Back to sermon search

Full transcript

I wish to diverge a little from the question of the text of the Old Testament and the contributions that the Septuagint makes to the establishment of the original text. I want to turn from that for the moment, we shall have to come back to it later, to the terms that we do well to think about when it comes now to regarding scripture as God's word. The terms are: one, revelation. 2, Two, ins- inspiration. Three, authority. And four, infallibility. We put revelation first, because revelation refers to the means by which God made himself and his mind known to his a- to his holy apostles and prophets. Revelation. That is fundamentally important. Because unless God had been pleased to reveal himself, to take the initiative from his side to reveal himself to mankind. We should know virtually nothing about him. And if you should say, but we can learn a lot about God from creation apart from the Bible, so you can. But the existence of the universe is part of God's self-revelation, is it not? Creation was made through the Word. All things were made through him who is the Word. Creation is God's, is the Word of God, revealing God, what may be known of him through the universe, the created universe. And so, and more so with scripture, revelation is God making himself known, taking the initiative. It answers the criticism of those who say the Bible is merely man's ideas about God. And some of them add that if the elephants were so inclined, they would write books about God, and of course in their book, uh, God would be very much like an elephant. And so, in the Bible, this is man's idea of God, and it portrays God as man has invented him, rather much like man. The more critical add, that if you look at the analogies in scripture about He- God, about heaven, and so forth. God as Father, we as children of God, and so forth and so on. The metaphors are all based on our human experience. We've had human fathers, therefore we imagine God as being a super duper father, if you see what I mean. So we have known human cities. We imagine the eternal state, therefore, to be a city, New Jerusalem. And the critics point out that these analogies are all based on this world. They then say that, of course, we invented them. And there is there a crucial weakness and inadequacy, uh, being analogies, comparing one thing with another, they are based on this world and therefore are inadequate to cross the vast chasm between this world and any other world there might be. But that notion presupposes that the Bible is man's attempt to find out what God might be like, and man's attempt to write it down. The Bible's claim is that it is God who has revealed himself and taken the initiative. Of course, when he talks to us about himself, he condescends to use analogies that we can understand, as a mother talking to her child would. Use analogies to ch- that the child can understand, to help the child begin to perceive what adult life might be like. Difficult for a mother, isn't it, to tell a child what courtship and marriage are like. Mum can only talk to the child in analogies that the child can understand. But mum's analogies can very well be valid. She knows both sides. Revelation. Revelation then. And you will see the thing spoken by our Lord. Matthew eleven, all things have been delivered to me by my Father. No one knows the Son but the Father. No one knows the Father but the Son, and the one to whom the Son is willing to reveal him. That basic sense of revelation then, God taking the initiative to make himself known. Of course, that doesn't mean that when the writers of scripture cited events either current or in past history, that they didn't use records. Luke, for instance, at the beginning of his gospel, tells us that he consulted records and authorities and eyewitnesses of the word. The books of Chronicles will tell you of various, uh, kings and so forth, and point out to you that if you want to know more, the histories are also written in the book of this, that, and the other writers that are no longer, or never were, in the Bible, but they cite you other writers. The question of the what is godlike? That is a question of, of revelation. But there is a case in the prophecy of Daniel chapter two where Daniel, by revelation, not only interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream, but was shown what Nebuchadnezzar had dreamed last night. Nebuchadnezzar, you may remember, had a dream which upset him very much because it showed that his, uh, kingdom was going to be succeeded by another kingdom and so forth. This was a bit scary. And, uh, he wanted an interpretation. He knew that if he called in his wise men, and he told them the dream, then they would make ev- whatever of it, uh, whatever they liked of it, you see. And how would he know whether what they said was true? So he decided on a technique. He assembled the wise men and said, I dreamed a dream. I want you to tell me the interpretation thereof. They said, very good, Your Majesty, but first of all, if you please, tell us the dream. No, he said, no. No, you tell me what I dreamt. Well, no, they said, you, you tell us your dream, and then we will show