Because God is truthful, we can expect His written self-revelation (in the original manuscripts) to be truthful in what it affirms. But not everything in Scripture is perfectly clear. The Apostle Peter admitted that Paul's writings are hard to understand in places (2 Pt 3:15-16). Besides sophisticated theological material, historical distance and cultural differences exist between the biblical world and our own. What was apparent to Israel and the early church may appear less clear to us today. Yet lack of clarity doesn't equal discrepancy.
Some critics cite numerous "contradictions" that actually turn out to be resolvable upon examination. Because the Bible is both divinely inspired and a human work, we can expect (1) differing writing styles and personalities to be expressed in it, and (2) the use of earlier records or documents and material from writers outside the Bible (cp. Jos 10:13; 1 and 2 Ch; Lk 1:1-4). We shouldn't require that biblical writers cite OT passages verbatim; they could generalize or summarize without being exact (e.g., what was said at Jesus' baptism, Peter's confession of Jesus, the placard on Jesus' cross). And we don't have the exact words Jesus spoke (which were mainly Aramaic, not Greek), though His voice does come through. These aren't truly unresolved questions.
When discovering more challenging passages, though, how should we proceed?
• Clarify a passage by examining its context or by using clear passages to examine the unclear. Context reveals that "justify" and "works" in James 2 mean something different than they do in Romans 3. Also, the teaching of the NT letters can help us distinguish between historical descriptions in Acts and what's normative for church life.
• Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Skeptics may mention biblical cities that haven't been discovered (though lots have been!), concluding that Scripture is unreliable. But earlier absence-of-evidence accusations regarding Abraham's camels, the Hittite people, or the Davidic dynasty have been overturned by later archaeological discoveries, confirming Scripture.
• Be charitable toward the author. Let's take an example here. Proverbs 26:4-5 advises (1) not to answer a fool according to his folly and then (2) to answer him! The skeptic's charge of "stupidity" or "contradiction" is unrealistic. Surely we should give the benefit of the doubt to the wise compiler of Proverbs: he recognized that sometimes answering a fool is appropriate and that at other times silence is the best choice.
• What the Bible describes is often different from what it prescribes. Another example: while Scripture mentions Jephthah's rash vow (Jdg 11), such a vow is not endorsed by God.
• The author may be using a literary strategy, making a particular theological point, or just observing; journalistic precision isn't always his concern. Matthew 8 and 9 intentionally cluster miracles together; it's not chronological. Matthew highlights Peter's importance, thus downplaying his blunders included in other Gospels. The two "great lights" of Genesis 1, namely the sun and moon, are relatively small luminaries compared to other bodies we now know about in the universe, but the Bible's reference is observational, not scientific (cp. "sunset," not "earthturn").
• We'll have to be content to live with unanswered questions. Although there are many fine evangelical commentaries and scholars dealing with questions we may have, much will be hazy. We see through a glass darkly.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment