανών (kanon), meaning a rod and hence a standard — imagine a measuring stick. From this sense, it has grown to mean a series or list. From an early date in the Christian era, it has been applied to the books that make up the Bible. When we talk about the canon of Scripture, we are simply referring to the list of books that make up the Holy Scriptures. As to how that list was arrived at, and the integrity of those books, as we now have them, is our present subject.
The Bible is not one large book, but rather, it consists of sixty six books which form the collection that we know. Naturally, we accept that God is the author of all and that they form a harmonious volume. This, however, doesn’t detract from the individuality of the books and their writers. The Bible is divided into two parts: the first being the Old Testament and the second, the New Testament. The Old Testament contains thirty nine books and the New Testament the remaining twenty seven.
These titles, the Old and New Testament, are found in the King James translation of the Bible in various verses (2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 9:15) and are not entirely without warrant. Nevertheless, we must correctly understand what is meant by the word testament. In English, testament is commonly used in reference to a person’s will — their last will and testament. With the lone exception of Hebrews 9:16-17, the word translated testament in the Bible is not used in this sense; rather, it refers to a disposition or agreement. It is especially a disposition between God and man, and, as such, it would be better translated as covenant. A covenant lays out the conditions established by God under which man on earth is to live with Him.3 We will address in more detail the Old and New Covenants, and the Christian’s relationship to them, later in this book. But as for the familiar titles, the Old and New Testament, though imperfect, we will stick with them.
The point at which the Scriptures are divided is not an arbitrary one. The birth of Christ marks the beginning of the New Testament. It is also the point at which the original language of the text changes from Hebrew to Greek. By and large, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew whereas the entirety of the New Testament was written in Greek.
The individual books that make up the Old and New Testaments were written over an extended period of time (more than sixteen hundred years — from about 1450 B.C. to 90 A.D.) and by more than thirty different authors. Some of these men were educated, others were shepherds, farmers, and fishermen. We also find, on the one hand, religious scribes and priests, but on the other, secular kings and civil-servants. Despite the diversity of authorship, and the disparity of time periods, the Bible is far from a heterogeneous collection of conflicting accounts and theology. Although men love to find fault with the Bible there is a simple, coherent understanding of the whole which is entirely harmonious. One doesn’t have to strain at gnats or swallow camels to see the homogeneity of the Scriptures.
Scrolls and Codices
Bound books as we know them did not exist prior to 100 A.D. The technical name for a bound book is codex — the plural being codices. Prior to codices, manuscripts were formed into scrolls. The codex was developed by the Romans around 100 A.D., though the transition away from scrolls (as with the adaption of any new technology) took time. When ancient manuscripts were discovered near Qumran in 1946, scrolls, and not codices, were found. These particular manuscripts, known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, are thought to date from around 250 B.C. to 68 A.D.
Scrolls have distinct disadvantages compared to codices — they aren’t compact, only one side of the parchment can be used, they aren’t especially sturdy, and they are hard to access. A scroll must be read from beginning to end; to locate something in the middle of a text requires advancing the scroll from one roll to the other, a slow and tedious process. A codex, on the other hand, may be opened to a random page at will. Given this, scrolls typically contained just one or two books; any more than this made them just too cumbersome to use. In contrast, a Codex can hold all the books of the Old Testament; or for that matter the books of the Old and the New — the Bible as we know it!
Prior to the use of the codex, the Holy Scriptures consisted of a collection of scrolls. When the Lord read from Isaiah in the Synagogue, He was handed a scroll from such a collection: “There was delivered unto Him the book of the prophet Esaias” (Luke 4:17). Archeological sites, such as those near Qumran, revealed numerous Biblical scrolls intermingled with other texts. The archeological evidence, therefore, leaves room for questions regarding the books which make up the Scriptures. I do not write this to raise doubts in the mind of the reader, but so that we might be fully aware of a situation of which much is made.
As a side note, prior to the codex there was no universal order to the books that make up the Old Testament. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t recognized groups of books. Josephus makes reference to a particular arrangement4 which we will examine shortly. It is similar to one mentioned by our Lord Himself: “all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me” (Luke 24:44). When codices did appear, the books of the Old Testament were sometimes arranged in differing orders. The Septuagint introduced the Old Testament ordering that we are familiar with in our Bibles; it differs, however, from the arrangement used in the Hebrew Bible of the Masoretes. Whereas the set of books that make up the canon is critical, their ordering is not.
The Bible: The Old Testament
The Books of the Old Testament
The New Testament strongly confirms the contents of the Old. Frequent reference in the New Testament to the Scriptures suggests no ambiguity in the minds of either the writer or reader as to what is referred to: “Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures” (Matt. 21:42). “Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). No clarification is given as to which writings are being spoken of. There was just one set of writings, revered as the Scriptures, in the mind of the Jew. As to the specific books which make up the canon, the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament cover almost the entire collection. All of the Old Testament books, with the exception of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, are either directly quoted or referenced. Furthermore, it is clear that the New Testament writers accepted the Old Testament books as the Word of God. The Apostle Matthew quotes from Isaiah: “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matt. 1:22). Peter, as recorded by Luke in the book of Acts, quotes the Psalms saying: “Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas” (Acts 1:16). The Apostle Paul positively affirms the value and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures when he writes to Timothy: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). To this we could add the numerous Old Testament quotations used by the Lord Himself. In the following He not only confirmed the prophesy of Isaiah but He also established the law of Moses as the commandment of God: “Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me ... Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother” (Mark 7:6, 9-10). To accept the New Testament as the Word of God, and yet reject the Old, is indefensible. Either both are true, or they must both be riddled with falsehood.
We should note for completeness, that non-biblical books are also quoted in the New Testament. Simply because they are quoted doesn’t in itself imply that the source text is Scripture. Consider Paul’s use of a Greek poet in his discourse on Mars’ hill: “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring” (Acts 17:28). No one would suggest that Paul is including the writings of the Greek poet Aratus in the canon of Scripture; the context makes this clear. Jude’s quoting of Enoch differs in both source and substance and it will be addressed when we consider the Apocrypha.
So far we’ve looked at some of the internal Biblical evidence for the books which make up the Old Testament canon. As to the external evidence, we can begin by turning to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Josephus lived from 37 A.D. to around 100 A.D. Towards the end of his life, he wrote a defense of Judaism known by the title, Against Apion. In it we read: For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.5
It might surprise the Christian reader to find that Josephus mentions just twenty two books. Nevertheless, this almost certainly includes all the books with which we are familiar. The Jew typically counted twenty four books: the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Book of the Minor Prophets; and the writings: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. In this arrangement, we can see the influence of the scroll. Each of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles formed a single scroll and they were not divided as we know them. Likewise, the Minor Prophets were written on one scroll as were Ezra and Nehemiah. As to Josephus’ twenty two books, it is quite probable that he included Ruth as an appendix to the book of Judges and likewise Lamentations to the book of Jeremiah.6
The Origin of the Canon
Concerning the origin of the Old Testament canon, and its transmission and preservation, I only wish to make a few remarks. On the one hand, I don’t pretend that I can silence the skeptic, and on the other, faith doesn’t demand an explanation. Nevertheless, our faith rests upon that which is perfectly reasonable and there are a few things in this regard that I wish to note.
The various books that make up the Old Testament were written over an extended period of time. This is not only evident in the accuracy of the historic events recorded, but also in the changes in language and style throughout. It might be asked, when were the various writings accepted as scripture? The earlier books are received and treated as authoritative throughout the later books. As to the book of the law, we are told that it was placed in the ark of the covenant upon its completion: “When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, ... put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” (Deut. 31:24, 26). This command came as Moses was giving charge to Joshua as the one who would bring them into the promised land (Deut. 31:23). That his final instructions should have been recorded, and preserved, is unsurprising. Faith, however, receives the books of Moses as the Word of the Lord, even as the text itself states (Ex. 24:3; 34:27, etc.). The reasons, therefore, for preserving the law in the ark go far beyond any natural explanation; it was placed in the ark because it had been received as a revelation from Jehovah God.
References in the book of Kings to the law of Moses, and elsewhere throughout the Old Testament, continue to attest to its acceptance as divine authority: “Keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses” (1 Kings 2:3). Interestingly, the very instruction for the preservation of the text was built into the Law itself; though I readily grant that the preservation of the text was a secondary objective, though intrinsic to its observation. “When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me ... it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them” (Deut. 17:14, 18-19). Though I am not aware of an explicit record in the Scriptures to confirm that this was ever carried out, we do find the book of the law providentially preserved up to the time of King Josiah at the close of the kingdom of Judah (circa 623 B.C.). “Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it” (2 Kings 22:8). It is clear that its contents, far from having been edited to fit the changing times, continued to serve as a witness against Israel: “When the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes” (2 Kings 22:11).
As to the later writings, we find Jeremiah quoting Micah (Jer. 26:18) and Daniel reading Jeremiah, his contemporary: “In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem” (Dan. 9:2). These prophecies were received as the Word of God. Of course, skepticism takes issue with the Book of Daniel and places its origin at a much later date, not because of its historical inaccuracy, but rather, for its historical precision! Unbelief cannot accept that Daniel could have recorded, in such detail, future events. Faith, on the other hand, receives prophecy as a revelation from God Himself. That Daniel could speak in such detail is, therefore, not surprising at all.
The Old Testament writings were accepted as scripture, if not at the time of writing, then certainly shortly thereafter. We can see something of the process in the book of Proverbs. This book was compiled into its present form at a date later than the reign of Solomon as the following verse indicates: “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out” (Prov. 25:1). In no way does this lead faith to question the inspiration of the book, but rather, we recognize that God used faithful men at a later date to preserve those proverbs of Solomon (that had evidently been accepted as divinely inspired) before they were lost to the ravages of time. We might note that, with the exception of clay tablets and inscriptions on stone or metal, written media simply didn’t endure. Generally speaking, parchment and papyrus decay rapidly unless stored in a dry environment, free of most bacteria. The preservation of texts took effort — the faithful replication of manuscripts from generation to generation. Texts with no special value languished and have, by and large, been lost to antiquity. In contrast, however, the Scriptures have been preserved.
The Transmission and Preservation of the Text
Though the transmission of the text of the Old Testament was by human means — the painstaking copying by scribes from scroll to scroll — nevertheless, faith readily acknowledges God’s divine care over His own word. It is inconceivable that God, who chose to communicate His mind through the written word, would allow it to become corrupted so as to render it useless. The evidence from the manuscripts that have been discovered indicates that the text has indeed been remarkably preserved, nevertheless, not without the marks of human frailty.
The Old Testament that we hold in our hands is by and large a translation of that which is known as the Masoretic text. The Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete manuscript of the Old Testament based on this Hebrew text. It dates from around 1008 A.D. It is extraordinarily well preserved and is housed at the National Library of Russia in Saint Petersburg. The Masoretes were Jewish scholars who worked between the sixth and tenth centuries A.D. They accepted the job of preserving and transmitting the text of the Hebrew Scriptures. Their dedication to the accuracy of the text is extraordinary. Rules governed the kind of ink used, dictated the spacing of words, and prohibited writing anything from memory. The lines — and even the letters — were counted methodically. If a manuscript was found to contain even one mistake it was discarded and destroyed 7. The Masoretes, for example, added the diacritic marks to the Hebrew text to ensure proper pronunciation. Hebrew, as with other Semitic languages, is written without vowels. The vowels are indicated in the Masoretic text with marks above, below, or within the letter itself.
Being a bound book, in contrast to a collection of scrolls, the Leningrad Codex establishes an order for the books of the Old Testament. This order differs from the one with which we are familiar. It corresponds, however, more or less to that given by Josephus and as suggested by the Lord — the threefold division of: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Clearly this was, and had been, a familiar arrangement to the Jew.
Since the time of the Masoretes, the text of the Old Testament has been preserved with a religious zeal and dogged tenacity. Even when the written text differed from the traditional reading, the text was not altered. These differences occurred for a variety of reasons, sometimes religious, but on other occasions for such things as mundane as misspellings. Because of their reverence for the text, the Jewish scribes dutifully transcribed everything unaltered, even spelling errors, but with a notation. These variations are called the Qere. This Hebrew word means that which is read. The written text, on the other hand, is called the Ketiv, meaning that which is written. An English translation, as in J. N. Darby’s, may note in the margin as to whether it is following the Qere or the Ketiv.
Though I remarked that the text has been diligently preserved since the time of the Masoretes, I’m not suggesting anything different for the periods prior to this. It is simply that since the time of the Masoretes we have a solid historic record that may be reviewed by any who wish to question the integrity of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, because of the relative modernity of the Masoretic manuscripts we possess (from around 1000 A.D.), accusations were frequently made against the reliability of the Old Testament Scriptures. Unfortunately, there was no textual evidence to prove otherwise — at least, not until 1947!
Incidentally, this accusation is frequently made by Muslims. They believe that the Jewish and Christian writings had become so corrupted that the Prophet Muhammad had to be sent with a new revelation. The Quran states: O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book (Surah 5:15). For their part, Moslems don’t reject the Bible outright; in fact, the Quran appears to confirm the teaching of the Gospels, though they attribute them to Allah: And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed — then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient (Surah 5:46-47). I do not write this to cast a positive light on the Quran. Rather, it is something to be aware of, as the Gospels, especially Matthew, Mark and Luke, are a good starting point if one has the opportunity to witness to someone of this persuasion.
The Dead Sea Scrolls
In 1947, as the story goes, a Bedouin shepherd boy, searching for a lost goat along the West bank of the Dead Sea, tossed a stone into a hole in the cliff face. To his surprise, he heard the sound of breaking pottery. Seeking out the cause, he found within the cave clay jars holding scrolls. This was the beginning of one of the most extraordinary archeological finds of the last century, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In all, more than nine hundred manuscripts were ultimately recovered. Of these, more than two hundred and twenty five are Biblical. Every Old Testament book is represented with the exception of Esther and Nehemiah — and given that Nehemiah was typically included in the same scroll as Ezra, we may count it among the number as well. It is generally accepted that the Dead Sea manuscripts date from 250 B.C. to 68 A.D. That is to say, they are among the oldest Old Testament manuscripts that we have, and around 1000 years older than the oldest known Masoretic texts.8
What have we learned from these manuscripts? Rather than evidence of textual corruption and modification as skeptics supposed, the exact opposite has been established. One of the most remarkably preserved texts is that of Isaiah with twenty one manuscripts in all. Of these, one scroll is complete. When the Standard Bible Revision Committee compared the Isaiah text of the Dead Sea Scrolls against the Masoretic text, on which our English translation is based, they made, as Millar Burrows recalled, just thirteen adjustments to the text. Thirteen readings in which the manuscript departs from the traditional text were eventually adopted. In these places a marginal note cites “One ancient Ms,” meaning the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll. A brief review will show that even in these thirteen places the superiority of the manuscript’s reading is not always certain. For myself I must confess that in some cases where I probably voted for the emendation I am now convinced that our decision was a mistake, and the Masoretic reading should have been retained.9 In the entire book of Isaiah, only thirteen differences of any consequence were identified! As to the nature of these amendments, here is an example: whereas the King James reads: “The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee” (Isa. 60:19), the Isaiah scroll adds the words “ ... by night.” The remaining twelve changes are no more startling, and, while they may elucidate some difficult passages, they certainly do not alter our understanding of them.
I do not wish to gloss over the differences between manuscripts, for there are differences. Those who seek to question the veracity of the Scriptures will, without a doubt, emphasize them. However, while it is easy to produce numbers that seem to indicate an overwhelming number of textual variations, when one examines the specifics, the story is very different. The truth is the manuscripts prove that the vast bulk of the text has been faithfully and remarkably preserved. No other document of such antiquity shows anything close to this degree of preservation. Josh McDowell, quoting G. Archer, offers this assessment: the Isaiah copies of the Qumran community proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than ninety five percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.10
We find nothing to support the notion of an evolving, dynamic text. Unbelief will make much of the little it does find, but we leave the skeptics to their fanciful interpretations. For our part, we are not looking for a proof of the reliability of the Old Testament. Indeed, faith doesn’t require such a proof. Nevertheless, in considering one of the accusations made against the Old Testament Scriptures, we find nothing to substantiate it.
The Septuagint
The Septuagint, also known as the LXX (both mean seventy), is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. The translation probably began during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, in Alexandria, Egypt, around 250 B.C. Tradition has it that six elders from each of the twelve tribes of Israel (seventy two elders in all) translated the Hebrew Scriptures in just seventy two days. We have no particular reason to accept this tradition as being true; nor should we suppose that the whole of the Septuagint was even translated at one time.
The Septuagint is of special interest to the Christian because a great majority of Old Testament quotations given in the New Testament follow the Greek text of the Septuagint. The Septuagint, however, presents two problems: 1) The translation is quite varied in quality, and, in some instances, differs significantly from the Masoretic text. 2) In addition to the twenty four books of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint includes various extra-Biblical books.
In addressing these concerns, we must first note that the Septuagint is indeed a translation. Just as we have a multitude of translations of the Bible into English — a few excellent, many doubtful, and others bordering on blasphemous — it shouldn’t surprise us to find variations within the Septuagint. It is also important to recognize that it was a translation whose primary purpose appears to have been the dissemination of Hebrew texts throughout the Greek speaking world; it wasn’t intended for scholarly or scribal work.11
Regarding the quality of translation, another has written: When the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament was made, the Hebrew text used was, of course, not marked with the vowel points which the Masoretes later placed in their text. And it is to be observed that the great majority of the variations between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text arise from the fact that the translators supplied different vowels to the consonantal text from those which the Masoretes employed. In numerous other instances the translators had before them the same text as that of the Masoretes, but mistook it, misunderstood it, or interpreted it differently. At times it is clear that the translators were not at all sure what the Hebrew text before them meant, and it is quite possible that at some other times, when they did feel sure of the meaning of the text, they were mistaken. Furthermore on some occasions, they attempted to throw light on the original by the addition of material. Comparative Semitic philology has shown that numerous supposed variations in the Septuagint from the Masoretic text do not represent any difference at all in the basic text.12
By way of example, the Septuagint version of Esther has a number of non-trivial differences when compared against the story in our Bibles. It is, in fact, significantly longer than the Hebrew text. A casual reading of the Septuagint version, however, is sufficient to show that the original text is indeed present, but there are many additions. Between the fourth and fifth chapters, for example, prayers supposedly offered by Mordecai and Esther have been inserted. In these prayers, Jehovah God is entreated on behalf of the Jewish people. The Biblical book of Esther is rather remarkable in that God is not once mentioned. This has caused difficulty for some — indeed, not one fragment from the book of Esther has ever been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls! The book was apparently rejected by the community at Qumran. The translators of the Septuagint seem to have taken a different tack; rather than excise the book, they have embellished it to make up for what it was deemed to lack! That there is no reference to God, however, represents no difficulty at all. Rather, it is completely consistent with the story and its historical context. William Kelly remarks: Here we have another final view historically in the book of Esther; but it is in a quite different direction, for we have a picture of the secret providence which never fails to watch over them [the Jews] while they are scattered among the Gentiles. And this it is that accounts for no introduction of Jehovah or even Elohim in the book, which rationalistic ignorance alleges against its divine inspiration. Oh, the folly of heeding what these enemies of God (and therefore in divine things of man also) say about scripture! 13
Since the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint, one may ask the question: doesn’t this give credibility to that text and translation? Not necessarily. Just as one may use a poor translation of the English Bible to point one to Christ, the Septuagint may likewise be used. That is to say, the Spirit of God made use of this translation, familiar to the common people, to bring before them those verses which we now find in our New Testament. We should also note, however, that one should not suppose that the majority of the Septuagint is questionable — far from it. What then as to verses which clearly differ between the Old and New Testaments? For example, “Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me” (Heb. 10:5) is a quotation from the fortieth Psalm as given by the Septuagint. The Hebrew text reads: “Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; Mine ears hast Thou opened” (Psa. 40:6). In this instance, the Septuagint is not a word-for-word translation, but it gives the sense as it is to be understood; to have ones ears opened implies a body given. Regardless, the Spirit of God may quote Himself in whatever way He chooses. An author can hardly be criticized for quoting himself in words of his own choosing.
As to the second difficulty mentioned above, that is to say the inclusion of extra-Biblical books, we will address this next as we consider the apocryphal books of the Old Testament.
Apocryphal Books
If you will allow me to digress for a moment from the rather dry consideration of facts, I will recount a personal story. In a high-school mathematics class, the subject of the Bible came up one day. It was not introduced by the teacher but by a student — in fact, I don’t recall the teacher being present. I suppose, any subject but mathematics was more interesting on that warm, lazy afternoon! Present was a student known by his self-declared position as an atheist. This was somewhat unusual in our rather staid community, with its roots going back to the old German Lutherans who settled it. Nevertheless, he made no secret of the fact. Declaring that he was not ignorant of the Bible he indicated that he had read it from cover to cover — and being a good student, I had no reason to doubt him. His most striking observation, however, was that the portion he enjoyed the most was the Apocrypha! Now, for one who had grown up with a daily portion from the Bible, this was quite baffling. I had heard the Book of Revelation referred to as the Apocalypse, but I had never heard of the Apocrypha. What had I missed?
The word Apocrypha literally means obscure. It is a title used to describe books of doubtful origin and questionable authorship, which have nevertheless, been found in association with the Scriptures. We find certain apocryphal books included in the Septuagint; we also find a number of religious scrolls of an apocryphal character among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This mingling of texts has led to confusion and has opened the door for some to question the canon of Scripture. My fellow high school student had probably read a Roman Catholic Bible. For them, the canonicity of certain apocryphal books was explicitly affirmed by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. There are, nevertheless, strong reasons why these books have been rejected as the inspired Word of God by both Protestant Christians and Jews alike.
The most overlooked reason why these books have been rejected as the Word of God is because they are not! Sometimes one gets the impression that canonicity was decided by a committee many years removed from the original authorship. In fact, Heinrich Graetz hypothesized that the canon of the Old Testament was decided by the council of Jamnia around 90 A.D.14 This has since been discredited as insupportable conjecture. It never seems to occur to scholars that God gave man a revelation, and that it was received as such by the faithful to whom it was addressed. Quite frankly, many of the so-called apocryphal books were rejected because they were plainly interlopers — they pretended to be something they were not. However, I don’t want to be accused of highhandedness; if this is true, there will be evidence to this effect.
The Jews themselves did not treat the Apocryphal books as Scripture. Neither Josephus nor Philo (an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, circa 20 B.C. – 40 A.D.) quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired. More importantly, none of the New Testament authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, or Jude quoted from these books. Jude may be offered by some as an exception but I will address this shortly. The so-called church fathers spoke out against the Apocrypha — for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius. Jerome (340 – 420 A.D.), the translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Writing in his prologue to the Books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs), Jerome says: The church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the church.15 Martin Luther and the other reformers rejected the Apocrypha as canonical.
Aside from its silence, how does the rest of Scripture judge the Apocrypha? The character of these books and the doctrines they uphold are at variance with the inspired Word of God. As an example, the Roman Catholic practice of praying for the dead is taken from the apocryphal book of Second Maccabees (2 Macc. 12:44-46). Truly, such prayers are vain and useless. Indeed, how shall we escape if in this life we reject salvation (Heb. 2:3)? There is no way. The Lord confirms the fixed state of the dead in the account of the rich man and Lazarus: “Beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence” (Luke 16:26).
As to the book of Jude, Jude gives us a prophesy from Enoch: “Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him” (Jude 14-15). Among the Dead Sea Scrolls is to be found multiple manuscripts of a text known as the Book of Enoch — Jude’s prophesy is to be found in it. Interestingly, this book was not included by the Jewish translators of the Septuagint, and it has never gained traction among Jews and Christians alike. No copy has ever been found in the Hebrew language; all the Enoch scrolls at Qumran are in Aramaic. The book has five sections, the first of which is occupied with fallen angels and a fanciful interpretation of Genesis 6:4. It reads like Greek mythology and not Scripture; man’s occupation with such salacious topics continues with the popular media of this present day. The Book of Enoch was most likely written subsequent to Jude’s epistle, with the author using the prophecy given by Jude to offer legitimacy to the text. Given the unusual nature of Enoch’s life (Gen. 5:21-24) it naturally excites much interest. That someone should take Jude’s quote and build a text around it is hardly surprising. Such pseudepigraphical texts were not uncommon, as we shall see when we come to the New Testament. Regardless, it is incongruous to believe that Jude sourced his quote from such a book, and, as did the early Christians, we receive his short epistle as the inspired Word of God and we reject the Book of Enoch.
As to the merit of the books of the Apocrypha, Maccabees I and II provide us with an historic account of that silent period between the Old and New Testaments. Nevertheless, we receive them as one would the writings of Josephus, Julius Caesar, Herodotus, or any other secular historian. As to the remaining books, they are of interest to one studying the period, but unlike Jerome, I cannot recommend them, even for edification, if the Scriptures themselves make no such commendation.
In hindsight, I find it rather striking that my fellow student, the self-proclaimed atheist, found the apocryphal books the most enjoyable. Should it surprise us that these had the greatest resonance with the natural man? “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (2 Cor. 2:14). To complete the story, many years later I heard that this man had been saved! Truly, we marvel at the grace of God. It reminds me of the verse: “Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16). Truly indifference is often a greater enemy to the soul than outright hostility.