you the interpretation thereof. He said, I'm telling you now, you will tell me what I dreamed, and if you don't, I shall, uh, execute the whole lot of you. Whereupon they said that there was no king or anybody ever in the whole of history that had asked such a thing. In other words, they said he was an absolute fool. And so he threatened to execute the lot. And the thing was made known to Daniel, because by that stage he and his three chaps were regarded as being of among the wise men. And he pleaded mercies of the God of heaven to reveal to him not merely the future, but the past. Yes, that also is within the possibilities of divine revelation, is it not? But then, having thought of revelation, we think of inspiration. This is how the message was conveyed and committed to word. God revealed himself to the prophets, they spoke to the people, and eventually they wrote. Two of the verses in scripture that talk of inspiration are in the first place concerned with the Old Testament, are they not? Two Timothy chapter three, verses fifteen and sixteen. That from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation. Through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired of God and is profitable for teaching. For reproof, for correction, for instruction, which is in righteousness, that a man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work. All s- scripture inspired. He's talking about the Holy Scriptures, the sacred writings, talking about the Old Testament. Inspired of God, able to believe, able to leave pe- lead people to salvation and make the man of God thoroughly, uh, furnished. Let's look back once more to John chapter twenty that we considered on the last occasion. So that to we help ourselves to understand what is meant by the term inspiration or inspired. Some people have felt, doubtless, by the Latin implications of the Latinized English word inspiration, to breathe in, that, uh, this phrase, all scripture is inspired of God, means that it is God breathed into scripture. Some people have even used the analogy of a creation of Adam, when God molded Adam from the ground, and when he'd finished, there he was laying on the ground, uh, human male form, but lifeless, and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Became a living soul, an animate human being. And therefore, people have said that that's what scripture is. Um, you see, Moses wrote some things and then God breathed into it. No, that won't do. God breathed mean God breathed it out. Yeah? Let's look at again, therefore, John nineteen— Don- John chapter twenty, Verse twenty two. And when he had said this, he breathed on them and saith unto them, receive you the Holy Ghost. Whosoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosoever sins you retain, they are retained. He breathed out, he breathed on them, gave them the authority to pronounce what his gospel was. Which the apostles then were, uh, guided by the Holy Spirit to write down the terms for the forgiveness of sins, for instance, being one of the basic messages of the gospel. Scriptures are God-breathed. Or take the second description of the process, two Peter chapter one. Peter Peter. is concerned that believers should be utterly convinced and convicted that there is an eternal world. And therefore, because that world is real, and because the way we live here will affect our status there. Peter wants us to be absolutely sure there is this eternal world. He says, therefore, in verse sixteen of chapter one, we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty, for he received from God the Father honor and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. This voice we ourselves heard come out of heaven when we were with him in the Holy Mount. The voice from God. We heard it. The voice God breathed, of course, breathed out from God. Verse nineteen. Oh, let me just quick, uh, emphasize again, Peter is talking about the historicity of the Transfiguration. It actually happened. And the voice which they heard. It is not some fable that he's made up. It is God revealing himself. He says then in verse nineteen, we have the word of prophecy, but if you're reading some English version that is in danger of having such a phrase as we have the word of prophecy made more sure. Anybody got that reading? Mm-hmm. You have it? No? No? No? What have you got? We have the word of Made more certain. Mm-hmm. Made more certain. Any other? Office? The American says we have the prophetic word made more sure. Made more sure. