“It is here that the doctrine of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit enters. And this doctrine is to the effect that, if faith in the Word of God is to be induced, there must be the interposition of another supernatural factor, a supernatural factor not for the purpose of supplying any deficiency that inheres in the Scripture as the Word of God, but a supernatural factor directed to our need. Its whole purpose is to remedy that which our depravity has rendered impossible, namely, the appropriate response to the Word of God. In this respect the internal testimony is co-ordinate and consonant with the Scripture itself. The Scripture is pre-eminently redemptive revelation; it is remedial of sin. The internal testimony is but another provision of God’s redempdve, and therefore supernatural, grace, directed to the correction of that which sin has effected.” —John Murray, “Fatih”
Tag: Scripture
Teaching the Enemy How to Shoot
*This article was originally appeared on the Christ-Centered Churches blog.
The church is laughing at the salvoes of the enemy while poisoning herself with an addictive narcotic. The bad guys are outgunned but the American church is so hopped up on laudanum she couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. Indeed, our opium delusion has got us teaching them how to shoot—at us. “No, that’s not the way you take out the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. You’ve got to shoot here.”
The greatest threat to the doctrine of the Word of God comes from those who own it. How many Southern Baptist Churches, who confess the authority of the Word of God, are so drunk on success-by-numbers that they’re blasting away at their own foundational documents? We survived the bullets of the moderates and liberals only to become our own greatest threat. We own the doctrines of Scripture on paper and then use that paper for target practice. We’ve demonstrated for our enemies that the way to destroy the authority of Scripture isn’t by aiming at it directly, but by setting your sights on the sufficiency of Scripture.
We say the Scriptures are sufficient, but drummers fall from the ceiling on Easter, chain saws are given away on Father’s Day, and our songs ape the world more than they eco the Word. Do we really believe the gospel is the power of God unto salvation? If so, why do we try to dress it up so much? If the gospel is power, why are our amps cranked up so loud as to obscure it? In the church band, the Scriptures are an un-amplified acoustic guitar, while our programs and production are plugged in hot and loud. Thus, the Scriptures are not the authority that drives the activity of the church, but the “vision” of the leaders who determine the next big stunt. We look not for faithful expositors of the text, but analyzers of culture who can tell us when to ride the next wave of cool.
We say the Scriptures are sufficient, but how many of our churches have a group of ladies studying Sarah Young’s Jesus Calling? Therein she writes,
“This practice of listening to God has increased my intimacy with Him more than any other spiritual discipline, so I want to share some of the messages I have received. In many parts of the world, Christians seem to be searching for a deeper experience of Jesus’ Presence and Peace. The messages that follow address that felt need.”
The experiential, the personal, and the direct are preferred to God’s holy, inspired, infallible, mediated Word concerning Christ. Many baptists excel Joel Osteen in their knack to dress up charismatic heresies in less gaudy and more acceptable garb. Extra-biblical “prophecies” usurp the Scriptures as the real authority of the church because the Bible by itself just isn’t impressive enough. We’re children who pass on God’s well refined ancient vintage for a cheap juice box with the picture of the latest superhero emblazoned on the front.
We own the Word of God on paper but are so delusional no one notices how absent it is. Our cool videos transform church into a self-inflicted reeducation camp. We’ve indoctrinated ourselves with bad doctrine while thinking we’re holding to orthodoxy. The walls still hold against secular humanists, but we’ve destroyed the foundation from the inside.
The Bible is the authoritative revelation of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is all we need because all is in Christ. The Scriptures are sufficient because Jesus is sufficient. If the Word isn’t sufficient, this means we have another authority source. If the Word isn’t sufficient, this means Jesus isn’t sufficient. When we undermine the sufficiency of the Word, the authority of the Word comes down with it. When we undermine the sufficiency of the Word, the gospel comes down with it. Once the foundation has fallen, how long will the walls hold?