The Historical Accuracy of the Old Testament
Though there are, relatively speaking, fewer ancient manuscripts for the Old Testament when compared to the New, they are quite sufficient to demonstrate the consistency of the text over the last two thousand years. If we wish to reach back beyond that, however, then we must look to secondary sources. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is a historical document, and as such, it leaves itself wide open to scrutiny.
A note of caution here — as a Christian, I do not look to history to prove the Word of God. Instead, I look to the Bible to understand history. Nevertheless, there are many who want to see to believe (John 20:25); and many more who would seek to undermine the weak in faith by making false historical claims. When there is a true seeking and a desire to know, then having answers as to the historical accuracy of the Scriptures is not inappropriate. The Lord did show Himself to Thomas, though he was reproved for his lack of faith: “because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed” (John 20:29). In the story of Thomas, there is another lesson to be learned; unless the revealing of the Lord is our true desire, all such discussions are without profit. Salvation is not brought about through persuasion and clever argument. We present the truth and the Spirit of God does the rest.
Interestingly, the Quran is not an historical document and so, quite conveniently, it cannot be subject to the same historical scrutiny. The Book of Mormon, however, does claim to be an historical record. For its part, there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the fabrications it presents concerning the ancient Americas and plenty which plainly contradicts it.
So, how does one compare the Old Testament with the historic record — and what record do we use, and how are we to be sure of its reliability? These are good questions but are beyond the scope of this book and the author’s expertise. Nevertheless, there are some rather obvious external records that we can, without controversy, appeal to. Whereas manuscripts may not be the best material for longevity, clay and stone do rather well! From time immemorial, man, in his quest for immortality, has carved records of his grandest achievements in stone. Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian inscriptions all exist in stone. Nevertheless, only the most significant of records were recorded in such a costly fashion. There was, however, a far more prosaic way of writing which has left us a superabundance of preserved records. For thousands of years the peoples of Mesopotamia wrote on soft clay tablets using a wedge-shaped stick. Cuneiform, as it is known, was adapted by the Hittites, Assyrians, and Babylonians (among others) to record their daily lives and to chronicle their history. Though clay tablets are not completely impervious to the ravages of time, one agent usually associated with destruction, fire, simply bakes clay into brick! When a city was burned by a conqueror, entire libraries of clay tablets were preserved in the ashes. Although a majority of tablets simply record daily transactions, royal records have also been found among the million or so tablets we have today. The book of Esther makes reference to such chronicles: “On that night could not the king sleep, and he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles; and they were read before the king” (Esther 6:1). Incidentally, of the tablets found, only a small percentage, perhaps ten percent, has ever been read! This gives one some idea of the sheer volume of material preserved.
We know, therefore, from their own local records, the royal lineage of the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. We can read of their conquests and we can also read of the intrigues that led to their overthrow. Focusing on the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Old Testament gives the following kings of Assyria (A) and Babylon (B) in this order:16
Tiglath-Pileser III (Pul) A 745-727 B.C.
Shalmaneser V A 727-722 B.C.
Sargon II A 722-705 B.C.
Sennacherib A 705-681 B.C.
Merodach-Baladan II B 722-710, 703 B.C.
Esarhaddon A 681-669 B.C.
Nebuchadrezzar II B 605-562 B.C.
Evil-Merodach B 562-560 B.C.
Not only does the Biblical order correspond exactly to the external records, but the names are spelled correctly. The latter may seem like an odd observation, but, in this regard, the Bible stands in stark contrast to the writings of the fourth to first centuries B.C. where the names are almost unintelligible.17 As to dates, and especially time intervals, once again we find no conflict.
In 2 Kings we read, “It came to pass, as [Sennacherib] was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead” (2 Kings 19:37). Assyrian records from Nineveh, from Esarhaddon himself, confirm this murder by the sons of Sennacherib. The Babylonian Chronicle mentions murder by a son and other later sources continue to confirm the event — once again, there is absolute agreement between the Old Testament and external records.
Backing up in time, we read in 1 Kings: “It came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: and he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house; he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made” (1 Kings 14:25-26). Was there such a king in Egypt? Most certainly! Shoshenq the First has left us a record of his campaign into Palestine including a stele (inscribed stone slab) at Megiddo in the valley of Jezreel.
Should we be surprised at these things? No, not at all. What should surprise us is that the Old Testament is treated as a second-rate historical source. Over and over again we find historic records aligning with the Biblical accounts, and yet, when there is a seeming disagreement, the Bible is always assumed to be wrong. The story of Belshazzar was long disputed; we now have local Babylonian documents that tell us that he reigned as second in the kingdom during his father’s (Nabonidus) lengthy absences — need I say, in perfect consistency with the book of Daniel. Mind you, the critics will point out that Daniel calls Nebuchadnezzar “thy father” (Dan. 5:18). Although some feel that Nebuchadnezzar was perhaps Belshazzar’s grandfather, Nabonidus is not known to be a direct descendent of Nebuchadnezzar. The terms father and son, however, have frequently been used outside of natural relationships. Whether literal or not, Daniel links Belshazzar to Nebuchadnezzar in this way as his precursor and example.
Of course, we know why man rejects the Biblical accounts. To accept the Scriptures, even for its historic content, puts man in a precarious position. Though the Old Testament contains history, it was not written to be an historic record. For that, one needed to turn to the state chronicles. Indeed, throughout the books of Kings we read: “The rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel” (1 Kings 14:19). If the Bible is not first of all an historic record, what then? The Spirit of God, through the inspired writers, gives us just those things which God desires to bring to our attention. The Bible serves the much larger purpose of revealing the state of man’s heart on the one hand and the heart of God on the other. The natural man does not want to hear these things.
The Bible: The New Testament
The Books of the New Testament
In March 2003, a new work of fiction appeared on the market; by April 6, it was number one on the New York Times bestseller list — the book, Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.18 It didn’t drop off the list until November 2005!19 This immensely popular book (more than eighty million copies have been sold) contains numerous historical fallacies, and, of special interest to us, blatant falsehoods concerning the Holy Scriptures and the Lord Himself. The book is not worth reading, let alone refuting; nevertheless, it has distorted the minds of millions ignorant of the truth.
A myth propagated by The Da Vinci Code is that the church rejected numerous alternative gospels and epistles in favor of those that held to the narrow dogma it was pressing. Furthermore, it is claimed, that the canon of the New Testament was not agreed upon until hundreds of years after Christ. In 2004, a follow-up to The Da Vinci Code was published called, Secrets of the Code. In this book, so-called experts explored the various ideas suggested by Brown’s fiction. The editor presents the following as fact: Eventually, four Gospels and twenty-three other texts were canonized (declared to be the Holy Scriptures) into a Bible. This did not occur, however, until the sixth century.20 Given the present questioning among some, I suppose the argument could be made that canonization has yet to occur! Unbelief will always question the Scriptures, and sadly, Christendom has its share of unbelievers. The statement, however, is complete nonsense. The majority of the twenty seven New Testament books, with which we are familiar, were accepted as Scripture at a very early date.
Eusebius of Caesarea (circa 260 – 340 A.D) addressed the subject of the New Testament Canon in his Ecclesiastical History: Since we are dealing with this subject, it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.21
In 367 A.D., Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, wrote in his thirty-ninth festal letter: There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these 22.
With Athanasius we have, therefore, the exact books that make up the Bible as we know it. Athanasius was most certainly not establishing a list, as is often claimed, he was defending it. If one reads the full letter, he makes mention of fabricated books and those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science.23 Athanasius was simply giving the canonical books of the Bible, as they had been received by the faithful, to counter these forgeries.
Before continuing with our subject, it is necessary to address a common misconception. One gets the impression from some that an authority decided upon the canon of the New Testament — Constantine or perhaps the First council of Nicaea. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the true nature of Christianity and the church — though one is hardly surprised by it. The books of the New Testament were received as Scripture by those who read them. They were recognized as such by faith through the power of the Spirit of God. If a council had decided upon the canon of the New Testament, by what authority could they claim to have done so? Certainly not by any authority invested in them by God. The Holy Spirit is the power of the Christian life and indwells every true believer. The Apostle John in his first epistle writes: “Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things” (1 John 2:20), and, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). The things of God resonate with the Spirit of God; things contrary to the truth of God produce a dissonance.
Athanasius’ letter came almost 300 years after the last of the New Testament books were written. Do we have anything prior to this which will give us to see what books had been received by the early church as canonical? For this we have to turn to the writings of the church fathers, so-called. There we will find the books they quoted as Scripture.
Clement of Rome, in his letter to the Corinthian church (circa 96 A.D.), quotes the Lord saying: especially remember the word of the Lord Jesus, Be merciful, so that you may obtain mercy.24 This is an application of “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy” (Matt. 5:7). In his second letter (circa 100 A.D.), he writes: Again another scripture saith, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners (cf. Matt. 9:13). Later in the same letter he quotes: Yea, He Himself saith, Whoso confesseth Me, Him will I confess before the Father (cf. Matt. 10:32). Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (circa 110 A.D.), strongly defends the authority of the Gospels, without spelling out what they are. Nevertheless, one cannot argue in defense of something unless there is a general understanding as to what that something is — in this case, the Gospels. Clearly the Gospels were recognized and quoted as Scripture by these men. To this we could add the testimony of Irenaeus from the second century: It is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.25 He then proceeds to give a brief introduction to the four Gospels — John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark.
So as not to be accused of hiding anything, we should note that the church fathers were not the most reliable of witnesses. They also quoted non-canonical books. This, however, needs to be considered in terms of the overall evidence and the bigger picture. It is truly remarkable, nevertheless, how quickly the Scriptures were distorted and the doctrine of Paul misunderstood. Shortly we will encounter an individual called Marcion (circa 85– 160 A.D.). Marcion appeared to recognize this ignorance concerning Paul, but in his efforts to understand him, he took up Paul’s doctrine in an intellectual way, and in so doing, he completely missed the mark.
As to the Pauline epistles, F. F. Bruce writes: From the early second century onward Paul’s letters circulated not singly, but as a collection.26 The testimony of the Scriptures suggests that this was true at an even earlier date, in Peter’s day: “Our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles” (2 Pet. 3:15-16). The earliest surviving copy of Paul’s epistles is codex P46, written around 200 A.D., from the Chester Beatty collection. This codex does not include Paul’s three pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) but it does include Hebrews — an epistle whose authorship is often questioned.27 Incidentally, among the Chester Beatty manuscripts there are also fragments from: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts.
The Muratorian Fragment contains one of the oldest known lists of New Testament books. It was written in Latin and most likely dates from the late second century.28 It includes twenty two of the twenty seven New Testament books; only Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 3 John are omitted. A book we do not recognize as canonical is included — The Wisdom of Solomon (supposedly written by Solomon’s friends in his honor). Another, the Apocalypse of Peter, is also mentioned but with the disclaimer, which some of our people will not have to be read in church.
Much more could be written on this subject but we will not pursue it further. Quite simply, the books which make up the canon of the New Testament appear to have been received with very little controversy. Still, it may be disconcerting that some of the lists omit certain books. Keep in mind, that as the books of the New Testament were written, their distribution took time — it was a painstaking labor of love to copy out a manuscript. It follows then that the later epistles are the ones not found in the earlier lists. However, far from the claims of the skeptics, it is a falsehood to suggest that there were many competing gospels and epistles. As we shall see, other writings did exist, but as to competing with the Scriptures for acceptance, they were in a different league altogether.
Apocryphal Books
Just as we found with the Old Testament, various apocryphal writings appeared in the days of the early church. Few were mentioned side-by-side with the canonical books and few survive intact to this day. Were it not for the publication of one of these writings in recent years — announced, I might add, with great fanfare — we should barely pause to consider this subject.
That which characterized the legitimate writings of the New Testament was their authority, doctrine, and acceptance. Apocryphal books must pretend to at least one of these and the first is the easiest to fake — write something in the name of an apostle! Pseudepigraphical books abounded. It began in the days of the Apostles. The believers at Thessalonica were shaken as to the day of the Lord by a letter forged in the name of Paul: “That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thess. 2:2). We also know of a Third Corinthians and letters to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians, all forged in the name of Paul; also, a gospel supposedly written by Peter; and there are many others.29
Some of the apocryphal writings make no false claim to authorship, and are genuine enough in themselves, but their canonicity must be rejected because of their lack of authority and orthodoxy. The Shepherd of Hermas is one that appears to have gained a certain popularity. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment; nevertheless, the author makes it quite clear in that document that it lacked authority. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. The form of the work is allegorical, and, in that, it falls down doctrinally. William Kelly wrote: Again, it is surprising that anyone who has the least regard for orthodoxy or even decency should cite from The Shepherd of Hermas. ... Far be it from my wish to expose the mere trash of a weak and fanciful mind in its visions, commands, and similitudes. But it is a far graver case, when Hermas talks of God’s holy angel filling a man with the blessed Spirit! Of men’s having all their offences blotted out because they suffered death for the name of the Son of God! And, worse still if possible, of the Holy Spirit being created first of all!30
Gnostic Gospels
Among the apocryphal books of the New Testament, the Gnostic gospels have generated much recent interest. Unbelief always delights in that which is contrary to the truth. Sadder still, Gnostic thought has seen a revival within the present day New Age movement.
The word Gnostic derives from the Greek word Gnosis meaning knowledge; it implies a pretention to some superior, esoteric knowledge. That there should be a superior knowledge, independent of faith, makes it very appealing to the natural man. Characterizing Gnosticism in a few sentences is difficult; it is a confusing, intellectual system that draws from various religious traditions. One teaching consistent with most forms of Gnosticism is the evil nature of the material or lower world — it is claimed to be a corrupt imitation of that which it represents and is, therefore, intrinsically evil. Jesus Christ cannot be the Creator nor could He have come in flesh for that would identify Him with a material world (cf. 1 John 4:3). Salvation for the individual is to rise above the material and gain gnosis, that is to say, knowledge, especially secret knowledge. Salvation lies within the individual and no Saviour is needed.
Gnosticism did not spring out of Christianity, but rather, Gnostic thought began infiltrating Christianity late in the first century. Gnosticism grew to become a formidable opponent of Christianity.31 The Apostle John found it necessary to address early Gnostic teachings when he wrote his Epistles. For this reason, it is easy to see why his first Epistle begins: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life” (1 John 1:1). The Apostle rejects the notion of any new knowledge and instead takes the reader back to Christ manifest in this world, and that in a human body which could be seen and touched — this was the Word of life. Praise be to God! What an extraordinary thought! It far exceeds the vain imaginations of foolish man. Later in the same epistle, John speaks very strongly against false spirits who would reject Christ come in flesh: “Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3). Gnosticism didn’t end with the Apostle John. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, wrote a well-known treatise entitled, Against Heresies (circa 180 A.D.), in which he sought to address the heretical inroads of Gnosticism within Christianity.
In 1945, near the village of Nag Hammadi in Egypt, twelve leatherbound codices were found in a sealed jar. These contained fifty two Gnostic writings, including, probably the most well-known, the so-called Gospel of Thomas. This is not a gospel in the Biblical sense, but rather a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. It begins: These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down.32 Immediately one notices the claim to secret knowledge. In the thirteenth saying, we find the author, contrary to anything we find in the true Gospels, implying that Thomas was the recipient of secret knowledge: And He took him, withdrew, and spoke to him three words. Now when Thomas came back to his companions, they asked him: What did Jesus say to you? Thomas said to them: If I tell you one of the words which He said to me, you will take up stones and throw them at me; and a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up. Consistent with Gnostic thought, saying one hundred and fourteen teaches that only men may enter the kingdom of heaven — the female form being inherently evil: Simon Peter says to them: “Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!” Jesus says: “See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven.”
In early 2006, a translation of another Gnostic gospel, the so-called Gospel of Judas, was published by none other than the National Geographic Society. The very fact that it was published by an institution whose goal is the spread of geographic, archeological, and scientific knowledge, added a degree of importance to this endeavor. No doubt, for one whose field of expertise is ancient texts, this document is of interest. However, its publication was announced very publically in the media. Do we even need to ask the question why? In this work there is once again a claim to secret knowledge. This time the possessor of gnosis is none other than Judas Iscariot! The text begins: The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover.33 I won’t trouble the reader with any further quotations from this blasphemous work. Needless to say, Judas Iscariot is not the betrayer in this false account!
We earlier discussed pseudepigraphical texts (those written in the name of another) and once again we find this to be characteristic of the Gnostic writings. Few, if any, accept that these second to fourth century texts to have been written by their supposed authors. As a counterpoint to this, three of the four true Gospels are anonymous; only Luke identifies himself. The identities of the other writers are only known to us through external sources. This anonymity is often raised questioningly — how can we trust a Gospel where the author did not identify himself? Another accusation commonly made against the canonical Gospels is their late date of writing.
As to the second point, so long as the Apostles were living, and before the spread of Christianity, there was no need for a written gospel. Furthermore, the twelve Apostles, as with Paul, had the daily expectation of Christ’s return always before them: “We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:15). And as to the question of anonymity, it is evident that having a stated author meant very little, as the many phony claims to authorship have shown. However, more significantly, whereas the writings of men may carry weight because of the name attached to it, the inspired writings of Scripture require no such human stamp. In fact, the authors of the Gospels go out of their way to keep their identities hidden. The Gospels are about the Lord Jesus Christ and He is always foremost. The Apostle John refers to himself namelessly as the one “whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23, etc.). That is to say, without Christ who was he? He defines himself by the Saviour’s love toward him.
We might ask: Why have so few copies of Gnostic works survived to this day? In contrast, as we shall shortly see, tens of thousands of manuscripts and fragments exist for the canonical books of the New Testament. The claim of unbelief is that the apocryphal books were suppressed and destroyed by those seeking to promote a strictly orthodox line of teaching. While this is undoubtedly true in part — after all these writings were heretical — is it really the answer? The Bible itself has also been severely persecuted. Christianity has gone through numerous bouts of persecution and the Scriptures have been burned and destroyed. Ten periods of persecution during the first three centuries, as suggested by John’s address to Smyrna, have been identified: “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Rev. 2:10). During the reign of the Emperor Diocletian (303 – 311 A.D.) there was a wholesale effort to annihilate the sacred writings of the Christians. Need we wonder, however, that the canonical books survived and the apocryphal books did not? What would one surrender to the authorities or throw on the fire? Certainly not something that he or she was willing to die for. In all this, there is the implied assumption that the apocryphal books met with the approval of the Christians but were suppressed. The most obvious explanation, however, for the lack of manuscripts preserved to this day is that they lacked approval in the days of their writing. For a true Christian, they held no appeal. And for the unbeliever, like every other fad of man, they soon faded into oblivion — waiting, of course, to be revived as a new attack against the true Scriptures.
I wish to conclude this discussion on the Gnostic gospels by touching on the writings of Marcion (circa 85 – 160 A.D.). Marcion is of interest in that he was a heretic. Though not Gnostic, his teachings bore similar marks to Gnosticism. If there were reason to bring extra-biblical books into the canon of the New Testament, or, for that matter, to exclude certain books, Marcion was certainly motivated to do so. To be clear, Marcion did heavily edit the Scriptures and he did remove those books which conflicted with his beliefs. Marcion (as with the Gnostics) claimed that Jesus merely appeared to be human and so he purged all things touching on Christ’s humanity. He also rejected the God of the Old Testament as being incompatible with the revelation of the Father in the New; consequently, anything that connected the New Testament with the Old was also eliminated. Nevertheless, the books that formed the basis of his bible were none other than the writings of the Greek New Testament. Marcion’s scriptures included the Gospel of Luke, though with all things inconsistent with his heretical teachings purged. He also included ten Epistles of Paul (the pastoral epistles to Timothy and Titus were omitted). These were also edited to reflect Marcion’s teachings. Of great interest, however, no apocryphal writings were included in his canon. Either they didn’t exist — which proves they were later fabrications — or they simply lacked credibility. In reality, there is every reason to believe, as we have already seen, that both statements are true.34
The Integrity and Preservation of the Greek Text
Unlike the Old Testament, when it comes to manuscripts of the New, we have a superabundance of material. No other book of antiquity is represented by such a vast collection of ancient manuscripts. F. F. Bruce notes that several manuscripts of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars (composed in the first century B.C.) survive to this day, of which ten are good. Of these, the oldest copy is some 900 years removed from the original, and for all that, no one questions the text we possess! Bruce goes on to say: Of the 14 books of the Histories of Tacitus (circa 100 A.D.) only four and a half survive; of the 16 books of his Annals, 10 survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two manuscripts: one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh.35 Many more examples could be given; the number of surviving manuscripts for most ancient books number less than one hundred. Other than the Bible, Homer’s The Iliad, is the best documented book of antiquity. Written around 800 B.C., the oldest surviving manuscript is dated to 400 B.C., that is to say, some four hundred years after the original. In all we have six hundred and forty three manuscripts of The Iliad.
When it comes to the New Testament, however, we have around five thousand seven hundred Greek manuscripts. To this we can add ten thousand manuscripts in Latin, and more than one million quotations from the church fathers — not to mention the documents in Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. Even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts for the New Testament, it could be reconstructed in its entirety (with the exception of just a few verses) using quotations taken from the church fathers.36 (Though no one would dispute the difficulty of such a task.) As to the age of these New Testament manuscripts, we have individual books that date from within one hundred years of the original; we also have collections that comprise most of the New Testament dating from one hundred and fifty years or so of writing. The oldest, complete New Testaments date to the fourth century A.D. and are, therefore, a little more than two hundred and fifty years removed from the original manuscripts. Finally, to this we can add Papyrus P52, a fragment from John’s Gospel, dating to the early part of the second century. It could have been copied out less than fifty years after John wrote the original!
Even with this preponderance of evidence, the skeptics will still find ways to question the integrity of the New Testament text. An obvious point of attack is the variation that exists between the manuscripts, but does this represent a serious difficulty? It is true that there are many differences, and figures in the hundreds of thousands are often thrown out. Such numbers seem overwhelming, which undoubtedly is the intended effect. However, even the simple matter of counting variations is unintuitive to most. If manuscript A contains one word different from manuscripts B, C, and D (which all happen to agree) are there three differences or just one? It will be counted as three. To the layman then, the actual number of variations is quite meaningless. If we want to understand a thing or two about the variations between manuscripts we actually need to look at them.
Spelling differences are by far the greatest contributor to textual variation. Citing another: The name for John is spelled in Greek two different ways, either Ioannes or Ioanes. The same person is in view either way; the only difference is whether the name has two n’s or one. One of the most common textual variants involves what is called a movable nu. The Greek letter nu (n) can occur at the end of certain words when they precede a word that starts with a vowel. This is similar to the two forms of the indefinite article in English: a or an. But whether the nu appears in these words or not, there is absolutely no difference in meaning.37 There are also the simple spelling errors or mistaken words — the scribes, though they copied manuscripts with great care, were prone to error just as we are. This is a far cry from the claims of deliberate textual tampering. Codex W in one instance uses the word and in place of Lord. Given that these are similar in Greek, kai versus kurios, one can understand the slip made by the copyist. In context, the word and makes no sense whatsoever; the nature of the error is quite plain.
Another form of copyist error resulted in the skipping of material. When two lines, in close proximity to each other, began or ended with the same words, the eye of the scribe could jump from the first instance to the second. When that happened, the material between the lines was inadvertently dropped. This constant source of error is call homoeoteleuton.
We also find variations that represent differences in the text, but they have no effect on the meaning. For example, the use of the definite article the in connection with proper names. In Greek the is often used before names. As far as the English translation goes, however, it alters nothing if one Greek manuscript should say the Mary and another simply Mary.38 Keep in mind, the use of the definite article is not insignificant in the general case; we are speaking strictly of its use (or non-use) with proper names. Its presence, for example, in connection with the title Lord, is significant. Lord without an article often stands in place of the proper name Jehovah.
Variations in word order is another common contributor to the differences between manuscripts. In English, the role of a word is determined by its position in a sentence. For example, whether a noun is the subject (doer) or the object (receiver) of an action, determines whether it comes before or after the verb (action word). In Greek, however, as with languages such as German and Italian, a noun changes form depending on its usage — this is known as its case. This means that word order ceases to carry the critical significance that it does in English. Rather, the noun form carries with it its function in the sentence. Word order in Greek may, therefore, be used by the writer to express other aspects of speech, such as emphasis. Nevertheless, that being said, in many instances where the Greek word order differs from manuscript to manuscript, the meaning of the sentence remains exactly the same.39
Sometimes, a variation will exist in a manuscript, but the preponderance of evidence will be against it. For example, 1 Thessalonians 2:9 uses the expression, “the gospel of God,” but one late medieval manuscript has, “the gospel of Christ.” There is no sensible reason to believe that this later reading is the correct one.40
Over time, efforts to harmonize the Scriptures have resulted in the merging of texts. There is every reason to believe that the same prayer is spoken of in Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4; nevertheless, its presentation in Matthew differs from Luke’s. As a result, harmonization has crept into the text. Luke’s version is shorter than Matthew’s, and, as given in J. N. Darby’s translation, it is even shorter than the King James. It should read: “Father, Thy name be hallowed; Thy kingdom come; give us our needed bread for each day; and remit us our sins, for we also remit to every one indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation” (Luke 11:2-4 JND). Darby recognized (as did W. Kelly, and as do many conservative Bible scholars) that Our ... who art in the heavens, which does indeed appear in many manuscripts, is a harmonization from Matthew. The Bodmer papyrus, codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Regius, plus various other witnesses, all point to the shorter text given by Darby, Kelly, and others.
Finally, there are those very few instances where viable alternative readings exist between manuscripts. These are very definitely in the minority. Less than one percent of all differences fall into this category and that is still a liberal estimate. As to how a particular reading is decided upon in such instances requires spiritual discernment and not simply critical analysis — the great mistake, it seems to me, of modern textual criticism. An older manuscript, though it should command more weight, isn’t automatically better than a later one. If a particular reading wasn’t followed by later manuscripts, there may have been perfectly sound reasons for this — it may have been recognized as tampering, and so it was rightly rejected.
Two of the more notable, and by far the most extensive differences, are to be found in Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. In both instances, these portions are completely omitted by certain manuscripts or inserted elsewhere.
As to the portion in Mark 16, I will quote from the Introductory Notice to J. N. Darby’s translation of the New Testament. The two oldest manuscripts, codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, omit the end of Mark 16, against all other authority whatsoever, as Burgon has shown with great pains; but in Vaticanus, the fact that the scribe has here left a column blank — the only one in the whole New Testament — is strong presumptive evidence that if he did not find the passage in the manuscript he was copying from, he was aware of an omission. In his marginal notes, Darby adds, It is quoted by Irenaeus and also by Hippolytus of the second or third century. It should be noted that most manuscripts do include the longer ending. Without this ending, the Gospel of Mark has an abrupt finish that is strange indeed: “And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid” (Mark 16:8).
William Kelly, in his Exposition of the Gospel of John, offers these remarks concerning the second omission, John 7:53-8:11: We are now arrived at a section of our Gospel, the external condition of which is to the reflecting mind a solemn evidence of human unbelief, here as daring as usually it appears to hesitate. No evangelist has suffered as much in this way, not even Mark, whose close disappears from two of the most ancient manuscripts. But as we saw that the angel’s visit to trouble the waters of Bethesda was unwelcome to not a few copyists of John 5, so here again incredulity indisposed some to reproduce the story of the adulteress. This is plain from some copies which leave a blank — a fact wholly inexplicable, if the scribe had not been aware of a paragraph which he knew to exist, but for reasons of his own thought fit to omit. Kelly goes on to remark: others, again, transposed it to another place, or to the end of the Gospel, and even to another evangelist, though alien in tone from all but John, and suiting no place in John but here, where the mass of authority gives it. Remarking as to the internal evidence, he says: some have alleged against the passage its entire diversity from the style of the Gospel elsewhere; and this, not merely in words and idioms which John never uses, but in its whole cast and character, which is said to savour more of the Synoptic Gospels. All this, however, fails to meet the positive weight of truth in the passage; and its fitness at this very point of the Gospel is utterly unaccountable in a forgery or a tradition. The Lord is displaying the true light in His Person, as contrasted with others who boasted in the law. We have seen their conscienceless discussion in the preceding chapter.
If these two portions were omitted from our Bibles they would be omissions indeed, but no doctrines would be at stake. In fact, the point has been made by many that no doctrines are brought into question because of a disputed text — not the deity of Christ, not His death, not His resurrection. No! Nothing stands in jeopardy because of textual variations. Naturally, unbelief claims otherwise. I will give one example to show, yet again, the deceptive hand of those who would try and shake the faith of some. A whole group of manuscripts, known as the Western text, omit the words “into heaven” in the question: “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?” (Acts 1:11). Based on this observation, the argument is made that the Western text calls into question the ascension of Christ. For one reading this, without referring to the context, such a statement could be upsetting to say the least. To suggest that the ascension of Christ is an invention of Christians, and that the Biblical text has been modified to support this teaching, is a serious attack on one of the most important doctrines of Christianity. Nevertheless, we have nothing to fear. The support for this doctrine is not limited to this one expression. One can turn to the Epistle to the Ephesians (among other places) to read: “Which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places” (Eph. 1:20). Nevertheless, to expose the full extent of the deception, we only need to read the remainder of Acts 1:11. This is what we find: “ ... this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). These very same manuscripts support the entire text for the remainder of this verse. That is to say, even using this defective rendering, by simply reading the entire verse it is quite plain that the Lord Jesus ascended up into heaven! There is no ambiguity whatsoever.41
The general approach of these critics is to choose a portion in which textual differences may be used to suggest an alternative interpretation. With this in hand, they call into question a particular doctrine. Never mind that the doctrine is more than adequately and unambiguously supported by other portions of Scripture — a fact which they conveniently forget to mention!
The Bible: Translations
Biblical Hebrew and Greek
For more than fifteen hundred years (around 300 – 1900 A.D.) Hebrew was not used as a spoken language. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, however, that ancient language became the lingua franca of the Jews returning to Palestine. Hebrew received official status in British Palestine, and, when Israel received statehood in 1948, it became an official language of that nation. Through the many centuries when it wasn’t used as a vernacular language, it nevertheless retained its use within Judaism as the language of the Hebrew Scriptures and for prayers.
Greek, on the other hand, has been a spoken language throughout the centuries, from before the time of Christ to this present day. However, the Koine Greek of the Old Testament differs from both the modern language and the ancient Greek that preceded it. Koine means common, and from about 300 B.C. to 300 A.D. it was indeed the ordinary dialect of the day. In no way, however, does this mean that it was slang, or a street language. This is a common myth spread by those who desire to reduce the language of the Bible to an English street vernacular.
These two languages, Hebrew and Greek, vastly different in character, were chosen by God, in His wisdom, for the recording of His Word. Even a little comprehension of these tongues gives one a small appreciation of their unique character. The abstract concepts of the New Testament are presented in the precision and detail of Greek, whereas, the figurative and concrete nature of Biblical Hebrew is perfectly suited to the Old Testament types and shadows.
Nevertheless, despite their beauty and appropriateness, these languages are foreign to most of us. If the Word of God had remained in the original Hebrew and Greek, it would have remained inaccessible to much of the world. In Christ’s day, a Greek translation of the Old Testament was commonly used (the Septuagint) as the many quotations in the New Testament attest. Moreover, the great commission is that the gospel should be “preached in His name among all nations” (Luke 24:47). On the very day in which the church came into existence, the Word of God was preached, through the power of the Holy Spirit, in the native tongues of the audience. “We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:11). Paul, in correcting the misuse of tongues at Corinth, writes: “Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me” (1 Cor. 14:11). Christianity has, therefore, sought to make the Bible available to the peoples of this world in their native tongues. The Word of God is that very seed (Luke 8:11) which gives new life to the unbeliever: “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:23).
Our English Translation
As the power of Greece gave way to that of Rome, so too did the Greek language give way to Latin. In 382 A.D., Jerome was commissioned to revise the various Latin texts of the Scriptures, from which labors came the Latin Vulgate Bible. The title Vulgate is Latin and means commonly used; Latin was by then the common language of the day. This wasn’t the first translation of the Bible; earlier manuscripts in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic attest to this, but its use was widespread and enduring. By the Middle Ages, however, Latin was no longer a language of the ordinary people. It was strictly the domain of the church and university. The Holy Scriptures had become inaccessible — and worse than that, it was deliberately kept from the people by the church. That deliverance, obtained only through the glorious light of the true gospel, was unknown, and a religion of works and allegiance to the church were used to keep the people in darkness and bondage.
Though partial translations of the Scriptures in Old and Middle English existed, it wasn’t until John Wycliffe (circa 1331 – 1384) that an entire Bible was translated from the Latin text into Middle English. Although unauthorized, the work was quite popular. Remarkably, more than two hundred and fifty copies have been preserved until this day! Keep in mind, Wycliffe’s Bible was published prior to the invention of the printing press and they were each hand copied and bound.
Around 1440 Johannes Gutenberg created one of the most significant inventions of all time — the movable type printing press. The mass production of books, and especially the Bible, has changed the world. Around the same time, Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466 – 1536), a noted Catholic theologian, published a complete Greek text for the New Testament. Erasmus’ compilation used multiple sources, but these were mainly late manuscripts of the Byzantium textual family. The work of Erasmus influenced many translations and critical Greek texts that followed.
In 1526, William Tyndale completed an English translation of the New Testament using Erasmus’ Greek text. He published a revised edition in 1535 but was thereafter soon arrested and ultimately burned at the stake. Bible translation was a dangerous work! Miles Coverdale, an assistant to Tyndale, completed the work and published the first complete Early English Bible in 1535. After this, several translations appeared based on Tyndale’s work: Matthew’s (1537), Taverner’s (1539), and the Great Bible (1539). The last of these, the Great Bible, was the first authorized edition, having been appointed by King Henry VIII to be read in the churches. During the reign of the Roman Catholic Queen, Mary I (1553 – 1558), English Bible scholars relocated to the continent in fear of their lives. There, while in exile, a new translation effort was undertaken. It was completed in 1557, and in 1560 the Geneva Bible was published.
The Geneva Bible proved popular, and during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1559 – 1603) many editions appeared. The Geneva Bible was the first to have verse divisions, in addition to chapters. It also differed from previous translations in that it had numerous marginal notes. The purpose of these notes is given in the supplied preface: And considering how hard a thing it is to understand the holy Scriptures, and what errors, sects, and heresies grow daily for lack of the true knowledge thereof, and how many are discouraged (as they pretend) because they cannot attain to the true and simple meaning of the same, we have also endeavored both by the diligent reading of the best commentaries, and also by the conference with the godly and learned brethren, to gather brief annotations upon all the hard places, as well for the understanding of such words as are obscure, and for the declaration of the text, as for the application of the same as may most appertain to God’s glory and the edification of His church. The notes reflected Protestant reformation teaching, edited, as they were, by John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, and other Reformation leaders. These notes were not popular with the established Church in England nor were they popular with its rulers.
Although there is nothing inherently wrong with a Bible commentary, when it is published with a Bible, there is the danger of its being received with the authority of Scripture. The marginal notes of the Geneva Bible do not rise above the Reformation truth of the time, a truism perhaps, but worth noting. There is, thankfully, much light to be found in them, but also a harshness (perhaps characteristic of the day) inconsistent with the character of Christianity. Witness the note for 1 Timothy 3:2: Therefore he that shuts out married men from the office of bishops, only because they are married, is antichrist. The anti-popery sentiments cannot be missed! More dangerous, however, are the misleading, if not erroneous, interpretations. The Old Testament prophecies are treated allegorically, robbing them of their true meaning and lowering the church from its heavenly position. Many examples can be found. The following note for Micah 5:6 will suffice to illustrate the point: These whom God will raise up for the deliverance of His church, will destroy all the enemies of it, who are meant here by the Assyrians and Babylonians, who were the chief enemies at that time. The church is not at all in view, and even as a figure, its teaching is faulty. Micah speaks of the attack of the King of the North against the land of Israel during the time of the Indignation at the close of the Great Tribulation; a day subsequent to the rapture of the church and still very much future.
At that time, the preferred Bible of the Church of England was the Bishops’ Bible. It was a revision of the Great Bible undertaken by Archbishop Parker, of Canterbury, with the assistance of fifteen or so scholarly men. It first appeared in 1568 — eight years after the Geneva Bible — with a revision in 1572. Although the Bishops’ Bible was sanctioned by the Church, the Geneva Bible appeared to be favored by the people. Not only was the Geneva Bible unpopular with the Church, it was also strongly disliked by the monarchy. In fact, it was considered positively seditious. Consider the commentary for Daniel 6:22: For he disobeyed the king’s wicked commandment in order to obey God, and so he did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing by which God would be dishonoured. The message is clear, tyrannical Kings did not need to be obeyed. Interestingly, the Geneva Bible was popular with the Puritans and it was the first Bible brought to the American Colonies.
In 1604 a conference was held at Hampton Court near the city of London, for the reformation of some things amiss in ecclesiastical matters.42 It was presided over by King James I with bishops from the Church of England and representatives for the Puritans present. The latter were at a distinct disadvantage — there were nineteen from the establishment and just four Puritans. The topic of a new translation was not even on the agenda, but in the negotiations it became clear that something had to be done to appease the Puritans. Walter Scott, writes: In the course of the proceedings, the Puritan, Dr. Reynolds, proposed a new version of the Bible. The King, to please the Puritans, and attach them more firmly to his throne and constitution, and also because of his strongly expressed dislike to the two translations then in use, consented. The King’s cordial approval silenced the opposition of the conformist party. The superintending hand of God was apparent even in the preliminary arrangements.43
The Scriptures were divided into six sections with companies of translators meeting at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Around fifty individuals, all of them scholars and divines, were employed in the task. The exact number varies depending on the source — differences which may be accounted for by the three or four additional persons a team could call upon as needed. The new translation was not merely a revision of the former ones as the title page to any King James Bible explains: Translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translation diligently compared and revised, by his majesty’s special command. As to the Old Testament, the Hebrew of the Masoretic text was all that was available. And as to the New Testament, by that time Erasmus’ Greek text had been revised, first by the Parisian printer, Robert Estienne, and then by the Genevan theological and biblical scholar, Theodor Beza. Beza’s Greek text — which later acquired the name Textus Receptus, that is to say, the Received Text — was used (though not exclusively) by the King James translators. Strictly speaking, the King James Version is not based on the Textus Receptus as the Greek text used was an earlier work by some years.44
Certain rules were laid out by Richard Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as to the translation. The first rule asks that the new translation follow the Bishops’ Bible as the truth would permit; rule fourteen required the Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great, or Geneva translations to be followed if they agreed better with the original text. The third rule is of special interest as it stipulated that the old ecclesiastical words be retained; church could not be translated assembly; bishop could not be translated overseer, and so forth. Rule six stipulated that there would be no marginal notes, except where needed to explain a Hebrew or Greek word.
As to the strengths of the King James Bible, one hardly need comment. No matter the political maneuverings of those at its founding, the providential hand of God is very evident in its translation and propagation. The number of souls saved as a result of this translation cannot be known, except by God Himself. Of secondary importance, but by no means insignificant, has been its influence on the English language itself. Some declare the King James Bible to be its very greatest literary achievement. What child of God does not know by heart the verse: “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters.” (Psa. 23:1-2). Who could question either the beauty of what it says or the prose in which it is said? The memorization of verses from the King James is aided by the language itself.
As to its weaknesses, none are of such a nature so as to call into question the translation itself. It has been said that the most unfortunate rendition of a verse is that given for 1 John 3:4: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” While it is true that transgression of the law is sin, sin goes beyond transgressions and is present even in the absence of law. Put simply, sin is living without reference to God — that is to say, being a law unto one’s self. A more correct rendering is: “Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4 JND).
As to the retaining of ecclesiastical words — church, bishop, deacon, and so forth — this was, no doubt, intended to protect a hierarchical form of church government with the King as head. As a result, it has perpetuated the confusion as to the true nature of the church and its administration. When the King James translators use the word church in connection with Israel in the wilderness, it was a poor choice: “the church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38). The word assembly, or even congregation, would have been better. The church did not exist in the Old Testament.
Though not a rule, the translators state in the longer King James preface, that they did not tie themselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done. They often chose English synonyms for the same Greek (or Hebrew) word. Romans 5:2-11 reads: “rejoice in hope ... glory in tribulations ... joy in God” — although the same Greek word is used throughout, it is translated, rejoice, glory, and joy. While this may have been valid at times (a word can have different shades of meaning) it often unnecessarily obscured the original text. A similar problem occurs with parallel portions in the Gospels. There are instances where identical sentences in the Greek have been translated differently, for example: Matt. 26:41, Mark 14:38.
We will close with one additional observation. In a very few instances, the Greek used by the King James translators contained additions which have since been shown to be late modifications to the text. Examples include: Acts 8:37, Romans 8:1, and 1 John 5:7-8. As to the last of these, Erasmus recognized that these additional words were not to be found in any Greek manuscript (though he included them) and that they were probably ninth century additions to the Latin Vulgate. In a similar vein, the source text used by Erasmus for the book of Revelation was very poor. Mr. Darby notes: Erasmus having translated that from one poor and imperfect manuscript, which being accompanied by a commentary, had to be separated by a transcriber; and even so, Erasmus corrected what he had from the Vulgate, or guessed what he had not.45
Modern English Translations
No one would suggest that translation is an easy task. Languages differ considerably in grammatical structure, vocabulary, and idioms. The expression “lost in translation” is often all too true! With the Bible there are additional complexities. The languages being translated are ancient and differ from their modern counterparts. Furthermore, there are those variations found in the original manuscripts. Although, in the majority of cases choosing a translation should be objective, there are clearly times when it will be subjective — and indeed must be. One’s belief (or lack thereof) will affect the translation, and when it comes to the Holy Scriptures this is most significant. In fact, to make the translation of the Bible a human and not a spiritual endeavor is a serious mistake.
Though a little ahead of ourselves, let us consider an example of what we have been discussing from the New International Version (the NIV). The translation for Hebrews 1:5 appears to be a combination of an overzealous desire to rid the text of archaic words and, at best, a lack of understanding as to the eternal sonship of Christ. The text in question quotes from the second Psalm and is translated: “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” (Heb. 1:5a NIV). Neither the Greek text, nor the Hebrew of Psalm 2:7, contains any thought of God becoming a Father to the Son. It is quite simply false and suggests that the Son did not become son, in fact, until His birth. The second part of that same verse reads: “And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to me a Son?” (Heb. 1:5b KJV). At first glance, this may appear to contradict what has just been said; it doesn’t. It speaks of the Father’s care for the Son in manhood — He would be to Him a Father; again it is not saying that He would become a Father to Him. Incidentally, the NIV footnote reads begotten which is correct.
As time has gone on, new manuscripts have been discovered and adjustments have been made to the Greek text. I wish, for a moment, to turn our attention to the work of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Beginning in 1853 they worked for twenty eight years to produce a Greek New Testament consisting of the so-called critical text — it was published in 1881. They were neither the first, nor the only men, who labored in this regard. Whereas Erasmus’ work, and as a result the Textus Receptus, may have been unduly influenced by the Byzantine texts, Westcott and Hort’s work was heavily biased toward Alexandrian texts — especially the Codex Vaticanus (commonly identified by the letter B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (identified by the Hebrew letter aleph, א). While the former had been held by the Vatican since the fifteenth century, the latter was discovered in 1844, and it captivated many including Westcott and Hort. Although the Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest complete Bible (it dates from 325 A.D.), age alone, as noted earlier, does not decide the superiority of a text. In fact, the Sinaiticus codex contains numerous marginal corrections.
The variations in the Alexandrian text hint of Gnostic influences. Vaticanus omits the following verse from the Gospel of Luke — a verse which is so absolutely suited to that Gospel in which Christ’s perfect humanity is brought out: “And there appeared an angel unto Him from heaven, strengthening Him. And being in an agony He prayed more earnestly: and His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:43-44). Sinaiticus has the verse but it is marked by a corrector as doubtful; a latter corrector, however, restored it. The Sinaiticus omits “Son of God” from Mark 1:1 which should read: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” J. N. Darby in his Introductory Notice to the New Testament observes: Westcott and Hort’s text, which seems to have influenced the Revisers in its excessive adherence to the so-called Alexandrian readings, or rather to the peculiarities of B [Vaticanus], especially when supported by some other ancient copy, was already known to many some years before it was published in 1881, when the Revisers’ New Testament also appeared.
As to Westcott and Hort themselves, there is much to concern us as to their Christian faith. In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Westcott wrote: No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history — I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think that they did — yet they disclose to us a Gospel.46 Westcott viewed the creation story as poetry and not literal. As to the Lord’s appearing, Hort viewed this as figurative. He wrote concerning 1 Peter 1:7: There is nothing in either this passage or others on the same subject, apart from the figurative language of Thessalonians, to show that the revelation here spoken of is to be limited to a sudden preternatural theophany. It may be a long and varying process, though ending in a climax. Essentially it is simply the removal of the veils which hide the unseen Lord, by whatsoever means they become withdrawn.47 A great deal of material is available as to these men; nevertheless, in researching some of the more common accusations made against them, it must be sadly acknowledged that many quotations are taken out of context. That doesn’t mean to say that I agree with them; their statements are usually shrouded in an intellectualism that makes them open to interpretation and difficult to accurately represent in a few sentences. Darby and Kelly, contemporaries of Westcott and Hort, used language far more moderate compared to the violent attacks now brought against them. Unfortunately, nothing is terribly surprising as to the views expressed in the quotes given above. It is the sad, lifeless expression of rationalism and liberalism (they seem to go hand-in-hand) of which the Apostle Paul warned Timothy: “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5). It is with a note of caution, therefore, that we observe that the influence of these two men over Bible translation since their time has been considerable.
Westcott and Hort were on the committee responsible for the 1881 Revised Version. In the United States, the Revised Version was adapted and re-revised resulting in the Revised Version, Standard American Edition of 1901 (otherwise known as the American Standard Version). Following in the same family we have: the Revised Standard Version (1952, 1971), New American Standard Bible (1971, 1995), New Revised Standard Version (1989), World English Bible (2000), English Standard Version (2001, 2007, 2011). The New International Version (1978) was an independent work, but again, the influences of Westcott and Hort may be found in the Greek text used as the basis for its New Testament translation.
By no means do I wish to paint Westcott and Hort as being solely responsible for the questionable renderings in our modern translations. Many translations, including that of the King James, have been undertaken by a committee. The New International Version prides itself in the broad range of denominations and nationalities involved in the translation: Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches — helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.48 Rather than safeguarding the truth, such diversity has every potential for compromising the truth.
It is well known that the Jewish scholar, Harry M. Orlinsky, was on the editorial board for the Revised Standard Version. Incidentally, this was not the first time, nor the last, that an unbeliever has been included on such a board. Many have suggested, however, this as a reason for the unsettling RSV translation of Isaiah 7:14. “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” It is true that the Hebrew word translated young woman by the RSV committee is translated twice as maid and once as damsel elsewhere in the King James — the remaining four instances, including Isaiah 7:14, are translated virgin. Nevertheless, the very fact that it is quoted in Matthew 1:23, where the Greek word used means virgin, should have been decisive for the RSV translators. Furthermore, the Septuagint for Isaiah 7:14 (from which Matthew quotes) also uses the Greek word for virgin. One may also ask the rather obvious question, Where is the sign if a young woman conceives and bears a son? Though birth is always something to marvel at, it is not a miracle in the full sense of the word.
Before we leave this subject of modern translations, we must address two alternate methods of translation. These go by the rather lofty names of dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. They may be more simply understood as sense-for-sense and word-for-word translation. Clearly, no readable translation is ever literally word-for-word; nevertheless, since we believe in the inspiration of the very words themselves, a faithful translation should be as close to literal as possible. The King James, Darby, American Standard, Revised Standard, English Standard, etc. use varying degrees of the word-for-word approach. At the other end of the spectrum, however, we have those translations which merely attempt to convey the sense of the original text, that is to say, a sense-for-sense translation. The New International Version and various other modern translations use this methodology. Then there are those translations which go further still; these are the paraphrased versions. As we move from word-for-word, to sense-for-sense, and then into paraphrasing, the translation becomes increasingly subjective. At some point, it ceases to be Scripture. At best, it may be viewed as a commentary; at worse, a corruption of the Word of God. The reader is encouraged in the strongest of terms to stay away from these.
In a related vein, improving the readability through the modernization of the English is a stated goal of all modern translations. It is true that the English of the King James may be difficult for some. The use of thou, thee, thy, and thine, with their related verb forms, and even the use of you and ye, is foreign to many modern readers. Incidentally, these words were not used in the King James to make it more reverent. They were used because the original Hebrew and Greek used these pronouns and verb forms. Thou is the second-person singular pronoun, whereas you is the second-person plural. Thou corresponds to the French tu and the Spanish tú. The other forms of thou — thee, thy and thine — follow the same pattern as me, my and mine. When the Lord addresses Peter and says, “When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32), this is singular; He is talking to Peter. Immediately prior to this, however, the Lord had said: “Satan hath desired to have you” (v. 31). This is plural; the Lord was speaking to all of His disciples and not just Peter. F. F. Bruce notes that the Revised Standard Version blurred some of the finer distinctions in New Testament wording which, while they are of little importance to the general reader, have some significance for those who are concerned with the more accurate interpretation of the text.49 No doubt, this was not a specific reference to the abandonment of the archaic, second person singular forms, nevertheless, the observation remains true. Despite the reference to the general reader, no matter who we are (and perhaps more so, when we have no knowledge of the original language), we have every reason to be concerned for the accuracy of the text.
Even though the pronouns thou and thee were not terms of reverence in the days of King James, they ultimately became that. In modernizing the English of the Scriptures, it has become more familiar in tone, and it might be added, this has done nothing to stem the tide of irreverence so characteristic of this present day. “These filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities” (Jude 8).