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Doesn't sound too good, does it? You just had a voice from heaven, and for Peter to say now the, the, the pro- prophecy is more sure. What? That is an over-literalistic translation of the Greek comparative. You know what I mean by comparative? Good is the positive, better is the comparative, and best is the superlative. Little bit of English grammar thrown in, free and for nothing, you'll see. Take a study in scripture and you get another study of English thrown in free, do you see? Good, better, best. And, uh, uh, so Greek does have, uh, those orders, good, better, best, though it differs from English. In many cases, it just has the positive and the comparative, and the comparative doesn't always mean better than something else. It just intensifies. We have the word of prophecy, not made more sure. We have the word of prophecy, which is very sure. Now, verse twenty, Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture... And now once more, we're in difficulties with the English translation. The one before me s- says, no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. Anybody got a better translation than that? Pardon? Came about by the prophet's own interpretation. It, uh, didn't come about by the prophet's own interpretation. Yes, that's a very good translation. Yeah? And anybody got anything different from that? Yes, you'll notice, uh, do you see, that this phrase is telling you not how scripture should be interpreted, but how it came originally. So often people have imagined that here we have scripture, faced with any particular verse, it isn't of any private interpretation. You've got a private interpretation, you think it means this, and he thinks it means something else. Ah, but we don't decide it by our own private interpretation. We have to take the general consensus of the Christian church. But it's not ta- talking about how it, how we should interpret it. It's talking about how it came in the first place. No prophecy came. Verse twenty one, do you see it explicitly said. No prophecy ever came. What it means, therefore, in verse twenty is this, that, uh, when a prophet s- preached or sat down to write, it wasn't because that he had a pretty acute political mind and had an analyzed the situation as best he could, and in his speech or in his writing, he's now giving you his own particular view on the matter, using his political know-how, common sense, and this, that, and other. Like you get political commentators in the news and on the medium. No, it didn't come that way. It isn't the prophet just giving, using his own insights and know-hows and this, that, and the other. It's not like that. How did it come, therefore? It didn't come by the will of man, but... And it's interesting to follow the order of the Greek words, uh, to get the process, eh, into our minds vividly. But by the Holy Spirit being carried along. We're talking about the method. It didn't come by the will of man. But, now here's the process, how it came, by the Holy Spirit being carried along, there spoke from God, men. Men spoke from God. We've got to say that in English. Greek isn't tied down to our English word order, can use more or less what order it likes, and uses it to get across a, the vividness of the process. It didn't come from the will of man then. How did it come? By the Holy Spirit. Being carried along, there spoke from God, men. That's how it happened. Now you will get an illustration of this in two Samuel chapter seven. Ha ha. Here was King David, a sitting in his palace. It was a two Samuel seven one. It came to pass when the king dwelt in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies round about. That the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within curtains. Said Nathan to the king, well, go and do all that is in thine heart, for the Lord is with thee. And it came to pass the same night that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying, you better not, he better not go and tell David, my servant, thus saith the Lord, shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in? Thank you very much. You did well to think of it, but no. Now you see the prophet acting twice, don't you? David sitting in his palace, observing the nice cedar work and how beautiful it was, and then he suddenly remembers, do you see how far he's come and how now he's established and king and beautiful palace, oh. And he bethinks himself of the Ark of the Lord is only living under curtains. So it was a nice idea, wasn't it? God complimented that was well, good you had it in your heart, uh, to think, hmm, the Ark of God dwelling in curtains while I dwell in a, in a substantial house. To see, so he made the observation to Nathan, and Nathan said, because it seemed reasonable, did Admiral. If David was thinking of building God a permanent house, excellent devotion. Go and do all that's in your heart. Uh, he was speaking by his own intelligence, loose analysis of the situation. At night, God said, please, you won't tell David anything of the sort. We'll go and tell him quite the opposite. In the first place, Nathan was merely acting of his own volition, prophet though he was. In the second case, he was speaking from God, being moved along by the Holy Spirit. So we have the two scriptures in the New Testament, both of them are strictly referring to the Old Testament sacred scriptures. All scripture given by inspiration of God. The cynic within me, and he's a pretty large gentleman, the cynic within me says, yeah, of course all evangelicals would go to the stake for it, wouldn't they? All scripture is inspired of God. Yeah, I would die for it at the stake if I had to. But what about the next phrase? And is profitable for teaching. Believe it? When did you last hear the set of messages on Chronicles? Keep it simple, brother, they say. Well, yes, the