Certainly, the Church herself will not fall. God will build her and purify her by His Word. But good things may be lost if we do not fight the good fight. The church will endure, but ours may become apostate. Even so, I am confident of greater things. I am hopeful God is raising up many pastors to lay down the world’s cools guns and to take up once again the sword of the Word. We may be laughed at when we bring God’s Sword to the world’s gunfight, but that’s far more noble than our current hysteria.
The Exegetical Systematician: God Needs No Notary
“It will readily be seen how necessary this principle is. If Scripture is the Word of God it must bear the marks of its divinity. This is parallel to the argument respecting God as Creator drawn from the visible creation. The invisible things of God omnipotence, divinity, eternity—are clearly seen (kathoratai), being understood (noumena) by the things that are made (Rom. 1:20). Just as the heavens declare the glory of God and bear wimess to their Creator, so the Scripture as God’s handiwork must bear the imprint of its divine authorship. In other words, only the evidence of God’s hand could measure up to the requirements necessary to authenticate his handiwork. This is just saying that the evidence upon which faith in divinity rests must itself have the quality of divinity.” —John Murray, “Faith”
A Call for Slavery (Colossians 3:22–4:1)
While some are repulsed by the command for a wife to submit to her husband, many ignore the command for slaves to obey their masters. They’d rather act like it’s not there, like dust quickly brushed under the rug as the guests approach. We wear the Bible’s slavery passages like a stain we got on our white shirt on the way to a job interview. We sit awkwardly trying to hide it.
The embarrassment goes as deep as our translations. It is as though a coverup is afoot made easy by a prior historical fumble. The Latin servus was used to translate the Greek doulos. The Latin then crossed over into the early English translations as “servant.”
Many modern English translations now used a mixture of slave, bondservant, and servant. When it comes to passages where cause for offense might be most intense, translators often waffle and default to servant or bondservant. Doulos, means slave. Every time. No exceptions. Murray J. Harris writes:
“In New Testament Greek there are at least six terms that are often translated or could be translated by the English word ‘servant.’ But only one New Testament word—doulos—has the distinctive meaning of ‘slave’, and this word occurs 124 times in the New Testament.”
The ESV translates this same word as “slave” in 3:11 and there is absolutely no reason to do otherwise in 3:22. At the close of chapter 3 Paul is speaking precisely to those just addressed as slaves and the free lords they serve.
The term slave should cause us to blush at our national heritage, but not at our Biblical heritage. Put shame where it belongs, on sinful men, not the Holy Word of God. Do not ever be embarrassed at the Scriptures. We shouldn’t blush to take any portion of God’s Word on our lips. If there is any right to embarrassment, the Word of God should blush to be on our lips. We are the stain. God’s Word is pure.
There is a radical difference between a slave and a servant. Most notably, servants are hired, whereas slaves are owned. Some argue for a translation of “servant” because ancient slavery was different from modern slavery and they fear an anachronistic reading of our ideas back into the text. Yes, it was different, but why is it any better to read our modern idea of servanthood back into the text? Modern slavery is a good deal closer to ancient slavery than modern servanthood is. Use the right words so that the right questions are asked. Making it easy doesn’t make it clear. Rather than making our translations soft, we need to do the hard work of teaching the sheep to be good readers of God’s good Word.
The Exegetical Systematician: The New Validated the Old
The events of New Testament realization, as noted, afford validity and meaning to the Old Testament. They not only validate and explain; they are the ground and warrant for the revelatory and redemptive events of the Old Testament period. This can be seen in the first redemptive promise (Gen. 3:15). We have a particularly striking illus(ration in Matt. 2:15: ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son’. In Hosea 11:1 (cf. Numb. 24:8) this refers to the emancipation of Israel from Egypt. But in Matthew 2:15 it is applied to Christ and it is easy to allege that this is an exaniple of unwarranted application of Old Testament passages to New Testament events particularly characteristic of Matthew. But it is Matthew, as other New Testament writers, who has the perspective of organic relationship and dependence. The deliverance of Israel from Egypt found its validation, basis, and reason in what was fulfilled in Christ. So the calling of Christ out of Egypt has the primacy as archetype, though not historical priority. In other words, the type is derived from the archetype or antitype. Hence not only the propriety but necessity of finding in Hosea 11:1 the archetype that gave warrant to the redemption of Israel from Egypt.