It is rather remarkable, that while the established Church was working on a revision of the King James, we find in quiet obscurity, John Nelson Darby working on a translation of the New Testament. This was first published in 1867, with revised editions in 1872 and 1884. The complete Bible was published posthumously in 1890. It was never Darby’s intent to replace the King James. His desire was to provide a resource to the student of Scripture. In his preface he gives his rationale for his translation. I have used all helps I could, but the translation is borrowed in no way from any; it is my own translation, but I have used every check I could to secure exactness. I believe the scriptures to be the inspired word of God, received by the Holy Ghost and communicated by His power, though, thank God, through mortal men: what is divine made withal thoroughly human, as the blessed Lord Himself whom it reveals, though never ceasing to be divine. And this is its unspeakable value: thoroughly and entirely divine, ‘words which the Holy Ghost teacheth,’ yet perfectly and divinely adapted to man as being by man. My endeavour has been to present to the merely English reader the original as closely as possible. Those who make a version for public use must of course adapt their course to the public. Such has not been my object or thought, but to give the student of scripture, who cannot read the original, as close a translation as possible.50 As to the Darby Translation, F. F. Bruce makes this observation: In the New Testament especially it is based on a sound critical appraisal of the evidence, and was consulted by the company which prepared the Revised New Testament of 1881.51
If, as the preface to the Revised Standard Version states, the King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying, how are we to trust it? Firstly, a translation that stood essentially alone for 300 years, to the great blessing of the English speaking world, speaks for itself. Secondly, the King James translation calls into doubt no doctrinal positions, not the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His death, nor His resurrection — no, nothing! This cannot be said of some modern revisions. The greater danger, it seems to me, is in the use of a modern translation with its doubtful interpretations. It seems as if every committee of modern time has blundered down some path or another in an attempt to arrive at the original Greek or to present it in modern English. This is not to say that every modern translation is inherently evil or that they offer no benefit to the Bible student. Nevertheless, they should be used wisely and with an understanding as to their origin and character. I would rather trust the Darby translation, as I know where the translator stood on questions of doctrine, than trust myself to a committee consisting of Evangelicals, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, Unitarians, Jews — believers and unbelievers alike.
Part 2: Understanding the Scriptures
Understanding the Scriptures: Introduction
The things of which we have been speaking are those rather dry, external facts which serve to confirm the authenticity and reliability of the Scriptures. Millions of lost souls have placed their faith in various false writings and are either ignorant of, or have been misled, concerning the true Word of God. And, in countries where Christianity was once widely professed, we now find a generation growing up with the belief that the Bible is a book of myths. These rather dry facts are, therefore, important in helping to sweep away the rubbish that has been heaped against this book. However, in themselves they cannot and will not save a person. For that, one must open the Word of God and read it.
It has been said that the Word of God is like a lion; if you want to know its power, release it from its cage! Scripture itself uses the analogy of a sword: “The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). Man sits in judgment on the Word of God, whereas, he needs to bow to it and let the Word judge him.
The Beginning of Wisdom
The Word of God is like no other book; it cannot, therefore, be approached like any other book. If we take it up in a natural way, we will never rightly interpret it. In Proverbs we find our first key to understanding God’s Word: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the Holy is understanding” (Prov. 9:10). To fear God is to reverence Him. By nature, however, we are a law unto ourselves and God is not even in our thoughts. “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom. 3:18). How can one know the things of God when God means nothing to them? And worse than that, when God is dismissed altogether? “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psa. 14:1). No, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom; He has spoken and we need to listen.
Faith
The second key to our comprehension of the Scriptures is faith: “Without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). It is not good enough to simply believe that God exists. In the United States much of the population believes in God (or at least, a god) but there is no relationship with Him. We must believe that “He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” God is intensely interested in each one of us and will never disappoint the earnest soul. A lost child runs about frantically and becomes increasingly disoriented; the father, on the other hand, seeks with purpose and does not give up until the child is found. Zacchaeus “sought to see Jesus who He was; and could not” (Luke 19:3). But, “when Jesus came to the place, He looked up, and saw him” (Luke 19:5). Every seeker is sought of God, and He will find them. “The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).
What is faith? It is taking God at His word, and not just in the head but in the heart and feet also. Faith acts upon God’s word. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Paul said: “I believe God that it shall be even as it was told me” (Acts 27:25). In the Gospel of John we have a good definition of faith: “He that hath received His testimony hath set to his seal that God is true” (John 3:33). In receiving God’s testimony — no matter the dispensation, and no matter the nature of that testimony — we set to the seal that God is true. This is faith. “By [faith] the elders obtained a good report” (Heb. 11:2). It wasn’t by the works of the law that they pleased God, but rather, by the walk of their faith. Faith and believing are closely related. However, we often make the great mistake of supposing that understanding is believing — that understanding is necessary for belief. Even in natural things, there is much that we do not understand — perhaps the vast majority of things we encounter — and yet, we believe them. No one has managed to explain the brain and how that jelly-like mass relates to my sense of consciousness — but I’m not about to abandon it! Faith believes and then comes the understanding: “I believed, and therefore have I spoken” (2 Cor. 4:13).
In these two things — the fear of God and faith — we have that which is prerequisite to our understanding of the Scriptures. God has spoken and we are to listen; anything less than this only serves to exalt man and discredit God. Furthermore, the Word must characterize our life and walk if we wish to be kept in the power of it and to grow spiritually. In writing to Timothy, Paul says “But the end of what is enjoined is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith; which things some having missed, have turned aside to vain discourse” (1 Tim. 1:5-7 JND). Obedience to Paul’s charge results in love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith that is real. In the verse prior to this, he had spoken of speculative subjects which only serve to generate more questions — questions which people love to discuss and debate. These, however, do not act on the conscience, nor do they bring us into the presence of God. God does not take up man on an intellectual level — if He had done so, Christianity would have been an exclusive club of those with a high I.Q. Instead we read: “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3). At the end of that first chapter, Paul exhorts Timothy: “maintaining faith and a good conscience; which [last] some, having put away, have made shipwreck as to faith” (1 Tim. 1:19-20 JND). Here faith is the doctrine of Christianity — and yet it is by faith that we receive it as from God Himself. But there must also be a good conscience. Without this, communion with God is broken, and there will be no strength to keep us in the faith.
Since faith rests upon God and His Word, it is not shaken by circumstances. There is much that we encounter which stands in opposition to the Word of God. These aren’t necessarily evil in themselves, but they call into question the veracity of the Scriptures — it could be the latest archeological discovery which supposedly refutes this or that, or perhaps a scientific breakthrough which calls into question some other point of Scripture. True faith, however, never waivers — it is true that sometimes our thinking must be adjusted, but this is a question of interpretation and not of substance. Invariably, it is man’s latest theory which turns out to be wrong. Faith takes the position, “let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). We must always remember that our faith isn’t resting on natural evidence or this or that proof. It rests upon that which God has revealed to us in His Word. When natural things are correctly interpreted, they confirm the reasonableness of our faith.
Understanding the Scriptures
Though one may enjoy the prose of the King James, or, in a measure, understand the stories of the Old or New Testament, the message of the Bible is nonsense to a mind that refuses to bow to God. For this reason, it is vain to suppose that an unbeliever could ever accurately translate the Scriptures. In Daniel we read: “None of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand” (Dan. 12:10). One does not like to think that they are wicked, but that is what we are by nature — and it is something which God tells us in His Word. Paul, in writing to the intellectual Corinthians, goes further: “The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God ... The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him” (1 Cor. 2:11, 14). To unbelief the Bible is foolishness. We are told that we believe in fairy tales; Joseph’s brothers told him the same — “behold, this dreamer cometh” (Gen. 37:19). It is only when God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, opens the heart and mind does the light penetrate the understanding.
It is not, however, a secret, mystical knowledge that we seek. The Word of God is plain enough in that regard; we do not look for hidden meanings in its words. Rather, unbelief shuts out all that concerns God and all that God has said concerning us. “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Eph. 4:18). Man occupies himself with that which is natural and which may be observed — either directly or indirectly. The things of God, on the other hand, can only be discerned by the Spirit of God.
Before talking a little on studying the Scriptures, and taking up some subjects that many have stumbled over, it is important that we first consider four principles to be remembered when we read the Word of God.
Reasoning out of the Scriptures
“Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ” (Acts 17:2-3). The great Apostle reasoned from the Scriptures. We should never take our thoughts and theories to the Scriptures. Contrariwise, we must allow our thoughts to be formed by the Word of God — this requires familiarity with the Word and the instruction of the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:27). Though I have called into question intellectualism, it is that intellectualism of the human mind which reasons from itself, groping after God. We are certainly expected to use our God-given faculties when we open the Word of God. Nevertheless, our reasoning must be from the Scriptures. Theologians, by applying a narrative of their own making to the Bible, have woven a tapestry of tangled threads that distorts the truth — it doesn’t present a clear picture. Scripture provides the narrative, we do not invent one. We typically fail in either one of two ways: we either draw back from the truth of God (Heb. 10:39), rejecting those things which don’t fit the way we see them; or, we go forward (2 John 9), adding to the Scriptures things that are not present, puffed up by the vanity of our own minds, intruding into things which we have not seen (Col. 2:18).
No Prophecy is of its own Interpretation
In the first chapter of Peter’s second epistle, the twentieth verse has been variously translated. The King James reads: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.” Darby gives: “Knowing this first, that the scope of no prophecy of Scripture is had from its own particular interpretation.” Finally, W. Kelly, providing the same sense as Darby, translates it: “Knowing this first that no prophecy of scripture is (or, becometh) of its own interpretation.” A verse or portion cannot be correctly interpreted when isolated from the rest of the Scriptures; it must be considered in its context. Pulling a verse out of context, and interpreting it in isolation, will lead us to our own private interpretation.
Many examples could be given of verses that have been interpreted with little regard to context. As an example, consider: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). The key to understanding such verses is nearly always found nearby. In the case just cited, things become clearer when we read the verse in context: “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12-13). We find the working out of their salvation connected with Paul’s absence. He was concerned for them, especially as an assembly. Earlier he had written, “Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind” (Phil. 2:2). The salvation spoken of in this verse is not the salvation of the soul at all — that is not the subject of this epistle. Rather, it speaks of their present salvation, through trials and difficulties (see also 1:19), to be had through obedience to the Apostle’s words. His instructions remind me of Joseph’s appeal to his brethren: “See that ye fall not out by the way” (Gen. 45:24). Should any doubts remain, the last sentence precludes all thought of connecting good works with salvation — it is God that works in us, “both the willing and the working according to His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13 JND).
Spiritual Things by Spiritual Means
In Second Peter, the verse following the one just considered reads: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:21). The Word of God came through the power of the Holy Spirit. When we read God’s Word, we should not, therefore, expect to find the pinnacle of human eloquence, wisdom, and philosophy — whatever that may mean. Scripture is, without question, profound, but it does not appeal to the natural mind nor can it be understood by it. If holy men of old were powerless in themselves to speak it, so are we powerless in ourselves to hear it apart from the power of the Holy Spirit.
In speaking to the Corinthians, Paul presents the things freely given him of God, “not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, communicating spiritual things by spiritual means” (1 Cor. 2:13 JND). It is important when we read the Word of God to recognize that it cannot be understood by applying natural interpretations. If we wish, for example, to understand, redemption, salvation, propitiation, the church, pastor, elder, and so forth, a dictionary will not be the best place to start. In fact, it may be the very worst, as it could form an impression that is hard to dismiss. For the most part, these words do not mean something vastly different from their familiar senses; nevertheless, we want God’s application and His nuances, and not man’s. Scripture itself is the best interpreter of Scripture. This goes along with the last principle — understanding things in context. Words are defined by their use in Scripture. We must also recognize that the application of these words may change with context — the world and to be saved, among others, mean different things depending on their context.
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
The previous principle leads us into the next: “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15), or as Darby translates it literally, “cutting in a straight line the word of truth.” It is important that we accurately present the truth of God. Luke, in the preface to his Gospel, writes: “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed” (Luke 1:3-4). We cannot give an orderly account of the truth unless we have the proper understanding of it.
The Apostle Paul prayed for the saints at Philippi making these requests: “I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ; being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God” (Phil. 1:9-11). The prayer is presented in its entirety for context but I wish to focus on the expression “approve things that are excellent.” An alternative translation may be given as: “That ye may discriminate things that differ.”52 Although this undoubtedly speaks of a godly discernment between good and evil, it is a general principle. When it comes to the Word of God, we need the spiritual discernment to make a distinction between those things that differ. In this application, it is not a question of approving things that are excellent, for all of Scripture is excellent, but rather, of recognizing things that differ. “Every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old” (Matt. 13:52). There are things that are new and there are things that are old — each have their correct application. New wine cannot be put into old bottles (Mark 2:22). We cannot mix the things of God which He has distinguished.
As an example, we cannot take what applies to the soul — the security of the believer — and apply it to Christendom. This is not rightly dividing the word of truth; it is not distinguishing things that differ. A believer cannot apostatize, but Christendom can and will. Israel’s restoration is denied, because, in part, Christendom refuses to accept her end and judgment. If Christendom goes on, it is impossible that this reinstatement of Israel can take place. Furthermore, if Christendom is earthly and her blessings are earthly, then likewise, there can be no restoration of Israel. Another related mistake of Christendom is to make the church the center of God’s thoughts. Christ is the center of God’s thoughts. Truly, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19:10), and that testimony is not limited to Christianity and the church. Even after the church has been caught up at the rapture, new witnesses will be called upon to suffer martyrdom for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
Studying the Scriptures
Understanding the Scriptures is rather like building a house. First, there must be a foundation upon which everything else rests. The reader must have settled peace with God. Without settled peace, self, and not Christ, will be our focus.
Secondly, upon this foundation one establishes the frame — the outline of sound words of which Paul speaks and which Timothy had heard from him (2 Tim. 1:13). It is not to be held in the head; the heart must be engaged also. It is an outline that is held in faith and love in Christ Jesus — the living Person of whom the Word speaks. All must be held in communion with the Lord and that in the power of the Holy Spirit. This frame does not consist of isolated components, but rather, it fits together in perfect harmony. Sometimes the Word of God appears to us like a giant jigsaw puzzle; in God’s sight, however, all is perfectly clear. There cannot be the forcing of two pieces together; though it may look right, it will displace some other piece and distort the overall picture.
Thirdly, once the frame is in place, the cladding must follow — no less important — all held in its proper place (2 Tim. 2:15). I do not suggest that we ever plumb the depths of the Scriptures; but to say that it is impossible to understand them is to limit the power of the Holy Spirit. It is just the thing Satan would have us to believe. “The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things” (John 14:26 JND).
Personal Reading
“Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:13). This verse speaks of the public reading of the Scriptures; this was done, in part, because books in those days were expensive and difficult to reproduce. Now that the Bible is easily obtained, and at a minimal cost, there is no excuse not to be found daily reading the Word of God.
“His delight is in the law of the Lord; and in His law doth he meditate day and night” (Psa. 1:2). It is important to meditate on the Word of God. “Let ... the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in Thy sight, O Lord” (Psa. 19:14). “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12:34). What we meditate upon in our hearts is evident in our talk! When we come across things in the Word of God that we do not understand, it is good to meditate upon them. The more familiar we are with the Scriptures, the better the opportunity for the Spirit of God to bring before us portions to help us in the understanding of these difficult passages. We should not, however, torture such passages to our own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16). God will explain His Word to us as we need it and as we mature, just as a father explains things to a child. Let’s not, however, merely study the Scriptures for knowledge. Our motivation to meditate upon the Scriptures is because it is the Word of God and it speaks of Christ — it is our daily food; our source of wisdom, comfort, guidance and strength.
We should not focus on how the Scriptures might apply to others; we need to let the Spirit of God apply it to ourselves! “The Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). However, we should not always make the Scriptures revolve around me. We must discern what God is saying through His Word — the context, the subject, and the message of the portion must each be discerned. Once right principles are recognized, we will be able to see how they might apply to our circumstances. By putting me at the center of Scripture, Christendom has severely distorted the Word of God, thereby robbing vast portions of its true application.
Ministry
“The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). “[Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:26). Don’t think that you can study the Scriptures in isolation to avoid being tainted by the thoughts of men. While this may sound like a lofty goal — to rely solely on the Spirit of God — it is a dangerous path, especially when our wills are involved. God has chosen preaching as His means of spreading the Gospel, and He likewise has chosen men to teach the Word of God through the gift of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:11; Rom. 12:6-7). It may be through the spoken word, now readily available electronically, or through the written word, which is equally accessible.
William Miller (1782 – 1849) set out to determine the meaning of Scripture for himself. Unfortunately, when he got to Daniel 8:14, he misinterpreted each day as a year, thus setting the stage for the Advent movement of which Seventh-Day-Adventism is a modern derivative. He did not appear to recognize that day in Daniel 8:14 is not the usual Hebrew word at all (yom), but it is explicitly “evening morning”, that is to say, an actual physical day (Gen. 1:5).
It is true that John wrote in his epistle: “These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him” (1 John 2:26-27). However, to use this verse against the instruction that Paul gives us, is to misunderstand John’s ministry. He is writing in a day when much confusion reigned, in particular, the Gnostic movement was getting its start. As we noted earlier, Gnostics prided themselves on secret knowledge. John writes in an abstract way to counter the false teaching of that day, giving the pure essence of the truth without reference to experience (which was increasingly being clouded by the evils of the time). Men were claiming fresh light and new revelations — they viewed the doctrines of Christianity like the philosophies of men, that they must be advanced. Such teaching is to be rejected. We have an anointing from the Holy One and know all things (1 John 2:20); there is nothing new to add.
“Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (2 Tim. 3:14). It is important that we know something about the authors we read. It serves no useful purpose — except to confuse — to read a wide range of authors from various persuasions thinking that we’ll be able to discern the truth. This is not to say that all ministry outside of the brethren writings are bad — but remarkably, you’ll trace much of that which is true back to the brethren writers. Lewis Sperry Chafer acknowledged Mackintosh, Darby, and others in his writings. The danger is, however, these church-men, though having learned the truth from various brethren authors, never shifted from their ecclesiastical position. Their take on the truths, especially concerning the church, was compromised so as not to condemn the positions they held. As one popular on-line encyclopedia states:53 The American church denominations rejected Darby’s ecclesiology but accepted his eschatology.
The Assembly Reading Meeting
“They continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). “She had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard His Word” (Luke 10:39). “When Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw Him, she fell down at His feet ... weeping” (John 11:32-33). “Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment” (John 12:3). We see Mary at Jesus’ feet three times: listening to His word, weeping, and finally, worshiping. We may liken these to the reading meeting, the prayer meeting, and the breaking of bread. In the reading meeting, God speaks to us through His Word, and when the Holy Spirit is allowed His right and proper place, the true meaning of the Word is given; human opinions and reasoning carry no conviction. Reading meetings were a powerful means of spreading the Word in the early days of the Brethren. Andrew Miller writes: No other kind of meeting, it will be seen, so stimulates the Christian to study constantly his Bible; and this may account for the proverbial saying that, “Whatever may be the faults of the Brethren, they are at home with their Bibles.”54 Does the reading meeting stimulate you to study your Bible? Do you read the portion before attending the meeting ... meditate on it ... read a little ministry? Is it still true today, that we are at home with our Bibles? It is easy to mock the reading meeting, poking fun at the slow pace, finding fault with the older ones, but how do we contribute? The older teachers delight to hear questions that convey a spiritual exercise, and by such questions, they better understand what the lambs need to feed upon. However, we should not ask questions when we don’t care to hear the answers. Such fleshly behavior only serves to disturb the lambs and quench the Holy Spirit.
How to Study a Chapter
Read the chapter. To understand it, it will be necessary to know something about the purpose of the book, and often, what has preceded the chapter and perhaps what follows it. Chapter divisions are artificial, though they may align with paragraph and topic changes. Know who wrote the book (if possible), to whom the book was written, when it was written (historically, where it fits), and something about the conditions of the day in which it was written. Knowing that Habakkuk prophesied at the end of Judah’s history, just prior to the Chaldean invasion, establishes the background for that book.
Read the chapter carefully. Listen to what the writer is saying. Paul’s epistles are letters; they were written to assemblies to be read (aloud no doubt) and to be understood. Think of it as a letter to you. What are the key points made by the author? Break up the chapter broadly by subject. In chapter eleven of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, he clearly presents two subjects: head coverings (vss. 1-16) and the Lord’s Supper (vss. 17-34). Not all chapters present teaching in this fashion; in some we find history, in others exhortation. Meditate on Paul’s treatment of head coverings. What arguments does he present? Paul brings in God’s order in creation, the observation by angelic beings, and what nature itself teaches. Meditate on each of these things. In so doing, we quickly come to realize that this chapter has nothing whatsoever to do with the cultural customs of that day.
It is good to make written notes as we study — they may be detailed or a simple outline. One may choose to make these notes in the margin of his or her Bible — our ability to recall things is often quite limited!
Don’t be afraid to read ministry. It is good to make sure our thoughts are not out of line with those whose grasp of the Scriptures far exceed our own; not to mention, the moral authority they possessed as expressed through the lives they lived (Heb. 13:7). It is very easy to be puffed up by our own thoughts of Scripture. There are writers who are easily understood — Hamilton Smith, F. B. Hole (who wrote a commentary on every New Testament book), H. L. Rossier (various Old Testament books), Dennett, Mackintosh, and so forth. Do not assume that Darby is hard to read; the Synopsis is an invaluable resource and not especially difficult to follow. The frustration some have with Darby is not his content, but his style. Writers such as Dennett and Hamilton Smith often present Darby’s writings in a simpler form — that being said, it is still good to go to the source. William Kelly tends to be analytical — which can be helpful in understanding a portion, though he can be rather scholarly. If there is a difficulty in reading ministry, it lies with us. We want results instantly; we want to be able to read and digest things with little effort on our part.
It is important to study the Bible book by book. This does not mean that studying a subject is inherently wrong, but if we only ever study subjects, we will only explore those things that we are interested in. Imagine reading a book by focusing on just one character at a time, skipping portions unrelated to them — the overall story will be difficult to piece together. Reading the Bible through in a year is a notable objective, but while reading a book of the Bible through from beginning to end can be remarkably helpful, it is also important to go verse by verse, seeking to understand what is being conveyed.
Word studies can be interesting, but care needs to be taken. Just because a particular word in English occurs multiple times, this does not mean that the underlying Greek (or Hebrew) remains the same. On the other hand, a particular English word may not give all the occurrences of the corresponding Greek. Furthermore, just as in English, a Greek word may not always mean exactly the same thing. However, it is important to understand words — it is how God communicates. Take time to consider such words as: righteousness, justification, holiness, propitiation, and so forth.
Most importantly, reading the Word of God needs to be our daily habit. Every true revival among the people of God has resulted from letting the Word be a lamp to the feet, and a light to the path (Psa. 119:105).
An Outline of the Holy Scriptures
The Old Testament
The books of our English Old Testament are grouped into: the law, also known as the Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy), history (Joshua to Esther), poetry (Job to the Song of Solomon), and the prophets (Isaiah to Malachi). The books in each division have been organized by man, broadly speaking, chronologically. God, however, is not constrained by time, and He sometimes chooses to present things in a moral order. This is true of Judges and it is also true of at least two of the Gospels. Within the Old Testament we find common principles that form a thread throughout all of Scripture.
A brief summary of the whole may be given. Beginning with Adam, we have man’s history up until the time of the antediluvian fathers and the flood. Following the flood we read of the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel) and his twelve sons. Genesis ends with the children of Israel in Egypt. Then comes the exodus from Egypt under Moses which is followed by the conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. The time of the Judges follows; this in turn gives way to the establishment of the kingdom, first under Saul and then according to God’s purpose in David and Solomon. With the dividing of the kingdom during the reign of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, the histories of Israel (the northern ten tribes) and Judah run parallel. Israel’s history concludes with their captivity under the Assyrians. The kingdom of Judah continued for one hundred and fifty years after Israel’s captivity but ultimately ended with her exile in Babylon. In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah we have the return of a remnant from Babylon to Palestine. The book of Esther, meanwhile, tells of God’s providential care for the Jewish people during their captivity.
Overlaying this historic framework we can place the poetic books and the prophets. An exact date for Job cannot be given, but it predates the law — in fact, it probably comes between the flood and the call of Abraham. The remaining poetic books are intimately connected with David and Solomon. Of the one hundred and fifty Psalms, seventy four are directly attributed to David; twelve are from the pen of Asaph, a contemporary of David and a leader among the singers (1 Chron. 15:17). Thirty four psalms give no author — some of these may also have been written by David. The Proverbs are largely, though not exclusively, the writings of Solomon; Solomon is also the author of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs.
The prophets began their ministry during the reign of the kings and continued into the post-captivity period. Among the Minor Prophets we find the earliest prophetic books: Jonah, Joel, Hosea, and Amos. The Major Prophets are ordered chronologically with Isaiah prophesying during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah — making him a contemporary of Hosea, Amos, and Micah. Jeremiah prophesied during the final days of the Kingdom of Judah, as did Habakkuk and Zephaniah. Ezekiel is found among the captives whereas Daniel prophesied in the courts of Babylon and Persia. Obadiah’s prophecy comes after Judah’s captivity. Jonah and Nahum are both occupied with Nineveh, the capital city of Assyria; Nahum prophesied some hundred and fifty years after Jonah. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi are post-captivity prophets. When reading the prophets, it is important to recognize whether they were sent to Israel, Judah, or both nations. Also, keep in mind that we have been speaking of the prophetic books. There were other prophets besides these authors. Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha immediately come to mind; their lives may be found interwoven throughout the history of the Kings.
Perhaps the question has been asked: Why worry about dates and chronologies, or the rise and fall of this kingdom or that? Hopefully, however, one is beginning to see the larger picture. The Old Testament scriptures give us a single, cohesive revelation concerning the God of heaven on the one hand, and His ways with men on the other, all pointing to, and leading up to, the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Genesis – Exodus
The book of Genesis covers a period of more than two thousand years, a span of time greater than all the rest of Scripture. Given the breadth of time covered, the details are sparse. God has given us just what we need to know and no more. In it, however, He develops key principles. Truly, in Genesis we have the foundation for the remainder of Scripture. In fact, we find all the great principles of God’s relationship with man without bringing in redemption — for that, we must wait until Exodus.