epistle to the Hebrews observes that. There are times when the sustenance can only be milk. But he does chide his readers that by the time now we have been converted so long, they ought themselves to be teachers, but aren't. Because atrophy, dullness of hearing has set in. Gentlemen, it is a spiritual disease. If a child is always brought up on milk and never brought onto solid food, you'll injure its stomach and digestive system. And people who are never been made to think of the deeper things of God, their ability to grasp it will atrophy. Let's see to it in our day and generation, if we can, and where suitable, that we believe what scripture says. All scripture is given by inspiration. It's talking about the Old Testament. And is profitable for teaching. And for encouragement and so forth, that the man of God might be fully furnished. Whatsoever things were written aforetime, says Paul, Romans chapter fifteen, were written for our learning, that through the encouragement of the scripture we might have hope. Hope from the past, the Old Testament, for the future. Inspiration, therefore. And authority. What authority has scripture? Well, the authority is based on the fact that it is God's self-revelation. And the insp- that revelation brought to us, as God would have it, by the process of inspiration. When we use the term the scripture is inspired, we need to be careful that we don't treat the word in its modern sense. We talk about a poem being inspired or a certain patch in a n- novelist maybe is being very inspired. We mean it's a purple patch and moves us. And if a thing isn't inspired, like a legal document, we think, well, that isn't inspired. But that's not what scripture means. By inspiration, it doesn't mean a purple patch that moves you a lot. The details of the insides of animals in the Leviticus are likewise inspired. That is, they're given of God by his, uh, breathing out and recorded by his prophets and servants. The authority, therefore, is scripture, of scripture depends on its source of revelation and its transmission by inspiration. The authority of scripture, we need simply to observe, do we not, the way our Lord regarded it, as shown us in the three temptations by the devil. Of course, in his home, the parents were under obligation to teach their children scripture. When you come in, when you go out, when you rise up, when you sit down, they are to teach scripture. It was not left to the synagogue to teach it, though very often the synagogues did develop schools, an education in the ancient world in Jewish synagogues based on the Old Testament, as in Greece, education was based on Homer originally. When our Lord came to the temptation, every time he answered, it stands written. Using a perfect tense, or at least Matthew uses a perfect tense in Greek. Not it was written a long time ago. It has been written. In other words, it stands written. The authority of scripture. And he each time repeated it. It stands written. It stands written. I say it not irreverently. He knew his Deuteronomy, didn't he? If our being able to withstand the devil depended on our knowing Deuteronomy. Well, we may draw the implication. The authority of scripture. Let's go to the other end of our Lord's ministry. In the garden, when Peter drew his sword valiantly and courageously to protect the Lord, and the Lord stopped him and told him to put up his sword within his sheath. He added, think you not that I could now call to my Father? And if I called, he would give me twelve legions of angels. We mustn't deny the truth of what our Lord said. If he had called, the Father would have given him twelve legions, each with its sword. Why didn't he call? He wasn't giving in because he couldn't help it. He could have called. He didn't call, why not? But how then, says he, should the scripture be fulfilled. What magnificence. What magnificence of self-control, gentlemen. He could have called and would have been given the swords. Why didn't he? To have all that power and not use it. The authority of scripture. How then shall the scripture be fulfilled? Having said that, therefore, about revelation, inspiration, and then authority, we must observe what authority is implied. It does not mean that every word in the Bible is true. Mm-hmm. Before you excommunicate me forthwith, let me explain what I mean. The Bible includes, for instance, very early on, a very big lie. Uttered by Satan himself, of course. Thou shalt not die, he said to Eve. Has God said? So Eve had said, God has said that in the day we eat thereof, we shall certainly die. The devil replied, thou shalt not die. That was a lie, of course. It is recorded in the Bible. The record is true that Satan did say that. It doesn't mean that what Satan said was true. Yes? A lot of what Job's friends said to Job and about Job, and they were very voluble men, they had a lot to say, is in scripture. The record is true. God himself, however, said to Job and to those three friends, a lot of what you said has not been true. You've not spoken of me as you ought to have spoken. Yes. So we have therefore to distinguish, do we not, between the truthfulness of what has been written. It's a true record. But