In this perspective, therefore, we must view both Testaments. The unity is one of organic interdependence and derivation. The Old Testament has no meaning except as it is related to the realities that give character to and create the New Testament era as the fulness of time, the consummation of the ages. —John Murray, The Unity of the Old and New Testaments
Mail Call and No Letter? (Colossians 1:1–2)
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father.
—Colossians 1:1–2 (ESV)
Paul writes this letter, but he writes as an apostle of Christ Jesus. We say Colossians is one of the Pauline Epistles, but we mustn’t say that louder than we say it is the Word of God.
Whom is the risen Christ addressing through His apostle in this letter? The saints and faithful brothers at Colossae. Ahh, of course. Apostolic letters are for saints, long dead ones. Mail call has come and you’re left without a letter. All the cool kids got a Valentine, but none for you. Figures.
Saints is a term we’re afraid of for two reasons: 1. the heretical teaching of the Roman Catholic church and 2. fear of any accusation of arrogance should we use it as the Bible does. But we are Protestants. We exclaim sola scriptura! We shouldn’t retreat from Biblical terms. We should reclaim and defend them.
It is not humility, but pride which keeps saints from our lips. Failure to use the term saint means we’re finding our identity in who we were out of Christ more than who we are in Christ. The saints are those who are set apart in Christ. If you are in Christ, you are a saint. Sainthood is not a result of personal holiness; personal holiness is a result of sainthood.
But alas, this is a letter for ancient saints, those who resided in Colossae. We’ve got the same name, but the address is different. The New King James Version has a subtle but meaningful variance in translation from the ESV quoted above. “To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse (1:2a).” The NKJV unnecessarily adds “who are,” but has “in Colossae” instead of “at Colossae.” The same English preposition is used in both instances, just as it it in the Greek text. The more important locator is in Christ. If a tornado hits a city, and you are in that city and in a storm shelter, being in the storm shelter is the more important of places. What Paul writes has far less to do with Colossae than Christ. A sinner might stand in Colossae in 61 AD and this letter have nothing to do with them, but everything to do with you standing on another continent in the twenty first century because you are in Christ.
This letter was meant to be cyclical, passed along to other churches (Colossians 4:16). Paul wasn’t an apostle of certain churches, but of the Church. The Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus being the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). If you are in Christ, you are saints, and this letter is meant for you. Any insight you might gain into Colossae and the church there, serves then not to distance you from this letter, but to better understand what Christ wants to say to you through His apostle.
No Need to Choke on Our Own Words (Exodus 31)
Whereas many are comfortable saying God “rested” on the Sabbath, I think more would squirm to say He was “refreshed” in Sabbath (Exodus 31:17). Of course we understand all this to be anthropomorphic language. We understand this, because, if it wasn’t, we couldn’t understand it. Follow?
Some people make a fuss when Scripture speaks of the strong arm of Yahweh, arguing that all man-talk of God is meaningless. This has several problems. First, man-talk is the language we know best. Second, man talk is the best creaturely language that there is to speak about God as man is made in the image of God. In theology, Spanish trumps dolphin beeps every time. Finally, such talk about man-talk being inadequate to communicate truth about God puts the greatest limits not on man, but on God. It may sound humble to say that human language can’t convey truth about the divine, but it is just the opposite. It is arrogant to think that God cannot speak in such a way as to reveal who He is to us. God knows our language better than we. He knows our ears too. There is a problem, but it’s not that God has a speech impediment, rather, our ears are morally clogged with filth.
What then is God meaning to say with the word “refreshed”? We realize that “rest” simply means that God stopped His special work of creation ex nihilo. But what of “refreshed”? The word seems more problematic; too tied to man’s weakness. Indeed, creation didn’t exhaust or deplete God in any way. God didn’t need a nap. So some venture that such anthropomorphisms are merely meant to teach us about our stance to the Sabbath. No, the reason “rest” and “refreshed,” teach us anything about our stance to the Sabbath is because of what they first say about our Creator in whose image we were made.