With the Adamic creation, the scene is set; man’s place in it and his relationship to the Creator God has been established. Adam and Eve enjoyed their earthly paradise in the absence of evil and in the presence of God. One thing was asked of them, and that not because it was evil; they were forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil — it was purely a question of obedience. The eating of the forbidden fruit is not an allegorical reference to some moral evil; to suppose this is to miss the point entirely. Adam transgressed in this one command and in so doing, man acquired a conscience. With a sense of shame awakened in them, Adam and Eve covered their nakedness with fig leaves. In the presence of God, however, the total inadequacy of their covering was keenly felt and they attempted to hide. It was God Himself who, in His sovereign grace, provided a covering suited to their condition; it necessitated, however, the death of an animal.
Judicially driven from the garden and the presence of God, they found themselves subject to the miseries of a new world. Shut out from the tree of life, the prospect of death alone lay before them. Man was no longer in that relationship in which God had formed him to be with Himself; he was in sin. One without Christ today is yet in this condition.
God did not leave man, however, in hopelessness. There was a promise given: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel” (Gen. 3:15). The Seed of the woman, in being trodden down, would crush the power of the Enemy. Until that time, however, man’s approach to God would rest upon the sacrifice. A sacrifice, however, could not be the product of man’s labor — no, this would never do; toil was the fruit of man’s sin. It must be that which God alone could provide — the life of another as represented in the shed blood (Lev. 17:11).
By faith Abel offered the firstborn of his flock, and in so doing he found favor in God’s sight: “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous” (Heb. 11:4). Abel’s sacrifice was not in response to a specific sin; it was a sacrifice suited to his state before God. It was not a question of “What is this that thou hast done?” (Gen. 3:13), but rather, “Where art thou?” (Gen. 3:9). Man is ready to protest his innocence as to the first, but he avoids the second question altogether. Abel was at a distance from God and he felt it; the only way to approach God was through the offering up of those lambs. The sacrifices were a necessary thing and reflective of man’s state. It was not that God delighted in the slaughter of animals — to suppose so is to altogether misunderstand God. In that the sacrifice pointed to and prefigured Christ, God saw value in the shed blood and in the life given. A sacrifice made without faith was of no value to the offerer and was repugnant to God (1 Sam. 15:22; Prov. 15:8; Isa. 66:3; Hos. 6:6, etc.).
Cain offered the fruit of a cursed earth — the labor of his own hands. In this God took no pleasure. The same approach is taken today; man recommends himself to God through his own merits. There is no thought of sin, neither is there any consideration as to what sin means in God’s sight. When God rejects his works, man responds with the same self-righteous indignation and anger as did Cain. We can be left in no doubt as to the condition of Cain’s heart; the evil in it was fully expressed when he murdered his brother. Likewise, the whole of mankind is indicted at the cross for their complicity in the murder of the Lord Jesus.
Despite knowing good and evil, Cain’s descendants continued in a path of willful independence from God. They pursued happiness and immortality apart from God in a world marked by violence and corruption (Gen. 4:16-24). In short, with Cain we find the origins of the world system as we know it. It is a system that seeks to provide for every need of man — spirit, soul, and body — but quite apart from God. Cain’s descendants made advances in the arts and technology, but there was no reformation — nor has there ever been nor can there ever be. Instead, man sank deeper into bloodshed and debauchery until the imagination of his every thought was evil. “Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually . ... The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.” (Gen. 6:5, 11). With God excluded from their thoughts, great men of renown became the super-heroes of that day (Gen. 6:4). We can see the same thing in our present world with its adulation of sports and entertainment superstars. The parallels don’t end there; we are reminded daily of the violence that surrounds us, and the abandonment of every moral principle established by God is not only openly flaunted but is also protected by the courts. “As it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be” (Luke 17:26).
With Seth, on the other hand, we have a man after God’s own counsel; in type he prefigures the Lord Jesus Christ. In the midst of an evil world, a faithful lineage is to be found from Adam, through Seth, to Enoch, and on down to Noah. The Genesis record of Enoch is limited: “Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years ... and Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him” (Gen. 5:22-24). But if we turn to the book of Jude, the Spirit of God gives us Enoch’s announcement concerning the coming of Christ in judgment upon this world (Jude 14-15). In Enoch we have pictured those saints of God who will be spared that terrible trial which will come upon this world; they are a heavenly company (Rev. 3:10; Rev. 4:1). Noah, on the other hand, prefigures an earthly remnant who will be preserved in the midst of judgment to inhabit a new world.
Of that vast throng, who populated the world immediately prior to the flood, only one is identified as having found favor in the eyes of God — Noah. “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Gen. 6:9). No doubt, he enjoyed the fellowship of those twos and threes who seem to characterize a remnant testimony. Lamech, Noah’s father, died just four years before the flood, whereas Methuselah (his grandfather) died the very year of the flood. Adam’s life overlapped all of the antediluvian fathers with the exception of Noah! The knowledge of the creation, Adam’s transgression, the lives of Cain and Abel, these things were all known through first and secondhand accounts.
A new world began with Noah. It was founded upon sacrifice, specifically the burnt offering (Gen. 8:20). The burnt offering was not for specific sins or guilt (as with the sin offering) but sin certainly underscored it. The shed blood of the sacrifice was propitiatory and addressed itself to all that was odious to God’s holy and righteous nature. The postdiluvial world began, therefore, cleansed morally by water and judicially by the blood of the sacrifice.
Not only was this new world cleansed, it had also changed. For the first time we read of seasons and rainbows (Gen. 8:22; 9:13). More than this, however, God promised Noah that the earth would never again be judged by inundation; but rather, He would place magisterial authority in the hands of man: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man” (Gen. 9:6). Prior to the flood man was left to his conscience and there had been no institutions, religious or otherwise, established by God. This principle of government continues into this present day (Rom. 13:3-4). Noah’s new world, so recently cleansed by water judgment and now ordered by government, quickly became a scene of shame — Noah’s drunkenness led to his dishonor by his son Ham. As another has noted: It is striking to observe in man’s history, that whatever good thing God set up, the first thing that man ever did was to ruin it.55
The postdiluvian world is divided under three heads: Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Gen. 10). Of these three, God takes up with the family of Shem. As to the other two families, as a result of Ham’s behavior, his descendants through his son Canaan were cursed to be servants of servants; in Japheth, on the other hand, we have the vast bulk of the gentile nations. Despite man’s new beginning, and the memory of God’s judgment fresh in his mind, mankind quickly abandoned all knowledge of God and sought his own greatness and immortality: “Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name” (Gen. 11:4). Worse yet, having departed from the knowledge of the true God, man “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25). Idolatrous worship began with the adulation of God’s handiwork — the sun, moon and stars, the animals and the fish of the sea — but ultimately it degenerated into the worship of human-like gods as corrupt as himself: “Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself” (Psa. 50:21). When man fails to learn what he is in the presence of God, the god of his own making will be just like himself. The truth must never be allowed to bend to our state — we see it happening in the history we have been considering, and we see it again in Christendom today. Behind it all, we recognize the handiwork of Satan, the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4).
Out of this idolatrous, postdiluvian world, God, according to His own sovereign will, calls Abram and makes him a stranger and pilgrim on this earth. With Abraham, we see one living according to the principle of faith. He took God at His word and acted upon it, having received it as the Word of God. From Abraham’s seed sprang the nation of Israel, and in it, for a time, God made known His ways of government to the world. But all was overshadowed, from the beginning to the end, by the failure and sin of the people.
Israel’s unique position as the people of God was not based on their own merit — indeed, it was according to the promise given to Sarah that the child Isaac was born, and that, after her body was well past the age of childbearing. Furthermore, it was God’s sovereign election that chose Jacob over Esau: “The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth” (Rom. 9:11).
In type, Isaac is a heavenly man having been brought back, as it were, from the dead: “I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven” (Gen. 26:4). Jacob (Israel), on the other hand, is heir to God’s earthly promises: “thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth” (Gen. 28:14). In contrast, the seed of the flesh, Ishmael, Isaac’s half-brother, has proven to be nothing but an adversary to the seed of promise. Likewise, we find with Esau (Edom), the brother of Jacob, a perpetual hatred for Israel (Ezek. 35:5). Esau is typical of the profane man; he treats as common that which is divine. By his own doings, Esau has brought down God’s hatred upon his own head (Mal. 1:3).
Before we move on to a more cursory outline of the remaining Old Testament books, we must touch briefly on some further principles of great importance. In Exodus we have redemption. Redemption is not simply the act of being bought back. No, as a principle, it goes far beyond mere purchase. In redemption we have also been set free. Redemption stands in contrast to bondage.
The story of Israel’s twelve sons, and especially the story of Joseph, should be familiar. Joseph’s life illustrates to us the Lord Jesus Christ and His rejection by His people; it also presents to us Israel’s restoration and Christ’s future glory in His earthly kingdom: “Ye shall tell my father of all my glory in Egypt” (Gen. 45:13). The book of Genesis ends with the children of Israel in Egypt under Joseph’s protection. However, with the rise to power of a pharaoh who didn’t know Joseph, the descendants of Israel found themselves under a cruel bondage (Exod. 1:8). God was not, however, indifferent to their plight, nor had He forgotten them: “God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (Exod. 2:24). And so God raised up Moses to deliver His people.
But how could God deliver Israel? Were they any better than the Egyptians? No, both were in sin. Provision was made, however, for all to escape the cruel taskmaster; it must be through the blood of a lamb. The Egyptians could have availed themselves of it just as the Israelite did. Nevertheless, though the blood sheltered all who placed themselves under its protection, they were still in Egypt. God does not want us to be under the shelter of the blood and yet remain in Satan’s servitude. This is not God’s way and it will never do. And yet, many Christians find themselves in this very position. Not knowing deliverance from the power of Satan they live their lives in fear and bondage (Exod. 14:10-12). They do not know salvation at all. It is not until the Israelites are on the other side of the Red Sea, and Pharaoh and his army are seen dead on the sea shore, is redemption complete and salvation known and enjoyed (Exod. 14:13, 30). Until we have redemption, we never once read of singing — “The Lord is my strength and song, and He is become my salvation” (Exod. 15:2).
Redemption brings the children of Israel into a new relationship with their Redeemer. In Genesis we read of the Creator God, Elohim; the patriarchs knew Him as El Shaddai, God Almighty, but now God introduces Himself to His people by His name Jehovah: “I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by My name Jehovah was I not known to them” (Exod. 6:3). The name Jehovah brings before us His character as the Eternal One: “I AM THAT I AM ... Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (Exod. 3:14).
For the first time we read of God making His habitation with His people: “Thou hast guided them in Thy strength unto Thy holy habitation” (Exod. 15:13). God could not dwell in the midst of a people in bondage and in Egypt. Egypt was a land of idolatry; the Egyptians worshipped every god, or so it seemed, except the true God. It was imperative that Jehovah separate His people from such a scene for Himself. This principle has not changed. The church is the habitation of God through the Spirit (Eph. 2:22). As such, she has no concord with this world. Though in the world, she is not of the world (John 17:11, 14). As Christians, our pathway is to be separate from this world and its principles: “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord” (2 Cor. 6:17).
Up until the nineteenth chapter of Exodus, all is the exercise of God’s sovereign mercy and grace. The children of Israel could not attribute their deliverance to any merit on their part, but rather, they owed it all to the faithfulness of God. Ready to perish in Egypt, Jehovah had redeemed them, bearing them on eagle’s wings and bringing them unto Himself (Exod. 19:4; Deut. 26:5-8). At this juncture, however, the law is introduced: a law which the people, not knowing their own hearts, readily submitted to. “All the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exod. 19:8). A pledge, which we might note, they continued to repeat throughout their history despite their constant failure: “Ye cannot serve the Lord: for He is an holy God; ... And the people said unto Joshua, Nay; but we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:19-21). The children of Israel took themselves off the ground of grace and voluntarily placed themselves under law. Under law, the acceptance of a person depends upon his or her conduct. Grace, on the other hand, does what it pleases in the goodness and in complete conformity to the nature and character of Him who acts.
The law gives us God’s mind as to what man ought to be — it is holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12). Man, on the other hand, is neither holy, nor just, nor good! Though he knows right from wrong (and with the law he is without excuse) he finds himself powerless to do that which is pleasing in God’s sight. With the giving of the law, God’s Word was out in the open for all to hear — the Israelite was in the privileged position of having received a revelation from God; His Word was near to them (Deut. 30:11-14).
The law continues to do its work to this day. Man’s great mistake is to suppose that the law reforms whereas it reproves. The law makes a demand on man; a demand which man has proven to be powerless to meet. Without grace (that which God supplies) man’s condition is quite hopeless. Indeed, even under the Jewish economy, things were not administered according to pure law — if that had been the case, the people must surely have been destroyed after the episode of the golden calf. Indeed, Jehovah presents Himself to Moses as “Jehovah God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in goodness and truth” (Exod. 34:6 JND). Moses, seizing upon this, intercedes for the people: “If now I have found grace in Thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for Thine inheritance.” (Exod. 34:8-9). Moses as a mediator is a type of the Lord Jesus Christ. He pleads “if now I have found grace,” and it is on this basis that he mediates for the people. A stiff-necked people are in need of grace; it is no longer a question of obedience — in that they had already utterly failed.
Much of the remaining chapters of Exodus are occupied with details concerning the tabernacle. “Let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them” (Exod. 25:8). It was from within the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle that Jehovah was looked upon as dwelling in the midst of His redeemed people. The subject is very rich and worthy of further study, but, unfortunately, we must pass over it. Now that the foundation has been laid, it is necessary to continue our outline using much broader brush strokes.
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
Superficially, I suppose, the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy may appear repetitive. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. The book of Leviticus is the priests’ handbook. The only way for an Israelite to approach God was through a priest and with the appointed sacrifice. What a contrast to our present position: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:19). There is but one Mediator between us and God: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). The Levitical sacrifices anticipated and typified the life and death of the Lord Jesus Christ. Consequently, they are full of instruction and much is to be gained from their study.
The book of Numbers covers the wilderness journey from Mount Sinai (where Exodus leaves off) to the plains of Moab. This is borne out in the Hebrew title for the book, In the Desert. Numbers, however, contains far more than history. It opens with Levitical service — in fact, a good summary of the book is walk and service. We should observe that worship, that which we find in Leviticus, comes before service. Our natural heart’s desire is to display devotion through service; the Father, however, seeks worshipers. Service springs from devotion and not devotion from service.
Deuteronomy is not a second law, nor is it a second giving of the law, as the Greek title from the Septuagint suggests. This book gives us the last words of Moses before the people enter the Promised Land (Deut. 1:1). One can picture the aged Moses, with his heart full of the ways of God and yet deeply burdened for the people, instructing and exhorting them before his death. Deuteronomy views the people as being in the Promised Land (though still on the East bank of the Jordan) and the laws given address themselves to that state of things.
Joshua, Judges, Ruth
The book of Joshua begins where Deuteronomy ends. With the death of Moses, Joshua, by divine appointment, now leads the people in the conquest of their land. God promised Israel that “every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you” (Josh. 1:3). There was a responsibility on the part of the people to make the land their own. The energy of faith, however, quickly flagged and we read: “Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the Lord said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed” (Josh. 13:1). Indeed, by the end of Joshua’s life, Canaan was a patchwork of conquered lands intermingled with possessions of the Philistines, Canaanites, Hivites, Jebusites, and various other peoples (Judges 3:3-5).
The book of Judges is not chronological; furthermore, parts of it overlap the book of Joshua. At this time in Israel’s history they were a strict theocracy; God appointed no leader in Joshua’s place. The tabernacle — God’s dwelling place in the midst of His people — was at Shiloh. Nevertheless, every man did that which was right in his own eyes; this is the characteristic condition of things in the time of the judges (Judges 21:25). Rather than displacing the inhabitants of the land, leagues were formed with them (Judges 2:2). As a result of this disobedience (Deut. 7:2), these nations became a thorn to Israel and their idols a snare (Judges 2:3). From time to time, God, in His mercy, raised up judges to deliver His people from their oppressors. Thirteen in all are named: Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah and Barak, Gideon, Abimelech, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Samson. There are some very familiar names in this list — some whose faith inspire; the conduct of others, however, leave us wondering if they had faith at all. And yet, we read: “What shall I more say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae” (Heb. 11:32).
The little book of Ruth falls during the time of the Judges (Ruth 1:1). In the midst of failure and weakness, we find the bright light of faith — faith in the person of a young, gentile woman. Ruth lays hold of grace and appropriates it for herself. In addition to faith and grace, we also have life — life in the child Obed, born to Ruth, and raised up as the offspring of Naomi. And it all takes place in that little town with such a significant name, Bethlehem-Judah! The book of Ruth forms a vital link between the time of the judges and the kings. In it we have introduced the royal line of David, which is, of course, that of the Messiah: “Jesus Christ, the son of David” (Matt. 1:1).
1 Samuel – 2 Chronicles
The books of Samuel and Kings form a continuous history; the divisions between them have been introduced for our convenience. Samuel was the last of the judges. Though he appointed his sons to judge in his stead (1 Sam. 8:1), it was their corruption which led to the people’s demand for a king, “like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:5). The transition to a kingdom began with the reign of Saul — a leader of the people’s choosing (1 Sam. 12:13). Saul proved to be a failure, both spiritually and politically, and at his death he was superseded by his rival, the man of God’s own choosing, King David (1 Sam. 16:7-13). Thus began the dynastic reign of David, which continued to exercise power up until the Babylonian captivity.
The failure of man in responsibility marks the entire kingdom period. Under the watch of the high priest Eli, the priesthood sank into total corruption through the behavior of his sons (1 Sam. 2:12-26). God, at this point, raised up His prophet and judge, the young Samuel. With Samuel, however, there is a breakdown of righteous judgment in his sons. Even after Saul’s sad reign and ignominious death, it took seven years before the entire nation pledged allegiance to David as king (2 Sam. 5:1-5). Certain promises were specifically attached to the family of David; the hopes of Israel were renewed in this house. Nevertheless, it, too, failed in responsibility. David surely stumbled Solomon, whose indiscretions far exceeded those of his father (1 Kings 11:1-8). Because of Solomon’s sin, God rent the kingdom in two during the reign of Rehoboam his son (1 Kings 11:11). Only Judah and Benjamin were left to the house of David. Jeroboam, a ruler over the house of Joseph (1 Kings 11:28), assumed the kingship over the breakaway northern ten tribes. This breach has never been healed.
The history of the northern ten tribes is a sad one. Jeroboam created a false system of worship to discourage his people from going up to Jerusalem as the law required (1 Kings 12:26-33). Not one monarch of the northern kingdom ever did that which was right in the sight of Jehovah. Instead, we read example after example of those who “did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin” (1 Kings 15:34). Consistent with the lives of these godless kings, we read of intrigues and overthrows; in all there were nine ruling families. Four kings from the house of Omri sat upon the throne, including the infamous King Ahab with his wife Jezebel — this dynasty was second only to the next in length. Jehu was raised up of Jehovah to overthrow and destroy the house of Omri; his descendants held the throne the longest — five kings and for close to one hundred years. In all, the northern kingdom lasted just two hundred years before God allowed the King of Assyria to take the ten tribes captive and disperse them among the nations.
Judah’s history, though likewise disappointing, did contain some bright moments; for this reason, Jehovah patiently persevered with them for almost twice as long as the northern kingdom. Faithful kings, such as Hezekiah and Josiah, brought about revivals and for a moment attained to, or surpassed even, the brightest days of the kingdom under Solomon. “Surely there was not holden such a Passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah” (2 Kings 23:22). Nevertheless, these revivals were short-lived and limited in their influence. Many, it seems, were caught up in the enthusiasm of the moment but their hearts were never in it. In the days of Josiah, Jeremiah the prophet received the following word from Jehovah: “Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? ... And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord” (Jer. 3:6, 10).
God’s patience is not limitless. The closing chapter of Chronicles gives us a brief summary of God’s dealings with His people: “The Lord God of their fathers sent to them by His messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because He had compassion on His people, and on His dwelling place: But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy. Therefore He brought upon them the king of the Chaldees” (2 Chron. 36:15-17).
Before we pass from the time of the kings, a brief mention must be made concerning the character of the books of Chronicles. These were written during the captivity (1 Chron. 3:17-24; 6:15; etc.). Whereas in Samuel and Kings we have man in responsibility, in the books of Chronicles we have Israel’s history from God’s standpoint — His sovereignty, acting in grace to fulfill His promises and accomplish His purpose. As such, David’s kingly line is prominent; indeed, Saul’s entire reign is introduced and dismissed in just one chapter. With responsibility came failure; and, as we have observed, there are many failures recorded in Samuel and Kings. In Chronicles, however, these are, by and large, omitted; just those incidents needed to explain the history are given.
Ezra – Esther
Israel’s history under the old covenant ceased with the destruction of Jerusalem. The history of the Jews in captivity is not given to us. Certain events are recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah, and especially the book of Esther; nevertheless, God’s sentence of lo-ammi (literally, not my people) has passed upon Israel (Hos. 1:9). Only one thing remained and that was the presentation of Christ, the Messiah. The books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther lay the foundation for that presentation some four hundred and fifty years later. We should note, however, that the setting aside of Israel is not forever. Just as surely as Hosea chapter one is true, so is chapter two: “I will sow her unto Me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not My people, Thou art My people; and they shall say, Thou art my God” (Hos. 2:23). God will again take up the cause of His people once His church, the heavenly bride, is raptured out of this scene (Rom. 11:25-26).
The significance of Nebuchadnezzar’s rise to power and the Babylonian captivity is to be understood from the book of Daniel. With the captivity of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem, God’s throne upon this earth ceased. The times of the gentiles had begun — a time that continues in this present day and will continue until the last of Daniel’s four beasts is overthrown by the Son of Man at His coming. Consistent with this, the expression, “the God of heaven,” is uniquely characteristic to the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel. As another has written: The God of heaven rules everywhere and over all things, doing according to His will in heaven and on earth; but not yet reigning over the earth as the king of the earth.56
The book of Ezra recounts the history of a small remnant who returned from among the Jews in captivity to Jerusalem under the auspices of Cyrus king of Persia. Zerubbabel (a royal descendant of David) led the return of the first group; the second came with Ezra the priest eighty or so years later. The book of Ezra takes up the rebuilding of the temple and the restoration of the ecclesiastical order of things. Nehemiah, on the other hand, describes the restoration of civil government under Nehemiah the governor. Nehemiah’s arrival in the province of Judea followed closely on the heels of Ezra — for a time the two worked together, one the high priest and the other the governor (Neh. 8:9). Under Nehemiah’s leadership the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt, though not without opposition. All, however, was conducted under the patronage and authority of the kings of Persia — Daniel’s second beast.
And where does Esther fit into all of this? With respect to time, the book of Esther falls between chapters six and seven of Ezra. It tells us of God’s providential care toward His people (without ever publically owning them as such) in thwarting the schemes of their enemies to destroy them. God’s presence remains hidden and He is never once mentioned. If Haman’s wicked plan had succeeded, then that small remnant of Jews in Judea would have been annihilated along with all the Jews throughout all the provinces of Persia. Unbeknownst to them, God, working behind the scenes, uses the young girl Esther and her faithful cousin Mordecai, to preserve that little company in Jerusalem.
Isaiah – Daniel
Rather than proceed with the poetic books, it makes sense to look briefly at the prophets. The lives of the prophets are closely intertwined with the history of the Kings.
Many misconceptions surround the subject of prophecy. However, given the number of Old Testament books that are prophetic, it surely does us well to understand something as to prophecy. Much is made of prophecy’s foretelling of events, and in this regard, it has been abused by modern soothsayers. Skeptics, on the other hand, have reduced prophecy to an allegory of uncertain meaning. Prophecy may certainly look forward to future events, and the prophet may, from time to time, employ allegories. And yet, such characterizations are hardly an accurate depiction of prophecy. Quite simply, the prophet was God’s spokesperson to Israel, and, where necessary, those with whom Israel interacted.
When Israel’s corruption extended to the priesthood — the very ones through whom the people were to approach God — God brought in a new means whereby He might maintain a right relationship with His people. In His great mercy, God raised up the prophet and identified Himself with the faithful heart of His messenger. In the person of the prophet a testimony to Jehovah was kept up in the midst of an apostate nation. We see this especially borne out in the lives of Elijah (meaning, whose God is Jehovah) and Elisha (whose salvation is God); both were prophets to the apostate, northern ten tribes. God’s messenger, however, must feel the weight of the people’s unfaithful conduct — Jeremiah and Hosea are vivid examples. No prophet felt that burden, however, as did God’s Prophet and faithful Witness, the Lord Jesus Christ; He not only felt it, but He was made sin, He who knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21).
The prophets addressed themselves to the condition of the day in which they lived. Nevertheless, circumstances were often used to unfold future events. Sometimes this was for the encouragement of the people; at other times, however, it came as a result of their faithless indifference. When Isaiah spoke to Ahaz, king of Judah, he spoke to his conscience (Isa. 7). Ahaz had forsaken Jehovah and had set up an altar to a strange god in the temple. The Lord first seeks to encourage Ahaz to act in faith and thereby glorify God. Isaiah tells Ahaz that the alliance between the kings of Syria and his northern enemy, Samaria, would come to nothing. Though Ahaz responds with an outward piety, it is nothing but an empty form. As a consequence, Jehovah then makes known what must become of the house of David and Judah. Two key events are revealed: the gift of Immanuel, the virgin’s Son, and the complete desolation of the land by the northern confederacy of which Assyria was an archetype.
