What Is Biblical Hermeneutics?
(In Plain Language)
By L. R. R.
Prologue
Many skeptics such as the branch of postmodernistic mind says that the Bible can’t tell us anything of any real significance because every person interprets it differently. While my aim of this article is not to rebut skeptics objection but rather to explain the nature of interpretation, one can’t help but reply to it. I really disagree with the nature of this objection. Sensible Christians who read the Bible properly do infact agree in many important issues. The reason why skeptics tends to overlook and obscure the objective meaning of the entire Scripture is because they simply do not agree with God’s judgment upon sinners. They don’t like the command to repent from their sins.
This is pure and simple! I might grant that there are passages in the Bible that are hard to understood but this does not justify that the Scripture is without real significance or that it cannot be comprehended. We will first briefly have a look at the definition of the word hermeneutics, and why should we study the art or science of interpretation. We will also be examining the proper way of interpretation and be able to differentiate between hyperbolic, metaphorical and figure of speech statements. Hermeneutics or the art of interpretation is nedeed in our confused, and deprived from meaning postmodern generation. A proper exegesis will enhance our understanding of the Word of God and it will make us, hopefully not to twist the message of the Scripture but read and apply it both in theory and practice accordingly.
Hermeneutics Defined
Back to our main question, in which I find the subject interesting and I hope you find it interesting too. What Is Biblical Hermeneutics? The term hermeneutics is derived from the Greek word hermeneia “interpretation” refers to method or the science of knowing how to properly interpret the various types of literature found in the Bible. To interpret is to bring out the true meaning of something written or spoken, particularly by restating it in other words. There is another word of interpretation which is exegesis also derived from the Greek word for exegeomai “explanation.” Hermeneutics and exegesis refers to the interpretation of the Bible.
Why Hermeneutics?
The reason why we need hermeneutics is because the Scripture, as the mainstream Protestant would say, is the very infallible Word Of God. In other words the Bible is divine, yet it has come to us in human form. In their book How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart wrote,
| A more significant reason for the need to interpret lies in the nature of Scripture itself. Historically the church has understood the nature of Scripture much the same as it has understood the person of Christ–the Bible is at the same time both human and divine. [How to Read The Bible For All Its Worth, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, Zondervan, p. 21] |
Thus, since the Bible is not exclusively of human origin but also divine, we should not read it just like any normal literature or treat it as such. God if He existed, then words, propositions, and statements have meaning. And since God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33), we can rest assured that what the Word of God might say, for instance, I’ am the Way, Truth, and Life, in the Scripture should be accepted as plain and simple truth no need of explaining it in other way. Another reason why we need the art of interpretation is that not all can read the Bible properly (such as I). And also the science of interpretation is to avoid misinterpretation and misapplication in the study of the Word of God. Unfortunately, most cult leaders read their Scriptures as if it addresses them personally. As if the Word of God where written just for them and read “into words” (eisegesis opposite to exegesis) that does not even exist in the first place. Wrong hermeneutics happens when we take the Bible and interpret it by our own personal amusement and twist it the way we want it to convey.
Peter wrote about this issue, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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. 1:20 [emphasis mine]) “private interpretation” does not of course mean that no ordinary person has the right to interpret the Scripture for himself. What it does convey, however, the context and the Greek word for interpretation can also mean “origin.” Obviously, inasmuch as God is the origin of the Scripture, wherefore, no need of local priest or credentially valid person can have their private meaning. To put this simply, God is solely responsible for what is written in our Bible. In addition, since the Bible is God’s word, Christians should study the Word of God appropriately and diligently.
The Proper Rule Of Interpretation
We all read books from a different perspective and different languages. Since most of us are not multilingual we need the practice of understanding languages and and respectively Bible texts properly. The most common rule of biblical hermeneutics is that the Bible should read it plainly or literally. Literal Bible interpretation means you understand the Bible in its normal/plain meaning. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. Yes, of course, there are some spiritual truths behind the plain meanings of Scripture. Let me give you a couple of examples.
Example 1: In the book of Genesis 1:31 states, “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” Now, other interpret “day” to be more than twenty four hours length. It can mean that while the Bible that God created the universe and us (exnihilo i.e. from nothing) says six days (as the Scripture clearly said) it can be interpreted as more than just six days–it could mean eons. But, what does the real meaning of “day” in Hebrew? The real interpretation of “day” in the book of Genesis is yom which means twentyfour hours. The normal sense of day and yom cannot be ought to properly interpreted as a period of 24 hours. So, twenty four times six is one hundred and fourtyfour. The creation took only 144 hours not millions of hours and the Hebrew word yom indicates!
Example 2: Again, in Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” What does “God created man in his own image,” mean? The verse certainly doesn’t mean to be taken literally in God’s image because obviously God doesn’t possess eye, ears, nose, mouth, eyebrow, arms, legs, abdominal, etc, etc., In plain common sense of interpreting “in God’s image” normally means, God has endowed us certain moral, ethical, and intellectual abilities. Thus, when the Scripture tells us that God made us in his own image can or should be taken as an figure of speech. It has nothing to do at all with physical likeness.
Example 3: Lets move from Old Testament to New Testament of the Gospel of John 12:25. Jesus says, “He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” How can love suddenly be a negative word while hate turn to be such a positive word? Clearly, we haven’t understood what Jesus was saying. We should read the verse in context here. Our Lord told his disciples that, “those who love his life” describes those who serve their lives Christless and selfishly for themselves and will lose it in the after life. While on the other hand, Jesus also said, “he that hates life,” involves serving Christ through hardship, ridicule, persecution and even death, will gain both here and the after life. As a believer in Christ, we must establish our priorities and dedicate our lives in the service of his Majesty Jesus. We should focus and be readily committed to the life to come.
Example 4: Let us take one last example then we’ll proceed with our discussion. John 8:32 in which our Lord said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” What did Jesus mean when he said, “the truth will make you free” in this passage? Others mock this passage by incompletely said that “what if a person read this verse while in prison, should he become free then?” My answer is of course no! The plain language Jesus’ uses here is not free in term of being literally free out of prison but what it says is that we will be spiritually free from the shackles of Satan and from the bondage of sins. Moreover, Jesus said, “ye shall know the truth.” Who is the truth but Jesus Christ (Jn. 14:6). And by knowing the truth, we shall indeed be free from spiritual blindness and from the chains of ignorance.