If a job is done poorly or partly and then rest is attempted by anyone with a modicum of character, their time off is likely to cause more anxiety than refreshment. Have you ever been ready to take a vacation only to have a fresh load of work dumped on you last minute, knowing it will be waiting for you when you return? Or, say you botch up the last job before a trip that you know has to be redone, what will your mind be on? On the seventh day God looked at His completed work and saw that it was good. God’s refreshment derived from the completion and quality of His work. “Refreshed,” should not be take to mean that creation drained God, but rather just the opposite. He had joy in it. It was done. It was very good.
The Sabbath was good news to the Jew, not simply because they abstained from their work, but because God was inviting them to enjoy His rest. He invites us into this rest in Jesus Christ. The work is done. The work was perfect. The rest is therefore refreshing.
Ark and Altar (Exodus 27)
Some parts of the Bible are like nuts, and often, we’re too lazy to crack them. We easily bore with a passage like this. It is as though we shove the shell of in our mouth expecting candy and then quickly spit it out. Our palates are juvenile and our minds lazy. Comparatively, even among similar passages of Scripture, we find this one lackluster. After the description of the tabernacle, we find that of the courtyard plain, dull, and drab. What we bore with, the Israelites sang of.
“When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions. Blessed is the one you choose and bring near, to dwell in your courts! We shall be satisfied with the goodness of your house, the holiness of your temple (Psalm 65:3–4)!”
“How lovely is your dwelling place, O LORD of hosts! My soul longs, yes, faints for the courts of the LORD; my heart and flesh sing for joy to the living God. Even the sparrow finds a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, at your altars, O LORD of hosts, my King and my God. Blessed are those who dwell in your house, ever singing your praise! Selah …For a day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness(Psalm 84:1–4, 10).”
“Make a joyful noise to the LORD, all the earth! Serve the LORD with gladness! Come into his presence with singing! Know that the LORD, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture. Enter his gates with thanksgiving, and his courts with praise! Give thanks to him; bless his name! For the LORD is good; his steadfast love endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations (Psalm 100).”
Come to texts like this prayerfully. Come to texts like this willing to work prayerfully. Come to texts like this asking God to make you sing.
Cracking this nut isn’t a matter of finding some hidden meaning in the fine details, but rejoicing in the clear revelation found in the big emphases. The altar is the biggest piece of furniture in the court, don’t miss it. It’s the biggest piece of furniture associated with the tabernacle, and for good reason, it was the most utilized.
As the ark is central to the tent, the altar is central to the court. Sometimes a person might have a piece of furniture or an appliance so large they joke that they build their house around them. Sometime it’s no joke. The tent and the court are designed around the ark and the altar respectively. Ark and altar are not just the prominent pieces of the tabernacle, they are the prominent pieces of the universe.
The only way to the ark is through the altar. The only way into God’s blessed covenant presence is through the altar of Christ cursed for our sins. The only way to the throne of grace is by the judgment of the cross. That’ll make you sing.
The Apologist: What is Still the Watershed of the Evangelical Word
Holding to a strong view of Scripture or not holding to it is the watershed of the evangelical world.
…We must say most lovingly but clearly: evangelicalism is not consistently evangelical unless there is a line drawn between those who take a full view of Scripture and those who do not.
We who bear the name evangelical need to be unitedly those who have the same view of Scripture as William Cowper had when he wrote the hymn, “The Spirit Breathes Upon the Word.” In contrast to any concept of the Bible being borrowed through cultural orientation, the second verse of that hymn reads:
A glory guilds the sacred page,
Majestic like the sun
It gives a light to ever age;
It gives, but borrows none.—Francis Schaeffer, No Final Conflict
The Apologist: Little Left but the -ism
It is my conviction that the crucial area of discussion for evangelicalism in the next years will be Scripture. At stake is whether evangelicalism will remain evangelical. —Francis Schaeffer, No Final Conflict
No Other Boast 