Prophecy is occupied with this earth at the center of which is Israel and Jerusalem. The subject of the church is never once mentioned, though it leaves room for this present parenthesis in God’s dealings with His earthly people. When prophecy speaks of Christ, it is in connection with His first coming and then His return as the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13-14). That which comes between the two is not addressed. If we fail to recognize this, and attempt to force the church upon the subject of prophecy, all is confusion.
Isaiah was sent as a prophet to Judah during the final years of Israel’s history (the Northern ten tribes). His prophecy concerns Judah and Jerusalem (Isa. 1:1). In the days of king Hezekiah Israel was finally taken captive by Assyria, and, with that nation conquered, Jerusalem was besieged. It is against the backdrop of these events that God speaks to Judah. God’s chastisement upon the northern ten tribes, and His final judgment for their apostasy, failed to deter Judah: “they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward” (Isa. 1:4). Concerning the prophecies of Isaiah, another has written: Isaiah is the most complete of all the prophets, and perhaps the most rich. The whole circle of God’s thoughts with respect to Israel is more given here. Other prophets are occupied with certain portions only of the history of this people.57
Given the limited scope of this outline, we cannot delve into the prophecies themselves. For the remainder of the prophetic books we must limit ourselves to those circumstances surrounding the prophecy. The book of Jeremiah follows Isaiah. It comes quite a bit later, at the very end of Judah’s history. It is no longer the Assyrian who is threatening, instead it is Babylon — a power such as the world had never before seen. Again, Judah’s unfaithfulness and God’s impending judgment is the subject. But if Judah is to be judged, then the surrounding nations must also come under judgment. God has not, however, cast off His people forever: “the Lord will not cast off for ever: but though He cause grief, yet will He have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies” (Lam. 3:31-32). In the book of Lamentations, we very much see the prophet Jeremiah feeling the weight of the people’s misconduct as his own.
Ezekiel, like Jeremiah, prophesied during the closing days of the kingdom of Judah. Unlike Jeremiah, however, Ezekiel was not found at Jerusalem, for he was among the captives (Ezek. 1:1). From this viewpoint, the people are exiles among the gentiles. In contrast to Daniel, however, who found himself in a similar position, Ezekiel’s prophecy is not occupied with the gentile powers but is focused on all Israel, both Ephraim and Judah. Ezekiel chronicles the departure of the glory of Jehovah from the temple but also looks forward to its restoration during the millennial reign of Christ. “I the Lord will be their God, and My servant David a prince among them; I the Lord have spoken it. And I will make with them a covenant of peace” (Ezek. 34:24-25). “I looked, and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord” (Ezek. 44:4).
Daniel was probably a contemporary of both Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and, although there is no record of them physically meeting, Ezekiel mentions Daniel and Daniel mentions Jeremiah (Ezek. 14:14; Dan. 9:2). Daniel, like Ezekiel, was taken captive. We first read of him in Babylon under the charge of Ashpenaz, the master of the eunuchs. Daniel, along with his three friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, represent a faithful remnant, preserved by God, during the time of the gentiles — this is the subject of Daniel’s prophecy. Nebuchadnezzar, in carrying out God’s judgment against Judah, set aside Jehovah’s throne upon this earth (1 Chron. 29:23), and he himself is given the place of universal dominion. Nebuchadnezzar was that head of gold (Dan. 2:37-38). Following Babylon there would be a succession of three kingdoms, Persia, Greece, and Rome. These will ultimately be replaced by a kingdom, established by the God of heaven, which shall never be destroyed.
The fourth kingdom, Rome, is diverse from the previous three and in its final form is dreadful and terrible (Dan. 7:7). The Roman Empire declined and fell, and out of the various pieces arose the nations which form modern Europe. Daniel tells us that Rome will revive as a fragile, ten-nation confederacy which will then give way to a dictatorship (Dan. 7:24-25). This final power is destroyed by the coming of Christ who will establish His earthly kingdom. Through it all, God’s eye is upon His people of old. Seventy weeks have been determined upon Daniel’s people (the Jews) and upon Daniel’s holy city (Jerusalem), “to make an end of sins, and to make expiation for iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of the ages, and to seal the vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies” (Dan. 9:24 JND). God has fulfilled sixty nine of the seventy weeks; the last week of seven years remains to be fulfilled.
The Minor Prophets
The Minor Prophets are not arranged chronologically. Hosea, Amos, and Micah were contemporaneous with Isaiah. Unlike Isaiah, however, they address both Israel and Judah. The Assyrian is again the threatening enemy. Amos, it seems, was raised up for a short time in view of an impending earthquake (Amos 1:1); if God is going to judge, He will warn first (Amos 3:1-8). Each prophet pleads with the people and warns of judgment that must come; each also very clearly tells of Israel’s restoration (Hos. 14:4-8; Amos 9:8-15; Micah 5:5-9).
Obadiah, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah prophesied around the times of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Only Judah remained, and Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian, was the rod of God’s judgment. Obadiah appears to be the last of the three, and he addresses himself to Edom (the descendants of Esau) and especially their behavior during the Babylonian attack upon Jerusalem (Obad. 11-14). Edom’s judgment will be complete: “There shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the Lord hath spoken it” (Obad. 18). Judah’s recovery, on the other hand, is spoken of by each prophet (Obad. 17-21; Hab. 2:2-4; Zeph. 3:14-20). Habakkuk is less direct in this regard, but only because of the nature of the book. Habakkuk is representative of that faithful remnant who, despite all circumstances and with no sign of outward blessing, live by faith, trusting in Jehovah.
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were post-captivity prophets. We read of Haggai and Zechariah in the book of Ezra; they were sent to stir up and encourage the Jews who had returned to Palestine to complete the rebuilding of the temple. Their prophecies are distinct: Haggai speaks to the low state of the people, whereas Zechariah lifts their eyes to look beyond their present situation. Malachi comes later; he addresses the relapsed condition of things. Though the people had not returned to idolatry, they snuffed at the offerings of Jehovah; theirs was an empty religion. Once again, each prophet looks forward to the restoration of Israel (Hag. 2:20-23; Zech. 14 etc.; Mal. 3-4).
There remain just three of the Minor Prophets to be touched upon: Joel, Jonah, and Nahum. These are diverse from each other, and their prophecies came at very different times. Joel is difficult to place historically; his prophecy speaks of the day of the Lord (Joel 2:1). A devastating plague of insects is but an alarm for a more terrible day, a time of judgment — in that day, Jehovah will openly intervene in the affairs of men (Joel. 1:4). Jonah probably predates all the prophets, major and minor, having prophesied either prior to, or very early in the reign of Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25). The book of Jonah itself is distinct from his prophecies. Jonah’s life is the sign itself. Jonah could not accept God’s mercy toward the gentiles to whom he had been sent — Nineveh, the capital of Assyria. Nevertheless, through Jonah’s failings Jehovah was made known to the gentile mariners; furthermore, Jonah was raised up from the depths of the sea (as Israel will be) to be a witness to the gentiles in a future day (Matt. 24:14). Nahum comes less than one hundred and fifty years after Jonah and is directly addressed to Nineveh. As is so often the case, their latter state was far worse than their former, despite their reprieve in the days of Jonah. God would judge Assyria: “There is no healing of thy bruise; thy wound is grievous” (Nah. 3:19). Each of these prophets, in their unique way, speak of the restoration of Israel. In the case of Nahum, Nineveh’s destruction foreshadows the destruction of the future northern confederacy who will seek to destroy them.
Job – Song of Songs
Returning now to the poetic books we begin with perhaps the earliest book of the Old Testament, the book of Job. Job addresses the nature of trials though it goes far deeper than that. Man naturally assumes that affliction is a sign of God’s disapproval and that prosperity indicates His approval. Nothing could be further from the truth: “Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power?” (Job 21:7). Job’s trial, in fact, had nothing to do with what he had done — the great error his friends fell into. Considering again those two questions asked by God in the Garden of Eden: “What is this that thou hast done?” (Gen. 3:13) and “Where art thou?” (Gen. 3:9) — man, if he deigns to think upon it, occupies himself with the first and makes excuses; the second, however, is the more fundamental question. Job had to learn that he could not stand before a holy and righteous God on the basis of his own righteousness. In the presence of God, Job learned his true state as a man, apart from the grace of God.
The book of Psalms is a collection of prayers, meditations, and praises. They give expression to the sentiments of that faithful remnant from among God’s earthly people, who will, in a soon-coming day, pass through great tribulation. In them we also have the Spirit of Christ expressed, both in association with the godly remnant and concerning Himself personally. No other book expresses the thoughts and feelings of the Lord’s heart in such a manner. In reading the Psalms we should keep in mind that they are the expressions of a people under law, knowing only temporal salvation, and whose aspirations and hopes are earthly. As Christians, we are not under law; we possess eternal life, and our aspirations and hopes are heavenly. Though the Psalms offer much to comfort the soul, they should be read in communion with the mind and ways of God — as such, they cannot be rightly understood without recognizing their prophetic character.
The three books of Solomon — Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon — also have a prophetic character. They give us: Israel in covenant relationship with Jehovah; that relationship broken; and finally, her restoration. This is especially important when reading the Song of Solomon; its subject is not the church. The spouse is the faithful remnant from among the Jews and Christ is the King: “the King hath brought me into His chambers” (Song of Sol. 1:4; see also Hosea 2:14-20). Proverbs deals with God’s ways in government on this earth — a man reaps what he sows. It has been described as heavenly wisdom for an earthly pathway; the man who heeds its precepts is spared a great deal of trouble in this world. Ecclesiastes is a most fascinating book, and in some ways it is the counterpart to Job. Whereas one speaks of trials, the other takes up the subject of human happiness. Ecclesiastes views things from the perspective of a man under the sun; a revelation from God is not known, although God is acknowledged. Just as surely as the Song of Solomon is the song of songs, Ecclesiastes is the sigh of sighs. It concludes where Proverbs begins: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments” (Eccl. 12:13). Without a revelation from God, man cannot hope to understand either his trials or the secret to happiness.
The New Testament
The books of the New Testament may be arranged, for convenience, into the following groupings: the Gospels; Acts; the epistles of Paul; the catholic epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and the Revelation of Jesus Christ. The first three Gospels are synoptic, although only Mark is chronological in its presentation.
The book of Acts completes Luke’s historic account which he begins with his gospel. Starting with Christ’s ascension, Acts takes us through the early days of the church, first in connection with Peter and then the Apostle Paul.
The epistles are ordered by author, length, and whether they are to an assembly or to an individual. Paul’s first epistle to the Thessalonians was probably the earliest written; John’s gospel, his epistles, and the Revelation were the last.
As we saw in the first part of this book, some have struggled to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New. Of course, reconciliation is not needed — it is the one and same God throughout. It is a grave mistake to suppose that the New Testament is a different book to the Old — together they form a single, harmonious volume, the Word of God. The types illustrated in the Old Testament help us to understand the antitypes of the New; and contrariwise, the antitypes of the New bring into the light those things which were formally mere shadows.
On the other hand, it is equally harmful to suppose that the New Testament is little more than a spiritualization of the Old — that is to say, apart from some additional light there is little to differentiate it. The distinctive feature of the Old Testament is God’s government, while the distinctive truth of the New Testament is His grace. Government and grace are totally distinct; government is always concerned with man, whereas grace is the revelation of what God is and does.58 The God of the Old Testament was truly hid behind a veil. In the New Testament, He has been revealed in the person of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
In the Old Testament, man’s only approach to God was through the animal sacrifice. In the New, we have “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). This has opened the way for God to show Himself propitious toward man. Such an astonishing act changes everything! As a result, the Gospel of the grace of God can go out to all — it is now “whosoever believeth” (John 3:16). Furthermore, that work of Christ — by which we now stand accepted before God in the very place in which Christ Himself stands — places us in a position markedly more blessed than any of the Old Testament saints. With Israel having been temporarily set aside, God has formed a new and distinct body, one in which there is no longer Jew or Gentile. This is His church — the bride of Christ. Everything about the church — its character, blessings, and hopes — are all heavenly, even as Christ its head is in heaven.
The Gospels
From the very earliest days of Israel’s history there had been the promise of a Prophet, like unto Jehovah God. “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto Me” (Deut. 18:15). There was also the promise of a King, the Lord’s Anointed: “I set My king upon My holy hill of Zion” (Psa. 2:6; see also 2:2). Likewise, we read of the Branch: “The Branch ... even He shall build the temple of the Lord; and He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne” (Zech. 6:13). In Isaiah, we have the virgin bearing a son: “a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). Many more verses concerning the promised One could be given, but we conclude with: “Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2). And so it was, “when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. 4:4-5).
The Gospel of Matthew especially brings before us the Christ, the fulfilment of prophecy and promise. He was the King of Israel: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1). No other Gospel contains as many Old Testament quotations and references (Matt. 1:23; 2:6, 15, 18; 3:3, etc.). Although the prophecies concerning a victorious Messiah were recognized by the Jews, those which spoke of the suffering Messiah were not: “It is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad” (Matt. 26:31; Zech. 13:7). Rejected by His own people, the Lord Jesus was crucified. And yet, through His atoning sufferings He has laid the foundation for all of Israel’s future blessing. “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner” (Matt. 21:42).
The Gospel of Mark, perhaps the first written and the most chronological, presents Jesus as the perfect Servant: “And now, saith the Lord that formed Me from the womb to be His Servant” (Isa. 49:5). As such no genealogy is given. His deity, however, is carefully guarded from the outset (Mark 1:1). Though the Son of God “emptied Himself, taking a bondman’s form” (Phil. 2:7 JND), it is an error of the worst kind to suppose that the Lord divested Himself of His divine nature — that was an impossibility. In His humility and dependence He relinquished His glories, and for a moment the prerogatives of His deity, but never once did He cease to be God. Jesus was no mere manifestation of God as man, but rather: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).
The Gospel of Luke is a divine portrait of the Lord Jesus; a Man among men, perfectly meeting their need in grace — He is the Son of Man. Though His personal and official glories were veiled, His moral glories shone forth; He could be nothing less than perfect in all that He did. Peter’s presentation of the gospel to Cornelius aptly summarizes Luke’s Gospel: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with Him.” (Acts 10:38).
The Gospel of John is generally accepted to be the last penned. As such, it addresses itself to the heresies of the day, albeit indirectly. Jesus is especially presented in this Gospel as the Son of God, the Word which became flesh (John 1:14). The rejection of Christ by His own people is given at the outset (John 1:11). Throughout this gospel there is a setting aside of the old order and the establishment of something entirely new. Christian truths (before we have Christianity, in fact) are seen throughout. “I lay down My life for the sheep. And I have other sheep which are not of this fold: those also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one flock, one Shepherd” (John 10:15-16 JND). The fold of Judaism must give way to one flock gathered about the person of the Good Shepherd.
The Acts
In Luke’s second discourse, the Acts, we have the one and only historic account of the early church as given to us by God. Although the time period covered is little more than thirty years, the book of Acts brings before us an outline of Christianity — from its inception to its ruin. With the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost we have the formation of the church (Acts 2). It is not, however, until the ninth and tenth chapters — with Paul’s arrest on the Damascus road and the baptism of the gentile believers into the one body by the Holy Spirit — do we see the unique character of the church (as something quite distinct from Judaism) begin to unfold practically. In the twentieth chapter, however, Paul warns the Ephesian elders of grievous wolves who would come in among them not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29). The book closes with the Apostle Paul under house arrest. No longer free to come and go, he receives all who come to him (Acts 28:30). In his second letter to Timothy, we learn that many had turned away from the Apostle (2 Tim. 1:15). That doctrine concerning the church, which had been exclusively committed to Paul, had, by and large, been rejected by Christendom. This remains the general state of things to this day.
Pauline Epistles
Following the Acts we have Paul’s fourteen epistles. The subject of Romans is the gospel of God (Rom. 1:1). The gospel of God is the testimony of the righteousness of God; that is to say, how God is able to save sinners without compromising that which He is in Himself.
The many problems in the assembly at Corinth led Paul to write his First epistle to the Corinthians. In it he addresses, firstly, the administrative responsibility of the local assembly, and then secondly, the assembly as the local expression of the body of Christ. The Second epistle to the Corinthians came in response to the positive reception of the first letter. Its tone is more personal and exhortative. Paul still, however, had his detractors at Corinth — a subject which he most carefully and delicately addressed.
In his epistle to the Galatians the Apostle makes short work of those who sought to corrupt the gospel of God with the legal principles of Judaism. Such teaching exalts the flesh and places the saints of God back into this present evil world. “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you ... having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:1, 3). Ephesians stands in stark contrast to that which precedes it; in it we have the most elevated development of truth — the Apostle unfolds the counsels of God concerning Christ and the church. Paul’s letter to the Philippians neither takes up matters of doctrine nor does it address moral issues. It is a letter thanking the Philippian saints for their kind gift of fellowship. The imprisoned Apostle was deeply touched by their remembrance of him at the last; however, if there was one thing that would complete his joy, it was that they might be “likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind” (Phil. 2:2). Christ is set before them as their life, pattern, object, and strength (Phil. 1:21; 2:5; 3:14; 4:13). Colossians, like the epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, is corrective. The corrupting leaven on this occasion is philosophy and ritualism. The one, high and lofty, appeals to the intellect; the other, natural and sensual, pleases the flesh. In turning to these worldly elements, the Colossians had turned away from Christ; they had failed to own Him as their Head — He in whom “dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9 JND).
Paul’s epistles to the Thessalonians address two aspects of the Lord’s coming: first for His own and second with the saints. The Thessalonians awaited the Son of God from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10) but were uncertain as to the future of those who died before His return. They were comforted, however, by the word of the Lord given to the Apostle Paul: “The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:16-17). In the second epistle, we learn that the saints had been shaken by a claim that the day of the Lord, a day of terrible judgment, was upon them. This day, however, cannot come until we have been gathered to Him (2 Thess. 2:1); and as to the remaining empty profession, there will be a general apostasy and the antichrist will be revealed (2 Thess. 2:3).
Paul’s four pastoral epistles follow — these are addressed to individuals rather than assemblies. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul instructs the young man as to godly conduct in the house of God: “that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God” (1 Tim. 3:15). In his second letter the house of God is once again the subject, but it is now a great house where “there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonor” (2 Tim. 2:20). The epistle to Titus is likewise concerned with godly conduct, but not now in connection with the house of God but rather this world. Titus was sent to Crete to set things in order. The Cretians had quite the reputation, but one wholly at variance with the teachings of a Saviour God (Titus 2:10). In his short letter to Philemon, Paul exhorts his beloved brother to receive Onesimus, a runaway slave but now a brother in Christ. This was a rather delicate situation. Onesimus had wronged Philemon, perhaps even stealing from him, but he was now a different man — one profitable to Philemon and, furthermore, a brother (Philemon 16). Paul closes this short letter with: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit” (Philemon 25).
The authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews is disputed — despite the fact that it has been found with Paul’s writings from a very early date. Its human authorship, however, is deliberately concealed and any debate on this question misses the point; Jesus is uniquely the Apostle and author of this letter (Heb. 3:1). For the faithful among the Hebrews — those who had received Jesus as Messiah — His death, resurrection, and ascension, along with the affliction that they were experiencing, was perplexing. Their one hope had been the redemption of Israel, but this had not happened. In fact, Jerusalem and the temple were about to be destroyed. The writer to the Hebrews lifts their eyes heavenward to see a glorified Christ sitting at the right hand of God; He was their example and faithful High Priest. Theirs was a far, far better portion than anything they had ever considered.
James, Peter, John, Jude
The epistle of James has caused much consternation, principally because it is widely misunderstood. It does not stand in opposition to Paul’s epistles, but rather, it presents an altogether different view of faith and justification. James’ message is quite simply: Could the real Christians please stand up! He speaks of the visible effects of faith, as it may be observed by others, as the evidence of inner reality: “A man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works” (James 2:18). And how do we display our faith? Is it by religious observances and practices? Is it by so-called good works and charity? There is an aspect to the latter that is important (James 2:26), but how about: Our reaction to trials? The kindness and respect we show others? Our ability to control our tongues? Faith is neither jealous nor does it strive to be something. Faith does not produce pride. We love philanthropic works because it makes us look good; these others, however, manifest our true character; how we struggle with them!
The epistles of Peter, like James and Hebrews, are addressed to the Christians from among the twelve tribes. They were suffering persecution and needed encouragement. Each writer takes up a different aspect of their circumstance and they address themselves to a different need. Christians find themselves in a similar situation today — the faithful amidst an increasingly apostate Christendom. In Peter’s epistles, our earthly trials are the theme; consequently, these epistles have a wilderness character. In his first letter, Peter encourages the righteous in their trials. In the second, righteousness amidst wickedness (and especially as practiced by those outwardly professing the name of Christ), and God’s judgment upon them, is the subject.
The epistles of John go beyond the state of things addressed by Peter. As we have seen, Gnosticism grew to become a formidable opponent of Christianity. Never satisfied with what God has given, it is our nature to seek something new. And what man comes up with always exalts self at the expense of Christ. John looks beyond experience and takes up Christianity in its very essence. He speaks of the nature of God and of those in His family: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin” (1 John 3:9). In his first epistle we have the character of eternal life in the believer. His second letter is to a sister, one whose kindness could lead to fellowship with those who had gone beyond the doctrine of Christ in their wicked works. John’s third epistle encourages a brother, Gaius, in his hospitality towards the saints despite the malicious behavior of one, Diotrephes, who tolerated no opposition to the prominence he had established for himself in the assembly.
Whereas Peter addresses wickedness within Christendom, Jude warns against apostasy: “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).
Revelation
Finally, we come to the last and final book of the Bible, the Revelation of Jesus Christ. It is not simply the last book of the New Testament but the Bible as a whole; it completes the revelation of God (not concerning Christ and the church — for that was given to the Apostle Paul; see Col. 1:25) but as to heaven and earth. It ties together the close of this age with all the prophecies of the Old Testament. The Revelation may be divided into three parts: the things John saw (chapter 1), the things which are (chapters 2-3), and the things which shall be hereafter (chapters 4-22). The first eleven chapters are, for the most part, chronological; they consider things from the apostles’ day, through the history of Christendom (its apostasy and ultimate rejection), to the resumption of God’s dealings with Israel, and the final judgments. The remaining chapters, through a series of prophetic sketches, give us further detail; they also bring us into the eternal state (Rev. 21:1-8). The church, the bride of Christ, is not the focus of Revelation. From the call, “Come up hither” (Rev. 4:1), and the heavenly scenes in chapters four and five, the church does not appear until the marriage supper of the Lamb in the nineteenth chapter. In between, there is no church on this earth since it has been caught up in the rapture; in its place, we once again read of Israel and the twelve tribes.
In conclusion, we must note, as another far more able has expressed: The divine glory is ever the end of all things; but I speak now of the effect of divine counsels in which God glorifies Himself. Now this is altogether in Christ, known in the various glories in which He is revealed.59 God will be glorified, in both heaven and earth, in His Son.
Difficult Subjects
Introduction
To complete our review of the Holy Scriptures, we shall turn our attention to a few of the difficulties that crop up, whether with ourselves or with another, when seeking to understand or explain the Word of God. The nature of the difficulty is not the same in each case — neither the subject nor with the person. In some instances it is principally a question of faith. Do we accept God at His word or do we yield to man’s interpretation of this world? Other difficulties are of Christendom’s own making. Two thousand years of rubbish have been heaped upon the foundation laid by the Apostles. In the sixteenth century a bright light shone forth and the truth of salvation through faith alone, and not works, was preached. It wasn’t, however, until the early nineteenth century that the true character and hope of the church was once again recognized and acted upon. With the church’s heavenly position restored, God’s promises to His earthly people, Israel, were acknowledged. This opened the way for the interpretation of the prophetic scriptures without robbing them of their true meaning. Centuries of misinterpretation, however, are difficult to overcome and its legacy still affects the greater percentage of Christendom. And yet, “What is the chaff to the wheat?” (Jer. 23:28). A hungry child knows that bread is food for the body; even so, the truth of Scripture will be received by the child of God who hungers for it.
The various subjects that follow by no means cover the full gamut of such difficulties. Furthermore, they will not be addressed as adequately as some would hope. None of the thoughts presented are new. They have all been given fuller treatment elsewhere. Should an anxious soul have lingering doubts, or questions beyond the scope of this book, written ministry and thorough expositions are available.
Creation
If we listen to modern science, the Genesis account of creation is irrelevant. Worse than that, science claims to have thoroughly contradicted it. While this may appear to be a modern view, it isn’t so new. Although Darwin’s publication, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, in 1859 was the impetus for much renewed debate, Darwin was not alone in his thoughts. Long before him, Aristotle argued for a cosmos that had no beginning. An explanation for the origin of life which removes God is, quite simply, favored by man. I do not wish to discuss the theories of science nor attempt to refute them — much has been written on the subject by those more capable than I. Rather, let us consider what the Word of God has to say.
“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:3). In the eleventh Chapter of Hebrews, the faith chapter, we have chronicled the lives of Old Testament men and women whose lives exhibited faith. It is remarkable, therefore, that the verse which heads the list concerns us. Yes, it is “Through faith we understand.” There is no getting around this verse. We cannot expect to understand the faith of the patriarchs, much less live the same faith, unless we first have the faith to believe God’s account of creation. Despite all the scientific advances in knowledge, we do not know the origin of the universe or of life.