Biblical Hermeneutics, Metaphor, Hyperbole, and Figure of Speech
We know that the books of the Scripture contains figure of speech, metaphor, hyperbole, poems, and as will as historical narrative. We should therefore be very careful when reading our Bible as to not confuse the main meaning of the verse or book. Both OT AND NT often uses metaphor such as “water,” “vine,” “thorns,” “bread,” “door,” “light,” and “lamb.” These are just the few examples of metaphors an illustration behind its meaning. For instance, Jesus said, “Whosoever drinketh of this water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:14). If understood properly, “water” here means God’s Word or the gospel, which is the knowledge of salvation unto everlasting life. He went on to tell us that he even personifies that water by saying “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink, (John 7:37).” In other words he is saying, If any man thirsts for spiritual knowledge, “I am that water,” which means he is the way, the only way to salvation, and is, therefore, the Messiah. (Cf. Rev. 7:15-17–”the Lamb. . .shall lead them unto living fountains of waters.) He went on to tell us that he even personifies that water by saying “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink, (John 7:37).” In other words he is saying, If any man thirsts for spiritual knowledge, “I am that water,” which means he is the way, the only way to salvation, and is, therefore, the Messiah. (Cf. Rev. 7:15-17–”the Lamb. . .shall lead them unto living fountains of waters.)
As there are metaphorical images in the Bible there is also hyperbolical. Hyperbole (pronounced, hi-peer-bow-lee) means exaggerations. For example, you heard these phrases such as “I could eat a horse,” or “pea brain,” or “stupid cow,” or “raining like cats and dogs,” or “didn’t I told You a million times,” and or “this book weights a ton.” These phrases can be understood us hyperboles an exaggerations in other word. There are, as mentioned, hyperbole in the Scripture such as when Jesus said, Jesus clearly says that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.” or when he stated that, “a plank being in one’s eye while attempting to remove the splinter in a brother’s eye.” or the statement that “one should be born again.” Hyperbolic statement are not to be taken literally, yet surely, there are spiritual meaning behind the hyperbole of Jesus’ statements. There are many examples of hyperbole in the Bible, and as we read it with a growing sensitivity for what is literal and what is figurative, the oriental manner of speech and their use of this figure of speech will stand out more and more clearly.
Figure of Speech are nevertheless uncommon in the Old Testamnet. We find numerous of such figure of speech such as in Genesis 2:17, “you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” The Hebrew reads, “dying you will die,” using the figure “many inflections,” that is the same word in different forms. Or the “Isaiah 55:12, “the trees will clap their hands.” Trees don’t have hands and don’t clap. The figure is personification.
Biblical Hermeneutics In Context
One thing to keep in mind when we are in process of biblical studies is that the Scripture as it was written originally, should be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. Historical interpretation refers to understanding the ancient culture, background, and situation which prompted the text. Consider first of all the distance of time that exists between the ancient texts and our modern world. The manuscripts and events recorded in both OT and NT span many centuries. The significance of course is that our culture – the post-Modern Western culture – is vastly different from that of the authors of Scripture. The Biblical writer’s history, culture, customs, environment, and language are diverse and removed from our culture and way of life. What does this tells us? It teaches us that if we must do proper hermeneutics, we must differentiate the customs, of, let say of Old Testament in Moses time, between our culture. In those period, offering a lamb as a sacrifice unto God was common both in OT and NT era but it is not so in our industrial epoch.
Grammatical interpretation is recognizing the rules of grammar and nuances of the Hebrew and Greek languages and applying those principles to the understanding of a passage. The original languages used in our Bible today wasn’t written in English but formerly written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek__languages that are inaccessible to most people today. We are also quite unfamiliar with the literary conventions of the ancient authors. This is here when “experts” are needed for assistance in interpreting and understanding of what the original language of a certain verse conveys. Yet experts in this fields may fall short in their expertise and if this happen let us heed the advice let “Scripture interpret Scripture.” which simply means, what the Spirit is trying to tell us through Scripture is unlocked by, tested by, qualified by, and balanced by, the whole of Scripture. Contextual interpretation involves always taking the surrounding context of a verse or passage into consideration when trying to determine the meaning.
Sources__________________
-
Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Craig L Blomberg, William W. Klein, Robert L. Hubbard, W Publishing.
-
How to Read The Bible For All Its Worth, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, Zondervan
Did The Disciples of Jesus Change the Message?
By L. R. R.
Let us assume for a moment. What if the written manuscript of the New Testament (NT from now on) is indeed authentic and reliable (which it is) does this follow that the contents in it are true?
The manuscript of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are reasonably intact beyond a reasonable doubt but, says the critic, “Just because the N T manuscript are true this doesn’t mean that the written contents thereby true.” Critics will say that the disciples were biased and must have fabricated their story just to push their agenda.
There are lots of ways to respond to this particular objection against the written witness of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Skeptics and critics alike often assaults the reliability historical witness of Jesus’ sayings and deeds authored by the disciples ( not Luke). One of the many objections to N T historical narratives is that “they were written by biased persons,” or ” they were written by believers and followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
We must agree with our critics here. It is indeed true that all N T authors were believer and even convicted. There is no doubt about this. However, just because they were convicted about their Messiah does this follow fabrication in their narratives and witness about him? Not necessarily. Let us ponder for a while.
Even if Matthew or Mark were converted to what they believed does this invalidates them as historians? Does this excludes them as “real” historians? Would they lie and exaggerate in thief testimony about their Masters sayings and deeds?
For the sake of the argument, even if they were ‘biased’ they may have written more precise information by their strong convictions. So, instead of asking the question most often skeptics asks
“Weren’t the gospel writers bias because they were converted” We would rather instead ask question such as;
-
Why Were they converted?
-
Why did they adopted and believed to these new faith?
-
Why would the disciples of Jesus abandon their former belief to Christianity?
These are the key questions we should engage ourselves in our study of the N T. If you are a skeptic rightly ask yourself this question, “Why did the writers suddenly abandon their likelihoods and religious traditions to believing that their Rabbi rose from the dead?”
Remember the N T historians held sacred beliefs such as the animal sacrifice, the binding obedience of the Law of Moses, the Sabbath so on and so forth.
Are we then to conclude that they abandoned their former faith because of their own fabricated and manipulated stories? Certainly, something big was going on.
Some of you might object right at this moment, ” Religious people are not objective.” In which I might counter that, Just because we aren’t always neutral in our held beliefs doesn’t mean that we cannot be objective.