to distinguish in that true record between the statements of God that are true, the statements of men or Satan or whoever that might not be true at all. When Peter the Apostle said to Christ, oh no, Lord, no, that be far from you. Certainly you shouldn't go out to Jerusalem. You're not going to be rejected and crucified. Peter actually said it. The record is true. What he said was very bad, of course. So we have to learn, do we not, to discriminate the record true, inspired, for our learning. Uh, but um, not all sayings recorded in the scripture are in themselves true. Some of them are lies. And when Moses took the ro- rod the second time and smote the rock and said, here now, you rebels, must we bring water out of this rock for you? God rebuked him for behaving like it. And because he thus had misrepresented God, he was not allowed to go into the Promised Land. Yes. So yes, all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable. The record is true and inspired and authoritative. It has, of course, to be read carefully. And distinguish, uh, and we must distinguish between a true record of what people said and did, and between, uh, a record being true, but what they said and did being wrong. Yeah. In case anybody should think I said that not all the Bible is true. Mm-hmm. I say, again, I believe all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable, and agree with the psalmist when he says, thy word is true. Mm-hmm. As to the infallibility, this generally raises the question of whether the scripture is historically accurate. For the Old Testament, a very helpful book on these matters of the Bible and its relation to history by K. A. Kitchen, The Reliability of the Old Testament. I brought a copy along on an earlier session. If you missed it, take a note of it. The Reliability of the Old Testament by K. A. Kitchen is worth getting hold of it, is worth getting hold of it. He was an, is an expert, now retired. He held the chair of Egyptology in Liverpool, and uh, he has a very large book on the reliability, historically wise, of the Old Testament. Mm-hmm. One final area. If the Old Testament is inspired of God, comes by revelation from God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and is therefore authoritative. Is all the Old Testament binding on us? Mm-hmm. You can think at once of practical questions. In the Old Testament, people had to keep the Sabbath day. Is that binding on us? In the Old Testament, people were not allowed to eat pork. Is that binding on us? And so forth and so on. The old covenant. Is that binding on us? This question arises straight out of the question of authority, doesn't it? And here we should notice, first of all, our Lord's own statements in this regard. Mark chapter seven. In the first part of Mark chapter seven, the Pharisees criticized Christ's disciples because they ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashed hands. And the ground of complaint was not hygiene or the risk of MRSA. Mm-hmm. For if it were that, we might read it very loudly in our hospitals. But, uh, it was the ritual ceremonial cleansing prescribed by the Old Testament and elaborated by the Jews. In replying to it, our Lord drew a very big distinction between tradition and the Old Testament. Because the Pharisees said, verse five, why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands? And our Lord proceeded to co- criticize and then denounce some of their traditions. Traditions that were the precepts, doc- doctrines and precepts of men as distinct from scripture. Verse seven. Not only did some of them add traditions to scripture, which were but their own inventions, but in order to keep the commandment of men, they leave the commandment of God, verse eight, You leave the commandment of God and hold fast the tradition of men. And then he added, full well do you reject the commandment of God that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, honor thy father and thy mother, and he that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. But you say, if a man shall say to his father and mother, that wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is korban, that is to say, given to God, you no longer suffer him to do or anything for his father and mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition which you have delivered, and many such things you do. So our Lord first makes the distinction between the word of God and the traditions of the elders. We have to watch the same thing, of course, in the Christ- in our Christian age, to distinguish between scripture and tradition. There are, of course, good traditions. I have delivered unto you what first of all I received from the Lord. The words are those of tradition. The Lord handing it to Paul, Paul handing it to other Christians. He exhorts us to keep the traditions, meaning the true traditions handed down from the apostles. Beyond that, we have to distinguish between traditions of interpretation, and always judge traditions by God's word. Some traditions are good. Some traditions are not. But then our Lord observed something about the Old Testament itself. Verse fifteen: he called to him the multitude again and unto them, hear me all of you and understand, there is nothing from without the man that goes into him can defile him, but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. And once again, our Lord is not talking about hygiene nor medicine. He's not saying take as much stry- strychnine as you like. He's talking about moral and spiritual defilement. And when he entered into the house, the multitude his dis- uh, from the multitude, his disciples asked him of the parable, and he said, are you so without understanding also? Deceive you not that whatsoever from without goeth into a man, it cannot defile him. If it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out in the draught. This he said. Now next, now notice the next words. Making all meats clean, ah, ah, but, but in a specialized sense. It means declaring all meats clean. It's a Hebrew usage and translated into Greek. To make something unclean is to declare it unclean. If a rabbi said that such and few was unclean, they made it unclean, that is, they declared it unclean. And here our Lord is declaring all meats clean. The Lord who had the authority to do it, now cancelling some of the food laws. A similar thing happened to Peter, did it not? Acts chapter ten. When God let down a sheet from heaven full of creepy crawly things and unclean animals. And the divine so- voice said to Peter, rise, kill and eat. And Peter said, not, not on your life, Lord. I've never eaten anything unclean in all my life. Never passed my lips. The Lord had to do it three times. Taught Peter that what God hath cleansed, don't you call common or unclean. The food laws at an end. Whatever their purpose was in the Old Testament, and we haven't time to discuss that, now at an end. And set Peter and everybody else free from certain inhibitions that otherwise they would have had. If it hadn't been for that, Peter would not have gone and eaten with a Gentile in his house, for fear the food wasn't kosher, wasn't clean, and it's remarkably difficult to take the gospel to a man if you're not prepared to drink coffee with him in his house. Yeah? So our Lord God himself taught Peter the lesson. And Paul says, when he discusses such things in Romans chapter fifteen, I'm persuaded of the Lord Jesus, he says, that nothing is unclean of itself, but to him who thinks it unclean, it is unclean. In these practical matters, therefore, we notice our Lord God himself, now cancelling the food laws of the Old Testament. You say, what right have they to do that? Of course, they were the author of the Old Testament, yes. This is supreme authority. What we are to do with people that are still bound by tradition, that Ro- Paul discusses Romans fifteen, and from a practical view, it's important to read it so that we take the right attitude and do not unnecessarily stumble people who have a conscience about what they needn't have a conscience if they had the proper knowledge, but for the moment they still have a conscience. And then, of course, are the other things, aren't there? Big things. The Aaronic priesthood was established by God. You know what happened to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram when they challenged it and rebelled against Aaron and against Moses. Whoo-hoo. God opened the earth and swallowed them up. Hm. So the Aaronic priesthood established by God in the Old Testament. Yes, indeed. How can the writer to the Hebrews say that it's all finished? And there is another priesthood. This time, according to Melchizedek. You notice how the writer has to be very careful how he argues the case. He invites them to notice, one, where in the Old Testament did God institute the Old Testament? Well, that's in Exodus and Leviticus. Yes. Ah, but he said centuries later, God inspired the Psalms, didn't he? And in the Psalms, namely Psalm one hundred and ten, God indicated that one day there would arise another priesthood, not of Aaron's order, but of the order of Melchizedek. The Old Testament points to it. God instituted the sacrifices. How could the Christians say that they don't need those sacrifices anymore? To justify it, the writer to Hebrews quotes the Psalm, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body thou hast prepared me, and so forth and so on. The old covenant gone, and now there's a new covenant. How on earth would you prove that if you accept the authority of the Old Testament? Well, the writer says, you know, the old covenant given at Mount Sinai, book of Exodus. Yeah. Jeremiah, God is talking of a coming day. Jeremiah is the Old Testament too, a coming day in which the old covenant will be set aside and a new covenant brought into being. Those changes by the authority of the Old Testament itself, let alone the authority of the New. So let's leave it there then. We have talked this morning about the text of the Old Testament and our evidence for it, Masoretic text, non-Masoretic Hebrew texts, Septuagint texts, and so forth. We have talked now about revelation, inspiration, authority, and infallibility of the Old Testament. This afternoon, we shall have to talk about the canon of the Old Testament, and who decides what books are to be included in the Old Testament and which excluded.