It is difficult to escape the six days of the Adamic creation. The fourth commandment recalls it: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exod. 20:11). The institution of the Jewish Sabbath makes little sense unless the days spoken of in Genesis are literal. Moreover, the account in Genesis is quite explicit, “the evening and the morning were the first day ... the evening and the morning were the second day” (Gen. 1:5, 8). When the expression, “the evening and the morning” is used, a literal day is meant (Dan. 8:14).
I would, however, draw our attention to Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” I do not believe that this is a summary of that which follows in chapters one and two. I believe it to be a statement in time prior to the events unfolded in these chapters — possibly billions of years earlier. The condition of the earth immediately prior to the six days are given in verse two: “without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Gen. 1:2). Something happened between verses one and two. The creation which we know, and into which Adam and Eve were placed, is given in the remainder of the chapter. There are strong objections, however, especially among evangelical Christians of this present day, to this interpretation. There is even the suggestion that one is abandoning the truth of Scripture! Nevertheless, this is most certainly not a new interpretation — it was long held to be the truth of these verses. In the nineteenth century, William Kelly wrote: In short, the portion that has been read gives two great facts: creation at first, apart from those measures of time which belong to the present condition of the heavens and earth; secondly, the introduction of the common course of time, when God is undertaking to prepare an immediate abode for man on the earth. Later in the same article he writes: Consequently the common idea of putting the creation of the world some six thousand years ago is a mere blunder. The Bible is in no way responsible for it. Where does Scripture say so, or anything approaching to it?60 By reducing the entire history of time to the six thousand years of the Adamic creation, Christians have created a conflict with the physical evidence that doesn’t exist in God’s Word. I would carefully note, however, this is not about providing time for an evolutionary explanation of life or any other such nonsense. There is a gap between verses one and two in Genesis chapter one, because this is what Scripture tells us.
Let us first consider the expression used to describe the condition of the earth in verse two: “without form, and void.” Without form (the Hebrew word is tohu) describes that which is wasted, a desolation. Void (bohu) on the other hand, means emptiness. The first of these two words (tohu) occurs a handful of times in the Old Testament. One may look at its usage and see that it is translated as: wilderness, vain, confusion — all consistent with our definition given above. The second word, however, is used just three times — in Genesis, in Isaiah (Isa. 34:11, where it is translated emptiness), and in Jeremiah. Let’s turn to the reference in Jeremiah: “I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light” (Jer. 4:23). This verse describes the destruction that would be heaped upon Jerusalem. “Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled” (Jer. 4:20). The devastation would be so great that the Spirit of God recalls the condition (tohu and bohu) found in Genesis 1:2. That exact expression, used to describe the scene of chaos and darkness so long before, is used by Jeremiah to portray the results of coming judgment. Is this description befitting a world just newly created? This is even more striking when one contrasts the verse in Jeremiah with one found in Isaiah: “For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited” (Isa. 45:18). The expression, “He created it not in vain” uses tohu — vain, or as it may be given, waste. Indeed, other translations of this verse use: waste, chaos, and without order. No, God did not create it in this state.
The verses I have given are usually dismissed as irrelevant; that they are taken out of context, but this simply is not true. In both instances the Spirit of God alludes to Genesis 1:1-2 to make a point; a point that is meaningless if these verses describe anything other than an earth corrupted from its original, created state. We find a similar usage in Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). God has shined the light of His gospel into the darkness of our hearts. Did God create man’s heart in darkness? Absolutely not; it fell into that state because of sin. This verse makes sense because God likewise caused the light to penetrate the darkness which shrouded a devastated earth — one which was not in its original creation glory.
If God didn’t create the earth in this state, how did it get into this condition — a condition applicable to a scene of destruction? This we are not told. Could it have been connected with Satan’s fall? Possibly. Ezekiel 28:12-19 gives us a glimpse into the life of Satan: “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee” (Ezek. 28:15). That angels (created beings) existed at the time of the Adamic creation is evident from the book of Job: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4, 7). Clearly there is a whole back-story that we are not privy to. God has given us only those details in Genesis one and two relevant to His purposes; He has not given us an account to satisfy our intellectual curiosity. By reading into Scripture that which is not there, man has made bold claims in the realms of science which have proven to be utterly false — for example, the earth-centric view of the solar system.
Romans 5:12 is usually given as a counter argument to these things: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world.” The argument insists corruption and devastation could not have existed prior to Adam’s sin. And yet, where is the error in interpreting this to be the Adamic world? From Genesis 1:3 through to the end of the chapter we have six days in which God prepared a world unmarred by sin, perfectly suited for Adam and Eve. “God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). It is into this world that Adam brought sin and, as a consequence, death.
It should also be noted, that there is a distinction made in the first chapter as to those things which God created and the things which He made. A builder doesn’t create, he makes — he takes raw materials and constructs something. In the first chapter of Genesis, we certainly find God creating: “God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth” (v. 21). However, He also organized things — gathering, for example, the waters into one place (v. 9) — and He also made things, “God made the firmament” (v. 7). The distinction between these two words — to create and to make — is commonly denied; but if there is no distinction, why does the Spirit of God use them together at the close of the six days? “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made” (Gen. 2:3). This last expression makes no sense if the words mean substantially the same thing. Notice also, that in the verse given earlier in connection with God’s Sabbath rest, it does not say that God created the heaven and earth, but rather, He made: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth” (Exod. 20:11). Likewise, the writer to the Hebrews uses the word framed: “the worlds were framed by the word of God” (Heb. 11:3). Matthew and Mark use this same word to describe the mending of nets. It is also translated: fit, perfect, restore, prepare, and make.
I would like to digress, for a moment, from my earlier intent and consider a little science. In the mid-twentieth century, astrophysicists working with Einstein’s theory of general relativity, found that time and space appeared to have a finite beginning. This was rather startling, and, for that matter, it was not readily accepted. This theory has been popularly, but incorrectly, dubbed the Big Bang. A bang implies the existence of something which explodes, this is a false characterization; there was no matter to begin with, there was no explosion, and there was certainly no bang! What must be understood is that time and space, matter and energy, came abruptly into being. One cannot even think of the universe expanding into space, as space did not exist prior to this event. It was the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. I do not wish to suggest that this theory corresponds to the Biblical creation of the universe. Scientific theories attempt to provide a framework for the understanding of known observations and to predict the existence and behavior of that which has yet to be observed. It is man’s attempt to connect-the-dots. Given that scientific endeavors are almost universally conducted to the exclusion of God, the dots will never be connected correctly and the picture will, therefore, be wrong. What is striking, however, are the implications of this theory. Something with an origin, that begins to exist, must have a cause. Watches, for example, have an origin (they are not eternal), and since they have an origin, there must be a cause — watches do not spontaneously appear; there is a watchmaker. If the universe has an origin, then there must be a Universe Maker. One of the astrophysicists instrumental in the formulation of this cosmological model was Stephen Hawking. Since his initial work, however, Hawking has pursued every alternative to rid himself of the need for a Creator. He now believes that universes spontaneously appear and we find ourselves here by chance; there is no God and there is no afterlife — convenient, but hardly logical, and certainly not authoritative. Even when science points to God, man will not have Him.
The Flood
I do not wish to say much concerning the flood. Any interpretation other than a complete inundation of the earth is difficult to maintain in the face of the Scriptural testimony: “the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered” (Gen. 7:19). The New Testament references to the flood also confirm its literal interpretation: “the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, wherein few, (that is, eight souls) were saved by water” (1 Pet. 3:20). “For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, whereby the world as it then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Pet. 3:5-6). Certainly, there is much physical evidence consistent with such a flood. The existence of fossils, such as vertical tree trunks extending through multiple layers of strata in both coal beds and sedimentary rock, point to a rapid sedimentation consistent with a flood. Nevertheless, there are also things which may, to the natural mind, present difficulties — the preservation of plant life, perhaps the transfer of knowledge from before to after the flood, and so forth. All these things we may wonder at. Clearly, the flood was a miraculous event, but one perfectly within the power of the Creator God. It is a serious mistake to suppose that we can describe events, such as the flood, or the ten plagues of Egypt, solely in terms of natural phenomena. This seems to be a trap into which many modern Christians fall. The One who created the world, can also bring it through a flood. That being said, the things which God has asked us to believe are perfectly reasonable — there is nothing more even in its tone, more sober in its presentation, than the Word of God.
It is helpful, nevertheless, if we keep in mind that the earth before the flood was vastly different to the one after it. For example, it would appear that the antediluvian world was watered by a mist: “The Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground” (Gen. 2:6). It should also be noted that, in addition to the rain, a release of water from the ground contributed to the flood, an event which must have involved significant tectonic activity. “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened” (Gen. 7:11-12). Other scriptures point to a change in geology, geography, and climate during this time — the alteration in the courses of the rivers flowing from the general area of Eden; the climatic changes evident in the book of Job; the apparent lack of a firmament and the appearance of rainbows (Gen. 1:7; 2:10-14; 9:13; Job 38:29-30). When we look at the world around us, its continents, mountain ranges, and so forth, we should not imagine that we are looking upon the same landscape that Adam surveyed.
Before leaving this topic, we must briefly consider the subject of myths. A common refrain today is that the Bible is just a retelling of ancient myths. Unquestionably, flood myths are widespread, cutting across every continent and many peoples. One of the best known is the Mesopotamian version recounted in the Epic of Gilgamesh, though, it is a retelling of an earlier tradition. On the third of December 1872, George Smith, an Assyriologist, read before the Society of Biblical Archaeology his newly prepared translation of the Chaldean account of the Great Flood from the Epic of Gilgamesh. This caused, as can be imagined, quite the sensation. To those who rejected the Biblical account, this was evidence to them of its mythical origin. It is true, that in terms of themes, it follows the Biblical account — a flood to destroy mankind, a boat constructed from timber and sealed with pitch, a man and his family saved, the preservation of the animals, the releasing of a dove and a raven (the orders are reversed), the sacrifices that followed. Beyond this, however, the accounts stand in stark contrast.
Instead of a grieved God — “It repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart” (Gen. 6:6) — we find the gods meeting in secret counsel and agreeing to send a flood to destroy humankind.61 No reason is given, though translators frequently add one. Uta-napishti, the hero of the story, would have perished with everyone else had he not been forewarned in a dream by the god Ea, who broke the oath of secrecy. The boat itself, equal in length and breadth, built in just seven days, differs significantly from the realistic dimensions and construction of Noah’s ark. Furthermore, we read of Uta-napishti providing the workers fresh meat along with beer, ale, oil, and wine like water, as on a feast day! It is the story of capricious gods, meting out destruction on mankind, a legend typical of this world’s religions. The gods of Gilgamesh are just as lustful as the wicked men they rule and just as petulant in their whims. Gilgamesh’s quest to meet Uta-napishti, interestingly, is centered on his desire for immortality. Uta-napishti had found eternal life, and yet the way to it had been lost. This reflects the state of man’s heart.
The widespread existence of flood myths points to a common event: a calamity once universally acknowledged among the ancients. Rather than undermining the Genesis account, the Chaldean legend only serves to corroborate it. Nevertheless, that God has acted in judgment, and that He could act again, is rejected by man: “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (Rom. 1:32). In the fashion of the daily tabloids, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and other similar stories, sensationalize reality, turning it from a serious lesson into a story that satisfies man’s craving for such salacious tales.
If we look at myths and legends more generally, the themes of creation, judgment, redemption, immortality, and so forth, do indeed appear. But to suggest that the Biblical accounts sprang from these, goes against all logic. The staid and rational accounts of the Holy Scriptures contrast dramatically with these ancient myths. In them we find man groping about in the darkness of his own mind, seeking for immortality in a world inhabited by heroes, gods, and demigods, subject to the same passions and lusts as himself.
Let’s switch continents now and touch on the Egyptian myths surrounding Ra, the sun God, and the story of Isis and Osiris.62 Ra spoke at the beginning of creation and commanded the earth and the heavens to rise out of the waste of waters. All that he desired to see came into being. In the waters and upon the dry land, he created the creatures that move. Ra, the creator and the ruler of the gods, became the first king upon earth. He took a form like mankind and went about among them. As an aside, this is very like the blasphemous view given by Brigham Young which makes Adam our god: Adam came into the Garden of Eden; he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize the world. He is Michael, the archangel, the Ancient of Days! About whom holy men have written and spoken — He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.63 Without going into details, the Egyptian creation myth also speaks of a serpent, created by the enchantress, Isis, who bites Ra; we also find a flood sent to destroy mankind for his disdain of the aged ruler Ra.
In a separate myth (keep in mind, there are various retellings of the same myth) we read how the Egyptian deity Set, who regarded with jealousy the good works of his brother, Osiris, murdered him. The general similarity to the story of Cain and Abel is not missed. Osiris’ body is ultimately divided into fourteen pieces and thrown into the Nile River. Isis recovers the pieces and, hovering over them, the air from her wings enters his nostrils so that he is imbued with life again.
The life of Osiris is sometimes given as an example of death and resurrection; the supposed precursor of Christian accounts. Needless to say, the human mind is capable of imagining fanciful parallels — and yet, many will cling to such nonsense to avoid the truth. Even if we take up this accusation and consider it based on the facts, it is quite irrational. Osiris remained firmly beyond the realm of the living and became the judge and king of the dead. Egyptian burial rites were based upon this legend; the story was reenacted so that the dead might be imbued with vitality and pass to the judgment hall and from thence into paradise. This is certainly not the resurrection which we, as Christians, understand and look forward to.
Modern revisionists love to pull together pieces of myths, often unrelated, and retell them using Biblical phraseology. From these reconstructed stories they produce, as from the magician’s hat, a pseudo-scriptural interpretation. Everything, however, has been turned on its head; it is man who has borrowed from the Scriptures and not the other way around. It should not surprise us, therefore, to find parallels. These stories are a corruption and retelling of knowledge, once known to man, but which he chose to reject: “Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind” (Rom. 1:28). Underlying much of this is the recent age given to the Scriptures in contrast to the great age ascribed to the myths of Babylon and Egypt. One source cites the books of Moses as dating from the Persian period! The source and transmission of the Old Testament texts has already been covered in the first section of this book, and I will say no more on it at this juncture — except to reaffirm the authenticity and great age of the books of Moses.
Modern interpretation is also tainted by the general assumption that man is improving; that the murky myths of old were refined into the elegant Biblical accounts, which have now given way to scientific knowledge. One sees in it the principle of evolution applied broadly across man’s thinking. To the contrary, man has fallen. From the creation of Adam until the flood we see man sinking into complete immorality and corruption. After the flood, we once again see a decline, arrested for a moment in one nation set apart to God, Israel. The light of Christianity lifted the state of those nations where it was permitted to penetrate, but as we see the rapid abandonment of all things relating to Christianity, we also see a return to the former depraved condition of things: “As the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (Matt. 24:37). “Men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, evil speakers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, profane, without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, of unsubdued passions, savage, having no love for what is good, traitors, headlong, of vain pretensions, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; having a form of piety but denying the power of it” (2 Tim. 3:2-5 JND).
Judgment, God’s Strange Work
God’s judgment upon the antediluvian world, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the judgment executed by Israel against the nations of Canaan, these have all been used against the Bible. Famed atheist, Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, makes much of these things. Even Christians become confused when they attempt to apply the twisted morals of this present day to the historic account of the Scriptures. I have no desire to counter the Dawkins of this world, but rather, to seek to be a help to those who may be struggling with this subject. In addressing the supposed dilemma between the God of judgment and the God of love we will take things up from the perspective of a believer.
“But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full” (Gen. 15:16). God’s judgment is always just; He doesn’t capriciously annihilate people. To deny this is to make God unrighteous and in so doing we set ourselves on a higher moral plane than He. It’s one thing to say that we don’t understand — there is nothing wrong in that. There are many things we don’t understand: “What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter” (John 13:7). But to say that God is unjust is the pride and arrogance of man. Later in Genesis, Abraham says: “That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from Thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25). Indeed He will.
We know the story of Jonah well. Jonah pouted because his pronouncements against Nineveh were suspended when the people repented. Did God care for that gentile nation, especially the innocent children? Absolutely! “Should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?” (Jonah 4:11). Nineveh did ultimately come under judgment — some one hundred and fifty years after Jonah (read the book of Nahum). By then, Nineveh had become a city of blood, so vile were their doings (Nah. 3:1). Even so, God had His eye on the righteous: “The Lord is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and He knoweth them that trust in Him” (Nah. 1:7). Incidentally, the execution of God’s judgment didn’t actually fall on Nineveh until a further one hundred or so years after Nahum. During that time, I have no doubt that many mocked Nahum’s prophecies — just as men mock the Scriptures today. “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl. 8:13). On the other hand, I suspect there were also those who rebuked God for not intervening in the terrible state of things. It doesn’t matter how God acts, man will find fault with Him.
The verse given above, quoted from Genesis 18:25, concerns the judgment of Sodom, and yet, when judgment fell on that city, fire rained from the heavens. Were the children spared? I understand the difficulty we have with this. Nevertheless, when there is a hurricane, when there is a pandemic, when there is an earthquake, does God separate the righteous and innocent from the unjust? We view death as something horrible; God views it very differently — it’s a door to another world. God says: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints” (Psa. 116:15). And contrariwise: “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die” (Ezek. 33:11). Do we ever stop to consider that in death God may be sparing the righteous and innocent from evil to come? “The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come” (Isa. 57:1). Those children in Sodom would have been raised up accepting the same wicked lifestyle as that of their parents.
We should never suppose that when the instrument of God’s judgment acts in cruelty, that this is sanctioned of God or that He takes any pleasure in it. This is the subject of the Book of Habakkuk. The Babylonians were used by God as an instrument of judgment against Judah. Was God indifferent to the cruelty that the Babylonians inflicted? No, they would come under judgment themselves in God’s time: “For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith” (Hab. 2:3-4). The Assyrian before this was used by God against Israel; was God indifferent to their arrogance? “O Assyrian, the rod of Mine anger, and the staff in their hand is Mine indignation ... Shall the axe boast itself against Him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against Him that shaketh it?” (Isa. 10:5, 15). As we just read, Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, ultimately came under judgment.
When the children of Israel entered the land of Canaan, they were commanded to drive out seven nations who lived there. God had given these peoples space to repent, but they had not done so (Gen. 15:16). “When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them” (Deut. 7:1-2). The reasons for doing so are given: “When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee” (Deut. 18:9-12). By historic accounts, the debauched condition of these nations, the child sacrifices and so forth, would be (or should be) utterly repulsive to individuals of this present age, and, if so, how much more therefore to God? That God’s judgment should have been called forth, on the one hand, shows the depravity of these nations, and, on the other, the perfect righteousness of God.
God was not destroying an innocent people. God held them accountable for their behavior. At the very least, man has the testimony that creation gives to God: “From the world’s creation the invisible things of Him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both His eternal power and divinity, so as to render them inexcusable” (Rom. 1:20 JND). “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard” (Psa. 19:1-3). After the flood, the world was divided into nations; they knew the true God and they also knew His judgment (Rom. 1:32). But mankind made a choice: “When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things” (Rom. 1:21-23). God did not immediately judge the idolatry, immorality, and corruption. He gave space for these nations to repent, but they did not; they heaped iniquity upon iniquity. God is righteous and He cannot be otherwise; judgment must ultimately come.
God is both love and light — we like to remember the former and forget the latter. “This then is the message which we have heard of Him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity” (Hab. 1:13). On the other hand “God is love” (1 John 4:8). He demonstrated that love by sending His Son: “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because He laid down His life for us” (1 John 3:16). Not to destroy, but to save: “God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:17). If we reject the grace of God, there is no other remedy — there is nothing more that God can do. And though we may not like to talk about it, judgment must come: “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know Him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto Me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge His people” (Heb. 10:29-30). To say that we will have a God of love but not of light is to create our own god — this is modern day idolatry.
God has, once again, in His long and patient dealings with mankind given him space to repent. The gospel of the grace of God is being preached throughout the world. Those who reject it, or are indifferent to it, will be judged on that basis: “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation” (Heb. 2:3). Those who have never heard it will not be judged on the same ground. After the church is taken out of this world, the everlasting gospel will be proclaimed. It’s the story of the Creator God, to whom mankind is accountable, and His promise of a Saviour, the One who would crush the serpent’s head: “I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come: and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters” (Rev. 14:6-7).
Scripture calls God’s judgment His strange work: “For the Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act” (Isa. 28:21). God does not delight in judgment. He carries it out because He is righteous. Righteousness is as intrinsic to His character as love is.
The Deity of Christ
Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been those who have insisted that the Lord Jesus never affirmed His deity. It is claimed that His disciples conferred this status upon Him well after His death. Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code writes: Jesus’ establishment as “the Son of God” was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea. Once again, we remind ourselves that this book is truly fiction; nevertheless, the message it propagates is deadly poison. Contrary to the nonsense Brown writes, the Council of Nicaea did not establish the deity of Christ — it upheld it. In 325 A.D., three hundred and eighteen bishops, along with deacons and other men of the church, assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia to consider the controversy known as Arianism. The teachings of Arius called into question the nature of the Trinity and in particular the position of Christ in the Godhead. The council rejected the Arian opinions. Instead, the doctrine of the holy Trinity, and the true Godhead of Christ, and of His oneness with the Father were all upheld.
The Scriptures, beyond all shadow of doubt, present the Lord Jesus Christ as the true God who, in grace beyond all comprehension, became true Man for the vindication of God’s glory and our redemption.64 “She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matt. 1:21-22). All who reject this fundamental truth rest upon a false hope and are still dead in their sins. “Whoever denies the Son has not the Father either; he who confesses the Son has the Father also” (1 John 1:23 JND). Other religions may accept Jesus as a great teacher or even a prophet, but neither could have died for my sins.
Although this subject should present no difficulty to the believer, it is good for us to know how we might answer someone who has questions regarding the Lord’s deity. More than this, however, it thrills our hearts to be reminded of the One who came down from the heights of glory to Calvary’s depth of woe.
Brightness of the eternal glory,
Shall Thy praise unuttered lie?
Who would hush the heaven-sent story
Of the Lamb who came to die?
Came from Godhead’s fullest glory
Down to Calvary’s depth of woe,
Now on high, we bow before Thee;
Streams of praises ceaseless flow!65
Before we consider various verses which affirm Christ’s deity, we must correctly understand two titles of our Lord: Son of God and The Son of Man. Both have been used to suggest that the Lord was less than God.
Although, we may use son to mean something less than father, it is never used this way in connection with the Godhead. Son implies essence. As an example, Scripture uses it in a negative sense when it speaks of the “sons of Belial” (Judg. 19:22; 1 Sam. 2:12, etc.). This expression is not literal — if so, Belial had a rather large family (and characteristically, he does!). Rather, those whose lives were the very personification of wickedness are called by God the sons of Belial. It describes the very essence of their character. This usage should not be foreign to us; it has come down to us in the idiom, “Like father, like son.” The Jews understood perfectly when Jesus answered them: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:17-18).
The same principle applies when son is used in connection with us, though from a very different perspective. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption [sonship], whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God” (Rom. 8:15-16). We receive sonship; it is the position we now possess in Christ. In contrast, the Son was Son from eternity past. The Lord Jesus is never called a child of God, but we are; He is always the only-begotten Son. “He is not ashamed to call [us] brethren” (Heb. 2:11), whereas, it would be inappropriate (and irreverent) for us to call the Lord, Brother — it is a position into which we have been brought in virtue of His work.
There is, however, a portion in the Gospel of John, relating to this title, which may be confusing to some: “For a good work we stone Thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of Him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:34-36). Again, there is no uncertainty in the mind of the people as to the meaning implicit in the title, Son of God — Jesus was God. Based on the testimony of Scripture, however, their accusations were wrong and He had every right to use this title. In Psalm eighty two the judges in Israel, commissioned by God and responsible to judge in His name, are called gods. If such a title could be used of a mere magistrate, it was unreasonable to accuse Him of blasphemy, whom the Father set apart (sanctified) and sent into the world, because He said He was God’s Son! He was neither affirming nor demonstrating what He was in this but simply convicting them of their perverseness. His was an infinitely superior claim; if God referred to the judges as gods, being, as they were, representatives of His name, how much more was it due to Him who was sent from the Father?66
The Son of Man is a most interesting title. Although it speaks of Christ’s humanity, it cannot be separated from His divinity. In Proverbs thirty, Agur proposed a challenge: “Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? ... What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, if thou canst tell?” (Prov. 30:4). God alone, and not man, answers to this challenge: “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven” (John 3:13). Though the Lord took upon Himself flesh and blood, He was of a completely different moral order. He was “the second man, out of heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47). In His nature He never departed from heaven. In the second chapter of Hebrews, we see how the Lord Jesus answers to The Son of Man as found in the eighth psalm. As The Son of Man, He was rejected, suffered, and died; and, as The Son of Man He will assume universal headship; all things will be put in subjection under His feet (Heb. 2:8). This is the One of whom we read in the seventh of Daniel: “One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed” (Dan. 7:13-14). The title, The Son of Man, is every bit an affirmation of His deity as His title Son of God.