As a matter of historical fact Jews who were the victim and survivors of the Holocaust wrote about their horrible experiences–certainly were not neutral–by not distorting and exaggerate their horrible witness.
So what about the objection about, “The N T writers manipulated their narrative account of Jesus’ deeds and sayings because they wanted power and control over the people.” Again, this criticism is highly speculative and does not hold water and there are several reasons why this is so.
First of all, one cannot simply say that the disciples of Jesus’ change their original story about Jesus’ unless our critics have the real manuscript to compare. Where are the ‘original’ N T scripts to compare to these supposedly ‘corrupt’ interpolation of the N T.
Second, what kind of power and control did the apostles gain by telling others that their beloved Rabbi who has been severely beaten and crucified and died then on the third day rose from the catacombs? What possible motive did Matthew, Luke, and Mark to make up a story such as the resurrection if it indeed wasn’t true?
Finally, would not these Jews turned Christians risk persecution, and even death. (in which the apostles really got persecuted and died–John wasn’t one of these–through crucifixion, stoning etc..,)
These apostles who no doubt wrote the documents of the N T about Jesus’ deeds and acts were not just a “church propaganda” as skeptics would want us to believe.
Matthew, Mark, John, and James have witnessed first hand the events and acts of Jesus of Nazareth and which they wrote in accordance with their strong evidence without fabrication, interpolation, and manipulation. There are no reason whatsoever to believe the objections of N T critics.
References—————————- -
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics; Norm Geisler, Baker Academics
I Do not Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist; Frank Turek & Norm Geisler, Crossway Books
Was the New Testament Influenced By Pagan Religions?
Ronald Nash, Ph.D
Copyright © 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
Summary
Many Christian college students have encountered criticisms of Christianity based on claims that early Christianity and the New Testament borrowed important beliefs and practices from a number of pagan mystery religions. Since these claims undermine such central Christian doctrines as Christ’s death and resurrection, the charges are serious. But the evidence for such claims, when it even exists, often lies in sources several centuries older than the New Testament.
Moreover, the alleged parallels often result from liberal scholars uncritically describing pagan beliefs and practices in Christian language and then marveling at the striking parallels they think they’ve discovered.
During the first half of the twentieth century, a number of liberal authors and professors claimed that the New Testament teaching about Jesus’ death and resurrection, the New Birth, and the Christian practices of baptism and the Lord’s Supper were derived from the pagan mystery religions.
Of major concern in all this is the charge that the New Testament doctrine of salvation parallels themes commonly found in the mystery religions: a savior-god dies violently for those he will eventually deliver, after which that god is restored to life.
Was the New Testament influenced by the pagan religions of the first century A.D.? Even though I surveyed this matter in a 1992 book,[1] the issues are so important — especially for Christian college students who often do not know where to look for answers — that there is considerable merit in addressing this question in a popular, nontechnical format.
WHAT WERE THE MYSTERY RELIGIONS?
Other than Judaism and Christianity, the mystery religions were the most influential religions in the early centuries after Christ. The reason these cults were called “mystery religions” is that they involved secret ceremonies known only to those initiated into the cult. The major benefit of these practices was thought to be some kind of salvation. The mystery religions were not, of course, the only manifestations of the religious spirit in the eastern Roman Empire.
One could also find public cults not requiring an initiation ceremony into secret beliefs and practices. The Greek Olympian religion and its Roman counterpart are examples of this type of religion.
Each Mediterranean region produced its own mystery religion. Out of Greece came the cults of Demeter and Dionysus, as well as the Eleusinian and Orphic mystery religions, which developed later.[2] Asia Minor gave birth to the cult of Cybele, the Great Mother, and her beloved, a shepherd named Attis.
The cult of Isis and Osiris (later changed to Serapis) originated in Egypt, while Syria and Palestine saw the rise of the cult of Adonis.
Finally, Persia (Iran) was a leading early locale for the cult of Mithras, which — due to its frequent use of the imagery of war — held a special appeal to Roman soldiers. The earlier Greek mystery religions were state religions in the sense that they attained the status of a public or civil cult and served a national or public function. The later non-Greek mysteries were personal, private, and individualistic.
Basic Traits
One must avoid any suggestion that there was one common mystery religion. While a tendency toward eclecticism or synthesis developed after A.D. 300, each of the mystery cults was a separate and distinct religion during the century that saw the birth of the Christian church. Moreover, each mystery cult assumed different forms in different cultural settings and underwent significant changes, especially after A.D. 100. Nevertheless, the mystery religions exhibited five common traits.
(1) Central to each mystery was its use of an annual vegetation cycle in which life is renewed each spring and dies each fall. Followers of the mystery cults found deep symbolic significance in the natural processes of growth, death, decay, and rebirth.
(2) As noted above, each cult made important use of secret ceremonies or mysteries, often in connection with an initiation rite. Each mystery religion also passed on a “secret” to the initiate that included information about the life of the cult’s god or goddess and how humans might achieve unity with that deity. This “knowledge” was always a secret or esoteric knowledge, unattainable by any outside the circle of the cult.
(3) Each mystery also centered around a myth in which the deity either returned to life after death or else triumphed over his enemies. Implicit in the myth was the theme of redemption from everything earthly and temporal. The secret meaning of the cult and its accompanying myth was expressed in a “sacramental drama” that appealed largely to the feelings and emotions of the initiates. This religious ecstasy was supposed to lead them to think they were experiencing the beginning of a new life.
(4) The mysteries had little or no use for doctrine and correct belief. They were primarily concerned with the emotional life of their followers. The cults used many different means to affect the emotions and imaginations of initiates and hence bring about “union with the god”: processions, fasting, a play, acts of purification, blazing lights, and esoteric liturgies. This lack of any emphasis on correct belief marked an important difference between the mysteries and Christianity. The Christian faith was exclusivistic in the sense that it recognized only one legitimate path to God and salvation, Jesus Christ. The mysteries were inclusivistic in the sense that nothing prevented a believer in one cult from following other mysteries.
(5) The immediate goal of the initiates was a mystical experience that led them to feel they had achieved union with their god. Beyond this quest for mystical union were two more ultimate goals: some kind of redemption or salvation, and immortality.
Evolution
Before A.D. 100, the mystery religions were still largely confined to specific localities and were still a relatively novel phenomenon. After A.D. 100, they gradually began to attain a widespread popular influence throughout the Roman Empire.
But they also underwent significant changes that often resulted from the various cults absorbing elements from each other.
As devotees of the mysteries became increasingly eclectic in their beliefs and practices, new and odd combinations of the older mysteries began to emerge. And as the cults continued to tone down the more objectionable features of their older practices, they began to attract greater numbers of followers.
RECONSTRUCTING THE MYSTERIES
It is not until we come to the third century A.D. that we find sufficient source material (i.e., information about the mystery religions from the writings of the time) to permit a relatively complete reconstruction of their content. Far too many writers use this late source material (after A.D. 200) to form reconstructions of the third-century mystery experience and then uncritically reason back to what they think must have been the earlier nature of the cults.
This practice is exceptionally bad scholarship and should not be allowed to stand without challenge. Information about a cult that comes several hundred years after the close of the New Testament canon must not be read back into what is presumed to be the status of the cult during the first century A.D. The crucial question is not what possible influence the mysteries may have had on segments of Christendom after A.D. 400, but what effect the emerging mysteries may have had on the New Testament in the first century.
The Cult of Isis and Osiris
The cult of Isis originated in Egypt and went through two major stages. In its older Egyptian version, which was not a mystery religion, Isis was regarded as the goddess of heaven, earth, the sea, and the unseen world below. In this earlier stage, Isis had a husband named Osiris. The cult of Isis became a mystery religion only after Ptolemy the First introduced major changes, sometime after 300 B.C. In the later stage, a new god named Serapis became Isis’s consort.
Ptolemy introduced these changes in order to synthesize Egyptian and Greek concerns in his kingdom, thus hastening the Hellenization of Egypt. From Egypt, the cult of Isis gradually made its way to Rome. While Rome was at first repelled by the cult, the religion finally entered the city during the reign of Caligula (A.D. 37-41).
Its influence spread gradually during the next two centuries, and in some locales it became a major rival of Christianity. The cult’s success in the Roman Empire seems to have resulted from its impressive ritual and the hope of immortality offered to its followers. The basic myth of the Isis cult concerned Osiris, her husband during the earlier Egyptian and nonmystery stage of the religion.
According to the most common version of the myth, Osiris was murdered by his brother who then sank the coffin containing Osiris’s body into the Nile river. Isis discovered the body and returned it to Egypt. But her brother-in-law once again gained access to the body, this time dismembering it into fourteen pieces which he scattered widely. Following a long search, Isis recovered each part of the body.
It is at this point that the language used to describe what followed is crucial. Sometimes those telling the story are satisfied to say that Osiris came back to life, even though such language claims far more than the myth allows. Some writers go even further and refer to the alleged “resurrection” of Osiris. One liberal scholar illustrates how biased some writers are when they describe the pagan myth in Christian language: “The dead body of Osiris floated in the Nile and he returned to life, this being accomplished by a baptism in the waters of the Nile.”[3] This biased and sloppy use of language suggests three misleading analogies between Osiris and Christ:
(1) a savior god dies and (2) then experiences a resurrection accompanied by (3) water baptism. But the alleged similarities, as well as the language used to describe them, turn out to be fabrications of the modern scholar and are not part of the original myth. Comparisons between the resurrection of Jesus and the resuscitation of Osiris are greatly exaggerated.[4] Not every version of the myth has Osiris returning to life; in some he simply becomes king of the underworld.
Equally far-fetched are attempts to find an analogue of Christian baptism in the Osiris myth.[5] The fate of Osiris’s coffin in the Nile is as relevant to baptism as the sinking of Atlantis. As previously noted, during its later mystery stage, the male deity of the Isis cult is no longer the dying Osiris but Serapis.
Serapis is often portrayed as a sun god, and it is clear that he was not a dying god. Obviously then, neither could he be a rising god.
Thus, it is worth remembering that the post-Ptolemaic mystery version of the Isis cult that was in circulation from about 300 B.C. through the early centuries of the Christian era had absolutely nothing that could resemble a dying and rising savior-god.
The Cult of Cybele and Attis
Cybele, also known as the Great Mother, was worshiped through much of the Hellenistic world. She undoubtedly began as a goddess of nature. Her early worship included orgiastic ceremonies in which her frenzied male worshipers were led to castrate themselves, following which they became “Galli” or eunuch-priests of the goddess. Cybele eventually came to be viewed as the Mother of all gods and the mistress of all life.
Most of our information about the cult describes its practices during its later Roman period. But the details are slim and almost all the source material is relatively late, certainly datable long after the close of the New Testament canon. According to myth, Cybele loved a shepherd named Attis. Because Attis was unfaithful, she drove him insane. Overcome by madness, Attis castrated himself and died.
This drove Cybele into great mourning, and it introduced death into the natural world. But then Cybele restored Attis to life, an event that also brought the world of nature back to life. The presuppositions of the interpreter tend to determine the language used to describe what followed Attis’s death.
Many writers refer carelessly to the “resurrection of Attis.” But surely this is an exaggeration. There is no mention of anything resembling a resurrection in the myth, which suggests that Cybele could only preserve Attis’s dead body.
Beyond this, there is mention of the body’s hair continuing to grow, along with some movement of his little finger. In some versions of the myth, Attis’s return to life took the form of his being changed into an evergreen tree.
Since the basic idea underlying the myth was the annual vegetation cycle, any resemblance to the bodily resurrection of Christ is greatly exaggerated. Eventually a public rehearsal of the Attis myth became an annual event in which worshipers shared in Attis’s “immortality.” Each spring the followers of Cybele would mourn for the dead Attis in acts of fasting and flagellation.
It was only during the later Roman celebrations (after A.D. 300) of the spring festival that anything remotely connected with a “resurrection” appears.
The pine tree symbolizing Attis was cut down and then carried corpse-like into the sanctuary. Later in the prolonged festival, the tree was buried while the initiates worked themselves into a frenzy that included gashing themselves with knives.
The next night, the “grave” of the tree was opened and the “resurrection of Attis” was celebrated. But the language of these late sources is highly ambiguous.
In truth, no clear-cut, unambiguous reference to the supposed “resurrection” of Attis appears, even in the very late literature from the fourth century after Christ.