Returning to our study as to the Lord’s deity, let us begin with the Epistles of Paul. Paul’s letters predate the Gospels. The Epistle to the Galatians is one of Paul’s first, having been written around 58 A.D., just twenty five years after the death and resurrection of the Lord. If Christ’s deity were a late invention of Christianity, then it would not be found in Paul’s writings. In Galatians, however, we read: “The Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). “God sent forth His Son” (Gal. 4:4). Turning over to Philippians: “Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:6-7). We should never diminish Christ’s deity because of His humility and dependence on the Father. If we move on to Colossians, there we find: “The Son of His love: in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins; who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation; because by Him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all, and all things subsist together by Him” (Col. 1:13-16 JND). Turning now to Hebrews, we read: “God, ... hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1:2-3). Back in the Epistle to the Romans, we have an especially strong statement as to Christ’s deity: “of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever” (Rom. 9:5). This is only the tip of the iceberg. There is no question as to the deity of the Lord Jesus in Paul’s writings. Truly, upon his conversion, Paul “straightway ... preached Jesus that He is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20 JND). Naturally, it should not surprise us to learn that some accuse Paul of inventing the doctrine of Christ’s divinity. So we turn to the Gospels.
If we start with the Gospel of John, the evidence is overwhelming. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3). The Lord is presented in these verses as The Word. The Word stands in correlation to God just as the Son stands in relationship to the Father. As the Word He is eternal, He is a distinct person of the Godhead, He is divine, and His position in the Godhead is as eternal as His person. Moreover, God created the worlds by means of The Word. Need we say anything more on the subject! What about the Lord’s testimony concerning Himself? “Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is He, Lord, that I might believe on Him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him” (John 9:35-38). Many additional verses could be given from John’s Gospel (three were used earlier), and to these we could add the testimony of John’s epistles. John presents Christ in the character of the Son of God. As an aside, the Gospel of John also uses the title, The Son of Man, in fact, more often than Son of God. Again, this reaffirms the divine character of that name.
Of course, the testimony of John’s Gospel is rejected! John, it is argued, wrote very late in the first century and so it’s hardly surprising that his gospel would support this novel doctrine of the Christians. We can see how the game goes. If, one by one, we eliminate all the texts which speak of Christ’s deity, then certainly, there will be no scriptures left! I find it rather remarkable that the oldest manuscript fragment that we presently have, Papyrus P52, is from John’s gospel! It could be as little as fifty years removed from the original text.
What about the remaining gospels? What do they have to say concerning Christ’s deity? There is nothing in them to surprise us and everything to confirm that which we’ve already read. We have already quoted Matthew: “they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matt. 1:23). The Gospel of Mark begins, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). Of course, men pounce on Luke’s Gospel when it says: “therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35 JND). Luke presents Christ as The Son of Man, but as such, he adamantly protects His deity. Lest any should question who this babe was, the Holy Spirit testifies that He would be called (not become) Son of God. He was Son before His birth (Isa. 9:6) and it remains His rightful title after His birth. Similarly, Luke is careful to never call Joseph the Lord’s father: “Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:23). Some of the most telling testimony, however, comes from the Lord Himself at His crucifixion. The Lord Jesus was not crucified for His good works, though, to be sure, man was envious (Mark 15:10). He was crucified because of who He was. In Matthew’s account (Mark’s is similar) of the Lord before the Sanhedrin, we read: “But Jesus held His peace. And the high priest answered and said unto Him, I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard His blasphemy” (Matt. 26:63-65). The expression, “Thou hast said,” sometimes raises questions in the minds of people. To see what it means, we can just go back a few verses. Here we find the exact expression used in answer to a question given by Judas: “Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said” (Matt. 26:25). It is clear to us that this is an affirmative; yes, it is so. The Lord’s answer to the High priest is also, unequivocally, a confirmation. More than this, however, the Lord in His reply evokes Daniel, chapter seven, as well as the one hundred and tenth psalm: “The Lord said unto my Lord, sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool” (Psa. 110:1). These verses bring before us The Son of Man in His exaltation coming with power and glory to receive His universal dominion. It was Jehovah God who has said to Him, “Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” The one hundred and tenth psalm is the most quoted Old Testament text found in the New, and it is inextricably connected with the Lord Jesus. We might well pose the same question as the Lord Himself: “If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son?” (Matt. 22:45). If the Christ is merely man (and, at that, David’s son) why does David call Him Lord?
The Lord Jesus, as a man upon this earth, did not refuse the worship of others nor did He correct their language when they addressed Him as Son of God. And yet we know, from other scriptures, that worship is due to God alone (Rev. 19:10; 22:9). “Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped Him, saying, Of a truth Thou art the Son of God” (Matt. 14:33); “And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him” (John 9:38); “Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).
We could also discuss the careful choice of words that the Holy Spirit uses in connection with the Lord. For example, Martha may suggest that the Lord supplicate the Father (John 11:12), but the Lord never uses this expression of Himself — He always asks as an equal (John 14:16; 17:9, etc.). In truth, many proofs could be supplied. Nevertheless, as we earlier noted, unbelief rejects the testimony of the Scriptures.
Israel and the Church
Rightly distinguishing between Israel and the church is not a difficulty in the same sense as the previous topics; rather, it is a question of interpretation. I do not suggest that there are multiple interpretations that we can choose from; this is not the way of Scripture. But, if we allow the Word of God to speak to us, rather than imposing our framework upon it, I believe that the correct Scriptural view of Israel and the church will become clear. When a man’s mind apprehends the truth, and he seeks to give it a form, he does it according to the capacity of man, which is not its source; the truth as he expresses it, even were it pure, is separated in him from its source and its totality; but, besides this, the shape that a man gives it always bears the stamp of the man’s weakness. ... That is theology.67
Much of Christendom interprets the Scriptures through a framework known as Covenant Theology. Its use of covenants, to organize the history of God’s dealings with man, leads to its name. Though a broad system, at least two covenants are generally identified: the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. The first supposedly describes God’s relationship with Adam in the Garden of Eden; the second, that relationship from the fall of Adam and the promise of the woman’s seed (Gen. 3:15) up until this present day. To these some add a third covenant, the Covenant of Redemption — supposedly an eternal agreement within the Godhead. It should be noted, these are theological covenants, and are not covenants explicitly found in the Word of God.
I only intend to discuss Covenant Theology in a general way, focusing on widely accepted principles, without delving into details. In particular, I wish to consider the so-called Covenant of Grace — from the fall to the present time. God’s relationship with man, according to this system, remains the same in substance both under law and grace. As we might expect, there are some rather serious outcomes to this interpretation. As we consider these things, we should keep in mind that Covenant Theology is rooted in centuries of biblical exegesis. Its present form took shape following the reformation as theologians sought to make sense of the Scriptures so long shrouded in the darkness of Catholicism. As such, it remains firmly rooted in the reformation and is limited by the truth recovered at that time.
One of the most distinctive outcomes of Covenant Theology is its view of the church. The church is considered to be the true Israel of God and vice versa. Consequently, Christians today form a spiritual Israel, and conversely, the faithful in Israel of old were part of the church. A distinction is made between spiritual Israel (which includes all the faithful throughout all ages) and Israel after the flesh, which is to say, those ethnically so. Having spiritualized Israel, vast portions of the Old Testament must also be spiritualized. God’s promises to Israel, though clear enough in their presentation, can no longer be taken at face value. If a person takes up broad principles, they may have some success with this approach — and in some instances, it may be quite valid. But the force of the truth depends on its details and distinctness. If you blunt the edge of the truth, then the sword no longer cuts. Things get very murky when one tries to interpret the truly vast number of prophecies concerning the nation of Israel. Consider those scriptures that speak of her restoration in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah — in fact, turn to any prophet and you’ll read of Israel’s restoration and God’s judgment upon her enemies. Ezekiel is so explicit in this regard it is difficult to imagine how one can apply his prophecies to the church. When have Israel and Judah ever been reunited (Ezek. 37), spiritually or otherwise? Ezekiel’s prophecies are also directed to the very land of Israel itself: “prophesy unto the mountains of Israel” (Ezek. 36:1). Covenant Theology robs Israel of her future blessing, and because these blessings are applied to the church, the church loses her distinctive, heavenly position.
Two texts are commonly used to justify the distinction between a physical Israel and a spiritual one. Both are from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: the first is found in chapter two, the second in chapter nine. Beginning with the verses from Romans two: “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Rom. 2:28-29). In the first three chapters of the Epistle to the Romans mankind is examined, so to speak, in the court of God. The verdict — both Jew and Gentile are found to be guilty! “For we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:9-11). The verses used above fall, as it were, within the cross examination of the Jew (vss. 2:17-3:8). Being born a Jew did not make one righteous; no, God looked upon the heart. The Gentile is not in view at all in this portion; as to them, God rested His case in the earlier verses (vss. 1:19-2:16).
We now turn our attention to the second verse: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). As we have just seen, the first three chapters of this Epistle show both Jew and Gentile condemned by the Word of God. As far as that goes, they are indeed on common ground! This, however, presents a difficulty in the mind of the Jew. To them, the sovereign grace of God, which concludes all alike under judgment and which now holds out blessing for all, appears to set aside the special promises made to Israel — indeed, just as Covenant Theology has done. In Romans chapters nine, ten and eleven, the Apostle addresses this concern. Chapter nine proves that the sovereign grace of God is the only ground of blessing whether for Israel or the Gentile. In chapter ten, the Apostle shows that the fall of Israel opens the way for sovereign grace to bless the Gentile. Finally, chapter eleven foretells the rejection of the grace of God by the Gentile, preparing the way for the restoration of Israel — God has not forgotten His promises to His people of old.
Paul begins in chapter nine by showing that the sovereign grace of God, in taking up the Gentile, does not make the Word of God (and especially the promises to Israel) of none effect (Rom. 9:6). The Jew, however, tenaciously clings to his natural descent as the guarantor of those promises. They have to learn otherwise. Of Abraham’s two sons, Isaac, and not Ishmael, was the child of promise. With Jacob and Esau the argument is even stronger — they were twins born of the same parents (Ishmael had a different mother) and yet, even before they were born, Rebecca is told by God, “The elder shall serve the younger” (Rom. 9:12). This was God’s sovereign election. A Jew cannot simply rest upon his genealogy; for that matter, he never could. The principle, “the just shall live by his faith” (Hab. 2:4; Heb. 10:38), is indeed common to both the Old Testament and the New. When God looked down upon the Israel of old, He saw a faithful remnant in the midst of an unbelieving nation — this remnant was the true Israel of God.
In conclusion, neither of the portions (in Romans chapters two and nine), used by Covenant Theologians, speak of a spiritual Israel extending beyond the fold of that nation; rather, these verses speak of a faithful sub-set within that people. It is a principle which excludes. It is not expansive — he is not a Jew; not all Israel.
The expression, “the Israel of God,” occurs once in the Scriptures. It comes at the close of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. Again, when we examine it in context, the meaning is plain. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus” (Gal. 6:15-17). The Epistle to the Galatians addresses itself to those who were trying to Judaize the Gentile believers of Galatia, especially with the outward ordinance of circumcision. Some had come in and had turned the Galatians aside (see Gal. 5:7-12). These were Jews and false teachers, not Christians. Circumcision accounted for nothing; it was a question of a new creation. Those who walked in the power of the new creation could be assured of peace and mercy in their earthly pathway — there wasn’t much peace in the assemblies of Galatia (Gal. 5:15). This was not only true of the Gentile believer but also “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:15). Again, this speaks of that faithful remnant from among the Jews (in this context, those who had owned the name of Christ). These were the true Israel of God, and not the false Judaizing teachers.
It does not help when so many Christians fail to recognize that God has not made a covenant with the church. When the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes Jeremiah — “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Heb. 8:8) — it means exactly what it says; a covenant will be made in a coming day with Israel and Judah. The very fact that the two nations are mentioned here (consistent with the thirty seventh chapter of Ezekiel) should in itself make it clear that the church is not the subject. The church does enjoy all the benefits of the New Covenant — though the blessings of the church go far beyond them (read Ephesians and contrast it with the end of the eighth chapter of Hebrews). And although Paul refers to himself as a New Covenant minister, it was not in letter but in spirit (2 Cor. 3:6); for the letter kills — it destroys the unique character of the church.
Having shown that the only spiritual Israel found in Scripture is that faithful remnant within that literal nation, we can now address the differences between the Jew, Gentile, and the church of God. Each, as used by God in His Word, represents a distinct entity. Scripture itself speaks of this three-fold division: “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). As to the Gentiles, the Word of God is perfectly clear, they were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). God, however, has “annulled the enmity in His flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances, that He might form the two in Himself into one new man, making peace” (Eph. 2:15 JND). God has formed something entirely new — something that did not previously exist. Nothing could be more straightforward than the language used in this verse. We should also note that the law has been annulled in Christ — the law, which established that division between Jew and Gentile and which shut man out from blessing (for he could not keep it), has been annulled. That new thing which has been established is quite apart from the law. We cannot patch the new into the old (Matt. 9:16). This new man is a new body composed of believers from among both Jew and Gentile, “fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19 JND).
In the third chapter of Ephesians, a parenthetical chapter, the Apostle goes into greater detail and explains the mystery of the church. He begins by telling how he was a vessel chosen for the revelation of this mystery: “by revelation He made known unto me the mystery” (Eph. 3:3). A mystery that was not known previously but which now has been revealed through the Apostle: “to enlighten all with the knowledge of what is the administration of the mystery hidden throughout the ages in God, who has created all things” (Eph. 3:9 JND). The word mystery was a specific term used in that day — it meant something that could not be known by natural knowledge. And what is the mystery? “That they who are of the nations should be joint heirs, and a joint body, and joint partakers of His promise in Christ Jesus by the glad tidings” (Eph. 3:6 JND). This is that new order in man established by God and introduced in the second chapter. Never before had this been true — no company in the Old Testament was ever joined together into one body through the Holy Spirit and, much less, united to the man Christ Jesus in glory (Eph. 1:22-23; 1 Cor. 12:12-13). It was quite impossible; the church could not exist until Christ’s death and resurrection; and it could not be formed until the Holy Spirit was sent to baptize those first believers into one body (Acts 2:1-4; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Eph. 1:22-23; Eph. 2:16-18).
If any should still question whether the church existed in the Old Testament, they may also turn to Romans 16:25-26 and Colossians 1:24-27. The prophetic scriptures spoken of in Romans are those of the New Testament by which means the mystery has been made known: “The revelation of the mystery, as to which silence has been kept in the times of the ages, but which has now been made manifest, and by prophetic scriptures, according to commandment of the eternal God, made known” (Rom. 16:26 JND). The church was not spoken of by the Old Testament prophets. It is true that we may catch glimpses in some of the Old Testament types, for example, in Asenath the gentile wife of Joseph (Gen. 41:45). Nevertheless, a picture is not a revelation; until we have the antitype, the type is nothing more than a picture.
Instead of imposing a framework of covenants on the Scriptures, a structure of which it does not speak, we can simply use the language of Scripture itself. God’s present administration of His people is called “the administration of the mystery” (Eph. 3:9). The word administration, alternatively translated dispensation, literally means the management of a household. It is used in the Scriptures to mean a publicly ordered dealing of God with men in the administration of His ways in His house during various ages.68 The dispensation of the Law was a very different administration to this present one. It was an ordered dealing of God with the nation of Israel predicated upon their obedience to the law. Following the church period, there will be yet another dispensation, diverse from the two preceding it: “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him” (Eph. 1:10). This speaks of the public reign of Christ during the millennium (Rev. 20:3; Isa 32:1). The key point is to recognize that each dispensation is distinct and unique — especially this present dispensation. The church falls as a parenthesis between God’s past dealings with His earthly people and His future earthly kingdom; the church is heavenly. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3). As such, her hopes are heavenly; she does not look forward to an earthly kingdom (John 14:2-3; Col. 1:5; 1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 4:1).
When one views the Scriptures without the interpretive lens of Covenant Theology, things, once murky, become clear. The prophets begin to make sense — they mean what they say concerning Israel (not the church) and they fit together with perfect harmony. The book of Revelation, instead of being a fanciful description of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. ties in perfectly with the Book of Daniel and the other prophets. On the other hand, I recognize that there may also be things which surprise the reader. It is disconcerting to some that the establishment of the church follows upon Israel’s rejection of Christ. It suggests, to their minds, that there was a plan A which, having failed, was replaced with plan B — from man’s perspective, perhaps, but certainly not God’s. This leads to a second objection: since God knew of His plans concerning the church, then His presentation of Christ to Israel was not in good faith. This is also false. God knows our hearts but He still holds us responsible. Israel’s diaspora was prophesied in Deuteronomy, even before they were in the land (Deut. 30:1). Why then did God send prophet after prophet to plead with them when He knew the outcome? Christ’s presentation to Israel concluded a long history of God’s pleadings with His people (Heb. 1:1-2; Luke 20:13). The fullness of time had come (Gal. 4:4-5). Man had fully manifested the evil of his heart and had entirely failed to answer to his responsibilities. Israel’s rejection of their Messiah was, on their part, the consummation of this. And as to the faithful who did receive the Lord Jesus as the Christ, did they lose out? The Epistle to the Hebrews answers this question — I cannot say it more clearly than the Word of God. Theirs was a far, far better portion!
In a similar vein, to say that the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5, 6 and 7) is not directed to the church is usually met with disbelief — aren’t we taking something away from the church? The Sermon on the Mount was addressed to the disciples. The Lord Jesus spoke as their Messiah, the Prophet-King of the Jews. In it He gave the suited condition of those entering the kingdom — not the church. Redemption does not appear at all. In Matthew’s Gospel (the only Gospel which mentions the church) the church is not spoken of until the sixteenth chapter, and there, as a result of Israel’s rejection of Jesus as their Messiah: “Then charged He His disciples that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ” (Matt. 16:20). Furthermore, when Matthew speaks of the church, it is a future thing: “I will build” (Matt. 16:18).
Not a single word of Scripture ever confounds the kingdom and the church; and to say that Christ is the king of the church is completely without warrant. This error is implied by the false teaching reviewed earlier, that the church is the spiritual Israel. The church is presented as the Body of Christ, the House of God, the Bride of Christ, but never a nation under a king. It is also important to recognize that the Sermon on the Mount is not a spiritualization of the law — that is to say, giving a higher view of it. Instead, the Sermon on the Mount stands in contradistinction to the law, giving the internal state of the heart in contrast to the outward, legal requirements of the law. The Lord speaks after this manner: “Ye have heard that it was said, ... But I say unto you” (Matt. 5:21-22).
Does this mean that the Sermon on the Mount has no application to us as Christians? Far be the thought! The moral principles contained within it are most certainly applicable to us — as, for that matter, are the moral principles contained within the law, though we are neither under it nor is it our rule for living. We do not spiritualize these things, but, having recognized to whom they are addressed, we can read them with intelligence and draw from them appropriate principles. I cannot take a letter from my father, written to my brother, and read it as if it were to myself. Understanding, however, to whom it is addressed, I can learn about my father and glean from it those lessons which are applicable. We cannot rob another and expect to gain thereby; the loss to us will always be greater than the loss to the other. Israel’s blessings are earthly; the blessings of the church are heavenly. In assuming Israel’s blessings, Christendom has given up a great deal.
Covenant Theologians typically teach that the present age answers to the millennium, albeit a spiritual one. The leaven in the lump, by their interpretation, is the gospel message filling the whole world (Matt. 13:33). This, despite the fact that leaven always typifies the insidious nature of evil (1 Cor. 5:6-7), and that this interpretation is quite out of line with the parables which precede it (Matt. 13:1-32). The Word of God, on the other hand, teaches quite plainly that Christendom has become a great house admitting all kinds of evil (2 Tim. 2:20), that men have built a great edifice of wood, hay and stubble soon to be burned up (1 Cor. 2:12-13), that Christendom is fast heading towards apostasy (Jude) and that God will shortly spew it out of His mouth (Rev. 3:16), but not before snatching His people out of this world at the rapture (1 Thess. 4:16-17; 2 Thess. 2:1-3). To reconcile, therefore, the false teaching of Covenant Theology with what is actually happening in the world, requires a watering down of the truth — both a spiritualization of the gospel message and of the moral principles found in the Word of God. Such is the general state of Christendom today.
Conclusion
We have considered just a few of the difficulties (or objections) which one may encounter when reading the Word of God. Obviously, there are many more. Satan’s attacks on the Word will not cease, and when one approach fails, he will come up with another. When talking to others, even if one were able to counter all their arguments, this alone cannot and will not save them. The presentation of objective facts may help to remove certain prejudices and misconceptions; salvation, however, is an inner working of the Holy Spirit and not an outward work of reason. A faith that rests on reason is not faith at all and will ultimately succumb to doubt and unbelief.
Nevertheless, to have a better grasp of those principles which must be employed when interpreting the Scriptures is clearly beneficial. To summarize, these are: not taking ones thoughts to the Scriptures but letting them be formed by the Scriptures; not isolating and interpreting verses outside of their immediate context and the Word of God as a whole; and yet, recognizing the distinctive truths, distinguishing those things which differ, thereby rightly dividing the Word of truth; finally, we must recognize that the Word of God is a spiritual book and cannot be explained using natural means.
Endnotes
In no way do I wish to imply that I have read, in their entirety, all the books listed in the endnotes. Some were used as references, others were of questionable profit. In many instances, copyright laws require me, and rightly so, to give a citation.
Why, one may ask, reference questionable books at all? There are various reasons, each depending on the context. In some instances, the reference supplies the source of a charge made against the Scriptures. False accusations are explicitly condemned by the Word of God (Exod. 20:16; Eph. 4:25); if we are going to quote someone, we should be prepared to say where we obtained the quote. In other instances, there is no alternative. If one quotes Josephus, for an understanding of the Old Testament canon from the Jewish historian’s standpoint (whether or not we agree with all that he has to say), we have no choice but to cite Josephus! The same goes for the church fathers, so-called. Then we have the situation where one opposed to us agrees with our position; in such instances, quoting them takes the wind, as it were, out of the sails of their followers. The Cretians could hardly accuse the Apostle Paul of stereotyping (if the concept even existed in that day) when he quoted one of their own poets (Titus 1:12).
Needless to say, works of a doubtful nature offer little profit to the reader. For this reason, the books given in the endnotes do not form a recommended reading list. Those of Darby, Mackintosh, Kelly, and their spiritual colleagues, I can recommend. Some of the modern writers, where they address recent issues, may be helpful — though, let the reader beware; I cannot vouch for their theological leanings.
1 J. N. Darby, The Human Element in Inspiration
2 C. H. Mackintosh, The Bible — Its Sufficiency and Supremacy
3 J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Hebrews ch. 8
4 Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8
5 Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8
6 F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 33
7 J. McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 76
8 M. Abegg, P. Flint, E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, pp. xvi-xvii
9 M. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 305
10 J. McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 79
11 J. McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 83
12 J. H. Skilton, The Transmission of the Hebrew Text
13 W. Kelly, Esther, Introduction
14 McDonald & Sanders, editors, The Canon Debate, ch. 9 by P. Lewis
15 P. Schaff, editor, Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome
16 K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, p. 23
17 K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, p. 23
18 D. Brown, The Da Vinci Code
19 New York Times
20 D. Burstein, Secrets of the Code, p. 142
21 P. Schaff, editor, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
22 P. Schaff, editor, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II volume 4
23 P. Schaff, editor, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II volume 4
24 F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 121
25 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8
26 F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 130
27 F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 130
28 F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 158
29 J. Komoszekwsi, M. Sawyer, D. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, p. 145
30 W. Kelly, The So-called Apostolical Fathers on the Lord’s Second Coming
31 A. Miller, Miller’s Church History, p. 203-204
32 J. Komoszekwsi, M. Sawyer, D. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, p. 161.
33 R. Kasser, M. Meyer, G. Wurst, National Geographic Society, Gospel of Judas
34 J. Komoszekwsi, M. Sawyer, D. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, p. 127
35 F. F. Bruce The New Testament Document, p. 11
36 J. McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 44
37 J. Komoszekwsi, M. Sawyer, D. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, p. 56
38 J. Komoszekwsi, M. Sawyer, D. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, p. 57
39 J. Komoszekwsi, M. Sawyer, D. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, p. 58
40 J. Komoszekwsi, M. Sawyer, D. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, p. 59
41 J. Komoszekwsi, M. Sawyer, D. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, p. 110
42 A. McGrath, In the Beginning, The Story of the King James Bible and How it Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture, p. 156
43 W. Scott, The Story of our English Bible, ch. 6
44 J. N. Darby, Revised Preface to 2nd Edition of the New Testament
45 J. N. Darby, Revised Preface to 2nd Edition of the New Testament
46 F. J. A. Hort, Life and Letters of Hort, Vol. II, pg. 69
47 F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter
48 New International Version, Preface
49 F. F. Bruce, The English Bible: A History of Translations, p. 193
50 J. N. Darby, Revised Preface to 2nd Edition of the New Testament
51 F. F. Bruce, The English Bible: A History of Translations, p. 132
52 G. C. Willis, Sacrifices of Joy being Meditations on Philippians, p. 57
53 Wikipedia, Dispensationalism
54 A. Miller, The Brethren (commonly so-called), ch. 2
55 J. N. Darby, An Introduction to the Bible
56 J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Daniel ch. 4
57 J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Isaiah ch. 1
58 W. Kelly, Lectures on the Minor Prophets, Joel, p. 69
59 J. N. Darby, Elements of Prophecy, in connection with the Church, the Jews, and the Gentiles, p. 1
60 W. Kelly, The Creation
61 Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet 11
62 D. Mackenzie, Egyptian Myth and Legend, chs. 1 & 2
63 B. Young, Adam, our Father and God, from the Journal of Discourses
64 F. B. Hole, The Deity and Humanity of Christ
65 Robinson, Little Flock Hymn Book, #179
66 W. Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of John, pg. 200
67 J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, 2 Timothy 1
68 B. Anstey, Dispensations and Ages, p. 1