The Taurobolium
The best-known rite of the cult of the Great Mother was the taurobolium. It is important to note, however, that this ritual was not part of the cult in its earlier stages. It entered the religion sometime after the middle of the second century A.D. During the ceremony, initiates stood or reclined in a pit as a bull was slaughtered on a platform above them.[6] The initiate would then be bathed in the warm blood of the dying animal. It has been alleged that the taurobolium was a source for Christian language about being washed in the blood of the lamb (Rev. 7:14) or sprinkled with the blood of Jesus (1 Pet. 1:2). It has also been cited as the source for Paul’s teaching in Romans 6:1-4, where he relates Christian baptism to the Christian’s identification with Christ’s death and resurrection.
No notion of death and resurrection was ever part of the taurobolium, however. The best available evidence requires us to date the ritual about one hundred years after Paul wrote Romans 6:1-4. Not one existing text supports the claim that the taurobolium memorialized the death and “resurrection” of Attis. The pagan rite could not possibly have been the source for Paul’s teaching in Romans 6.
Only near the end of the fourth century A.D. did the ritual add the notion of rebirth. Several important scholars see a Christian influence at work in this later development.[7] It is clear, then, that the chronological development of the rite makes it impossible for it to have influenced first-century Christianity. The New Testament teaching about the shedding of blood should be viewed in the context of its Old Testament background — the Passover and the temple sacrifice.
Mithraism
Attempts to reconstruct the beliefs and practices of Mithraism face enormous challenges because of the scanty information that has survived. Proponents of the cult explained the world in terms of two ultimate and opposing principles, one good (depicted as light) and the other evil (darkness). Human beings must choose which side they will fight for; they are trapped in the conflict between light and darkness. Mithra came to be regarded as the most powerful mediator who could help humans ward off attacks from demonic forces.[8] The major reason why no Mithraic influence on first-century Christianity is possible is the timing: it’s all wrong!
The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament.[9] Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence.
STRIKING PARALLELS?
Enough has been said thus far to permit comment on one of the major faults of the above-mentioned liberal scholars. I refer to the frequency with which their writings evidence a careless, even sloppy use of language. One frequently encounters scholars who first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and practices, and then marvel at the striking parallels they think they have discovered.
One can go a long way toward “proving” early Christian dependence on the mysteries by describing some mystery belief or practice in Christian terminology. J. Godwin does this in his book, Mystery Religions in the Ancient World, which describes the criobolium (see footnote 6) as a “blood baptism” in which the initiate is “washed in the blood of the lamb.”[10]
While uninformed readers might be stunned by this remarkable similarity to Christianity (see Rev. 7:14), knowledgeable readers will see such a claim as the reflection of a strong, negative bias against Christianity.
Exaggerations and oversimplifications abound in this kind of literature. One encounters overblown claims about alleged likenesses between baptism and the Lord’s Supper and similar “sacraments” in certain mystery cults. Attempts to find analogies between the resurrection of Christ and the alleged “resurrections” of the mystery deities involve massive amounts of oversimplification and inattention to detail.
Pagan Rituals and the Christian Sacraments
The mere fact that Christianity has a sacred meal and a washing of the body is supposed to prove that it borrowed these ceremonies from similar meals and washings in the pagan cults. By themselves, of course, such outward similarities prove nothing.
After all, religious ceremonies can assume only a limited number of forms, and they will naturally relate to important or common aspects of human life.
The more important question is the meaning of the pagan practices. Ceremonial washings that antedate the New Testament have a different meaning from New Testament baptism, while pagan washings after A.D. 100 come too late to influence the New Testament and, indeed, might themselves have been influenced by Christianity.[11]
Sacred meals in the pre-Christian Greek mysteries fail to prove anything since the chronology is all wrong. The Greek ceremonies that are supposed to have influenced first-century Christians had long since disappeared by the time we get to Jesus and Paul.
Sacred meals in such post-Christian mysteries as Mithraism come too late. Unlike the initiation rites of the mystery cults, Christian baptism looks back to what a real, historical person — Jesus Christ — did in history. Advocates of the mystery cults believed their “sacraments” had the power to give the individual the benefits of immortality in a mechanical or magical way, without his or her undergoing any moral or spiritual transformation.
This certainly was not Paul’s view, either of salvation or of the operation of the Christian sacraments. In contrast with pagan initiation ceremonies, Christian baptism is not a mechanical or magical ceremony. It is clear that the sources of Christian baptism are not to be found either in the taurobolium (which is post first-century anyway) or in the washings of the pagan mysteries.
Its sources lie rather in the washings of purification found in the Old Testament and in the Jewish practice of baptizing proselytes, the latter being the most likely source for the baptistic practices of John the Baptist. Of all the mystery cults, only Mithraism had anything that resembled the Lord’s Supper.
A piece of bread and a cup of water were placed before initiates while the priest of Mithra spoke some ceremonial words. But the late introduction of this ritual precludes its having any influence upon first-century Christianity. Claims that the Lord’s Supper was derived from pagan sacred meals are grounded in exaggerations and oversimplifications. The supposed parallels and analogies break down completely.[12]
Any quest for the historical antecedents of the Lord’s Supper is more likely to succeed if it stays closer to the Jewish foundations of the Christian faith than if it wanders off into the practices of the pagan cults.
The Lord’s Supper looked back to a real, historical person and to something He did in history. The occasion for Jesus’ introduction of the Christian Lord’s Supper was the Jewish Passover feast. Attempts to find pagan sources for baptism and the Lord’s Supper must be judged to fail.
The Death of the Mystery Gods and the Death of Jesus
The best way to evaluate the alleged dependence of early Christian beliefs about Christ’s death and resurrection on the pagan myths of a dying and rising savior-god is to examine carefully the supposed parallels. The death of Jesus differs from the deaths of the pagan gods in at least six ways:
(1) None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else. The notion of the Son of God dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity.[13]
(2) Only Jesus died for sin. As Gunter Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods “has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.).”[14]
(3) Jesus died once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14). In contrast, the mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated deaths and resuscitations depict the annual cycle of nature.
(4) Jesus’ death was an actual event in history. The death of the mystery god appears in a mythical drama with no historical ties; its continued rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature. The incontestable fact that the early church believed that its proclamation of Jesus’ death and resurrection was grounded in an actual historical event makes absurd any attempt to derive this belief from the mythical, nonhistorical stories of the pagan cults.[15]
(5) Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries.
(6) And finally, Jesus’ death was not a defeat but a triumph. Christianity stands entirely apart from the pagan mysteries in that its report of Jesus’ death is a message of triumph. Even as Jesus was experiencing the pain and humiliation of the cross, He was the victor. The New Testament’s mood of exultation contrasts sharply with that of the mystery religions, whose followers wept and mourned for the terrible fate that overtook their gods.[16]
The Risen Christ and the “Rising Savior-Gods”
Which mystery gods actually experienced a resurrection from the dead? Certainly no early texts refer to any resurrection of Attis. Nor is the case for a resurrection of Osiris any stronger. One can speak of a “resurrection” in the stories of Osiris, Attis, and Adonis only in the most extended of senses.[17] For example, after Isis gathered together the pieces of Osiris’s dismembered body, Osiris became “Lord of the Underworld.” This is a poor substitute for a resurrection like that of Jesus Christ. And, no claim can be made that Mithras was a dying and rising god. The tide of scholarly opinion has turned dramatically against attempts to make early Christianity dependent on the so-called dying and rising gods of Hellenistic paganism.[18] Any unbiased examination of the evidence shows that such claims must be rejected.
Christian Rebirth and Cultic Initiation Rites
Liberal writings on the subject are full of sweeping generalizations to the effect that early Christianity borrowed its notion of rebirth from the pagan mysteries.[19] But the evidence makes it clear that there was no pre-Christian doctrine of rebirth for the Christians to borrow. There are actually very few references to the notion of rebirth in the evidence that has survived, and even these are either very late or very ambiguous. They provide no help in settling the question of the source of the New Testament use of the concept.
The claim that pre-Christian mysteries regarded their initiation rites as a kind of rebirth is unsupported by any evidence contemporary with such alleged practices. Instead, a view found in much later texts is read back into earlier rites, which are then interpreted quite speculatively as dramatic portrayals of the initiate’s “new birth.”
The belief that pre-Christian mysteries used “rebirth” as a technical term lacks support from even one single text. Most contemporary scholars maintain that the mystery use of the concept of rebirth (testified to only in evidence dated after A.D. 300) differs so significantly from its New Testament usage that any possibility of a close link is ruled out.
The most that such scholars are willing to concede is the possibility that some Christians borrowed the metaphor or imagery from the common speech of the time and recast it to fit their distinctive theological beliefs. So even if the metaphor of rebirth was Hellenistic, its content within Christianity was unique.[20]
SEVEN ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIAN DEPENDENCE ON THE MYSTERIES
I conclude by noting seven points that undermine liberal efforts to show that first-century Christianity borrowed essential beliefs and practices from the pagan mystery religions.
(1) Arguments offered to “prove” a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.
(2) Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a “Last Supper” in Mithraism or a “baptism” in the cult of Isis. It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word “savior” with all of its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense.
(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.
(4) Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions. All of our information about him makes it highly unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien speculations (Col. 2:8).
(5) Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. “A man could become initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ….Amid the prevailing syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone.”[21] This Christian exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors. Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy.
(6) Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real historical events, as Paul regarded Christ’s death and resurrection to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion.
(7) What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, “It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction.”[22] It should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.
A FINAL WORD
Liberal efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse quickly once a full account of the information is available. It is clear that the liberal arguments exhibit astoundingly bad scholarship. Indeed, this conclusion may be too generous. According to one writer, a more accurate account of these bad arguments would describe them as “prejudiced irresponsibility.”[23] But in order to become completely informed on these matters, wise readers will work through material cited in the brief bibliography.
REFERENCE NOTES
1 See Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks (Richardson, TX: Probe Books, 1992). The book was originally published in 1984 under the title, Christianity and the Hellenist World.
2 I must pass over these Greek versions of the mystery cults. See Nash, 131-36.
3 Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (New York: Macmillan, 1943), 104.
4 See Edwin Yamauchi, “Easter — Myth, Hallucination, or History?” Christianity Today, 29 March 1974, 660-63.
5 See Gunter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967), 260ff.
6 When the ceremony used a lamb, it was the criobolium. Since lambs cost far less than bulls, this modification was rather common.
7 See Nash, chapter 9.
8 For more detail, see Nash, 143-48.
9 See Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (Chicago: Open Court, 1903), 87ff.
10 Joscelyn Godwin, Mystery Religions in the Ancient World (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), 111.
11 See Nash, chapter 9.
12 See Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 24.
13 SeeMartin Hengel, The Son of God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 26.
14 Wagner, 284.
15 See W. K. C. Guthrie, Ortheus and Greek Religion, 2d ed. (London: Methuen, 1952), 268.
16 See A. D. Nock, “Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background,” in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, ed. A. E. J. Rawlinson (London: Longmans, Green, 1928), 106.
17 See J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1925), 234-35.
18 See Nash, 161-99.
19 See Nash, 173-78.
20 See W. F. Flemington, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism (London: SPCK, 1948), 76-81.
21 Machen, 9.
22 Bruce M. Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 11. The possible parallels in view here would naturally be dated late, after A.D. 200 for the most part.
23 Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957), 195.
Suggested Reading
Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).
J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1925).
Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks (Richardson, TX: Probe Books, 1992).
Gunter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967).
Where Did the Bible Come from?
By L. R. R.
When Apostle Paul wrote of the Old Testament he say’s, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Even the books that contains in the New Testament is called Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18), while Peter labeled to Paul’s epistles as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16. In short, both Old and New Testament are “Breathed out by God.” While there were approximately forty men who physically put the text onto the pages, Scripture claims the true author of the Bible is God. In almost every book of the Bible, the human authors assert that their words are the words of God.
When Christians says that the Bible is from God, it does not refers to heavenly product nor did it fall directly from heaven, what the statement simply means God specifically chose each one of them to tell a unique part of His story. We have the Bible today because God uses people who desire His will above their own to deliver His message. The Bible came to us from believers who were called to tell of His great love, as well as those things that are pleasing and displeasing to Him.
Also, when Christians says that God is the author of the Scripture means the biblical authors all believed themselves to be instruments for His teachings and the spreading of His gospel. These men were inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit to spread the message of God and Jesus Christ. Hence, the Bible is both 100% divine and 100% human authorship.
Does the Bible Contain Errors?
By L. R. R
The Original text of the Scriptures does not contain any mistake. First of all, God cannot make a mistake (Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18). Second, the entire Bible is God written word (John 10:34-35) and third, since God cannot err, and the Bible is God’s word, therefore the Bible cannot contain error. This is simple logic.
Does The Bible Contain Contradictions?
Wayne Jackson M.A.
“I cannot have confidence in the Bible, for it is a book filled with contradictions.”
I could not estimate how many times I have heard this charge against the Holy Scriptures over the past several decades. One thing, however, has been consistent about the allegation – the critic rarely can name even one alleged contradiction that the Bible is supposed to contain.
He just “knows” that they are “in there” somewhere. Those who allege that the Bible contains contradictions basically fall into two classes.
First, there is the person who honestly believes this to be the case because he has heard the hackneyed charge repeated frequently; thus, he sincerely is misinformed about the facts. Second, there is that type of person who, from base motives, hates the Bible and so does not scruple to pervert its testimony in order to discredit the Sacred Volume.
In either case, the Word of God is not at fault! Preliminary to a consideration of this important theme, it should be noted that the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” applies to the Bible as much as to any other book.
Books, like people, ought to be considered truthful and consistent unless it can be demonstrated that they are not.
Great attempts have been made to absolve the Greek and Latin classics of contradictions, under the presumption that the authors did not contradict themselves. Surely the Bible deserves at least an equally charitable approach.
What Is a Contradiction?
It is fairly safe to say that most people have only a superficial concept of what constitutes a genuine contradiction. An important truth that must be hammered home repeatedly is this: a mere difference does not a contradiction make!
What, then, constitutes a contradiction? In logic, the Law of Contradiction is stated succinctly as follows: “Nothing can both be and not be” (Jevons, 1928, p. 117). That is a very abbreviated form of the rule. Aristotle, in a more amplified format, expressed it this way. “That the same thing should at the same time both be and not be for the same person and in the same respect is impossible.” An analysis of the Law of Contradiction, therefore, would suggest the following. When one is confronted with an alleged contradiction, he must ask himself these questions:
(1) Is the same thing or person under consideration?
(2) Is the same time period in view?
(3) Is the language that seems to be self-contradictory employed in the same sense? It is quite important that these questions be answered correctly. For instance, let us analyze the following two statements: Robert is rich. Robert is poor. Do these statements contradict one another?
The answer is – not necessarily! First, two different people named Robert could be under consideration. Second, two different time frames might be in view; Robert could have been rich but, due to financial disaster, he became poor. Third, the terms “rich” and “poor” might have been used in different senses; Robert could be spiritually rich but economically poor.
The point is this: it never is proper to assume a contradiction exists until every possible means of harmonization has been fully exhausted. Now, let this principle be applied to the Bible.
Same Person or Thing
An infidel once announced that he had discovered a contradiction in the Bible. When challenged to produce it, he suggested that whereas Noah’s ark, with all of its inmates, must have weighed many tons (Genesis 6), the Hebrew priests were said to have carried the ark across the Jordan River (Joshua 3).
The poor fellow, in his profound simplicity, did not even know the difference between Noah’s ark and the Ark of the Covenant! Slightly different “arks” – to say the least!
Again, the Scriptures affirm that faith saves apart from works; on the other hand, the New Testament declares that faith apart form works cannot save. “Surely,” some contend, “this is a contradiction.”
The fact is, it is not, for different types of works are addressed in the Scriptures. Salvation involves works of obedience to the commands of Jesus Christ (James 2:14ff; Philippians 2:12), but pardon cannot be obtained by works of the Mosaic Law (Romans 3:28; 4:2ff) or by boastful works of human merit (Ephesians 2:9).
There is no contradiction in the Bible on this point.
Same Time Reference
The Bible records: “God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). And then: “And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (6:6).
The infidel cites both verses and claims that God simultaneously was satisfied and dissatisfied with His creation – neglecting to mention, of course, that the fall of man and hundreds of years of history separated the two statements! Judas, one of the Lord’s disciples, was empowered to perform miracles (cf. Matthew 10:1-18), yet he is called “the son of perdition” (John 17:12).
Is there a contradiction? No, for it was a couple of years after the time of the limited commission (Matthew 10) before Judas commenced to apostatize from the Lord (John 12:6; 13:2,27).
The time element is important in understanding some passages. Critics have charged the Bible with a mistake in connection with the time of Jesus’ trial and death. Mark writes that the Lord was crucified at the third hour (Mark 15:25), while John’s account has the Savior being tried at the sixth hour (John 19:14) – seemingly, therefore, three hours after His death.
John’s time reference, however, was based upon Roman civil days, while Mark computed according to Jewish time (cf. Westcott, 1981, 8:282). Again, the “contradiction” dissolves.
Same Sense
If the Bible is to be understood, it is imperative that recognition be given to the different senses in which words may be employed. Normally, words are used literally, but they can be used figuratively as well. In Matthew 11:14, John the Baptizer is identified as “Elijah.” Yet, the forerunner of Christ, in John 1:21, plainly denied that he was Elijah. These verses are reconciled quite easily.
Though John was not literally Elijah, physically reincarnated; nevertheless he was the spiritual antitype of the great prophet; he prepared the way for the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17).
Did the apostle Paul contradict himself when he affirmed on one occasion that he was “as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless” (Philippians 3:6), and yet, at another time, he acknowledged that he was “chief” of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15)? Again, the answer must be “No.”
In the former passage, Paul was describing the reputation he enjoyed among his Hebrew contemporaries as a Pharisee, while in the latter verse, he expressed the anguish he felt at having been a persecutor of the Christian Way. How sad it is that some are almost totally ignorant of the principles that resolve Bible difficulties.
Logical Implications
One of the implications of the Law of Contradiction is the concept that “nothing can have at the same time and at the same place contradictory and inconsistent qualities” (Jevons, 1928, p. 118). A door may be open or shut, but the same door may not be both open and shut at the same time.
Open and shut are opposites, yet they are not contradictory unless they are affirmed of the same object at the same time. Here is the principle: opposites are not necessarily contradictory. Let this principle be applied to certain biblical matters.
Does the Bible contradict itself, as is often suggested, when it asserts that God both loves and hates? No, for though these terms are opposites, when used of God they do not express His disposition toward the same objects. God loves every sinner in the world (John 3:16), but He hates every false way (Psalm 119:104).
He loves righteousness, but hates iniquity (Psalm 45:7), and hence responds toward such with either goodness or severity (Romans 11:22). No contradiction exists here. Was Paul both “perfect” and “imperfect” at the same time? Some have charged that he so claimed. In Philippians 3:12, the apostle declared that he had not been “already made perfect,” while in the 15th verse he wrote: “Let us, therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded.”
How is this problem resolved? A careful analysis of the language employed will solve this alleged discrepancy. When Paul claimed that he had not been “made perfect,” he used a perfect tense form of the Greek term which literally suggested that the apostle had not arrived at a permanent state of perfection.
On the other hand, in the latter verse Paul used an adjective that actually means full-grown or mature (note how the same term is used in contrast to infantilism in 1 Corinthians 14:20 and Ephesians 4:13).
And so, while Paul denied that he was already in possession of permanent perfection, he did claim to possess spiritual maturity. There is no conflict between these passages.
Another important point to be emphasized is this: one must not confuse supplementation with contradiction. In a contradiction, two facts are mutually exclusive; in supplementation, two facts merely complement one another.
If one says, for example, that John doe is a husband, and then, of the same John Doe, that he is not a husband – this is contradiction. On the other hand, if one says that John Doe is a father – that is not a contradiction. It merely provides supplementation to statement number two. Many alleged Bible discrepancies can be answered by a recognition of this principle.
The case of the healing of the blind men of Jericho presents an interesting study in supplementation (Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43). Two prominent problems have been set forth. First, while both Mark and Luke mention the healing of one blind man, Matthew records the healing of two blind men.
Second, Matthew and Mark indicate that the blind men were healed as Jesus was leaving Jericho, whereas Luke seems to suggest that a blind man was healed as the Lord “drew nigh” to the city.
As a discussion of these passages is begun, let this vital consideration be remembered – if there is any reasonable way of harmonizing these records, no legitimate contradiction can be charged to the accounts! How, then, shall these narratives be reconciled? Several reasonable possibilities have been posed by scholarly writers.
In the first place, the fact that two of the accounts mention only one man, while the other mentions two, need not concern us.
Had Mark and Luke stated that Christ healed only one man, with Matthew affirming that more than one were healed, an error would be apparent, but such is not the case. If one says, “I have a son,” he does not contradict himself by stating further, “I have a son and a daughter.” The latter statement merely supplements the former. There is no discrepancy, therefore, with reference to the number of men involved.
But how may the second problem be resolved? Several reasonable possibilities have been advanced.
It is possible that three blind men were healed in the vicinity of Jericho on this occasion, and that the incident mentioned by Luke, as occurring when Jesus approached the city, might have represented a different miracle than that recorded by Matthew and Mark. This may not be the most likely explanation, but it cannot be disproved.
Edward Robinson argued that the verb engizo, rendered “drew near” (Luke 18:35) also can mean “to be near.” He cited evidence from the Septuagint (1 Kings 21:2 – “it is near unto my house” [cf. Deuteronomy 21:3, Jeremiah 23:23, Ruth 2:20, and 2 Samuel 19:42]) and from the New Testament (Luke 19:29; cf. Matthew 21:1 and Philippians 2:30). He thus translated Luke 18:35 as “while he was yet nigh unto Jericho” (1855, p. 200). This view implies that Luke simply locates the miracle near Jericho; hence such can be harmonized with the other records.
Perhaps the most popular viewpoint among reputable writers is the fact that at the time of Christ there actually were two Jerichos. First, there was the Jericho of Old Testament history (Joshua 6:1ff; 1 Kings 16:34) that was located at the sight of Elijah’s spring. In the first century, however, that city lay almost in ruins.
About two miles south of that site was the new Jericho, built by Herod the Great. The Lord – traveling from the north toward Jerusalem – first would pass through the old Jericho, then some two miles to the southwest, would go through Herodian Jericho.
The miracles under consideration, therefore may have been performed between two towns. Accordingly, the references in Matthew and Mark to leaving Jericho would allude to the old city, whereas Luke’s observation to drawing near to Jericho would refer to the newer community (see Robertson, 1930, 1:163).
Conclusion
In dealing with so-called “contradictions” in the Bible, let these principles carefully be remembered.
· No contradiction exists between verses that refer to different persons or things.
· No contradiction exists between passages that involve different time elements.
· No contradiction exists between verses that employ phraseology in different senses. · Supplementation is not the same as contradiction.
· One need show only the possibility of harmonization between two passage that appear to conflict in order to negate the force of an alleged discrepancy.
Finally, this point needs to be made: the differences in various Bible accounts of the same events actually demonstrate the independence of the divine writers and prove that they were not in collusion! God, although using human writers in the composition of the Bible, is nevertheless its ultimate Author.
And since the perfect God cannot be the source of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) or contradiction (Hebrews 6:18), it must be acknowledged that the Bible is perfectly harmonious.
This does not mean that men will not struggle with difficult passages. If seeming discrepancies are discovered, let us apply ourselves to a diligent study in an effort to resolve them; but let us never foolishly charge God with allowing His sacred writers to contradict one another.
SOURCES
Jevons, W. Stanley (1928), Elementary Lessons in Logic (London: Macmillan).
Robertson, A.T. (1930), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Robinson, Edward (1855), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: Harper Brothers).
Westcott, B.F. (1981 reprint), The Gospel of St. John,
The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Article by Wayne Jackson Apologetics Press
The Preservation Of The Bible
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Jesus Christ
By L. R. R.
Christian or simply a bystander the Holy Bible is in question today not only by aggresive anti God school of skeptics, but by Christians themselves! Christian scholars questions whether we possess the verbum Dei just as it was handed by the prophets and of the apostles. But, I do agree that we do not possess the original manuscripts (hand written), and what we have today is copies of the copies of the copies of both Old- and New Testament. What does this tell us? Does this tell us that just because we do not have the original copy of the Word of God somehow justifies skepticism towards God’s Word? God forbid no! We may not have the copies of the original hand written Word of God, yet we can still rely upon God’s promise to preserve his Word right to this very present day. Prophet Isaiah wrote, “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” (40:8)
Satan And His Opposition of God’s Word
With all the vigor, wit, and cleverness in our defense and opposition against those who attack the infallibility, reliability of the Scripture must not be neglected and be consumed. We have to continue to be ready to defend or give reason for our faith to those who asks (1 Pet. 3:15-16). What we should keep in mind is that we do not battle against mere men and their cunning wit, but against the principalities of the wicked. Paul wrote concerning the real enemy, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Eph. 6:12) Christians are often caught off guard against Satan’s antagonism towards the Bible. Satan or the serpent has always been in opposition against the will and the Word of God “yea, hath God said?”
Satan, has been forgotten in the midst of academia of Textual Criticism, which is really sad, because I do believe that he is behind all of these confusion regarding the preservation of the Scripture. Perhaps, God’s chosen people has forgotten the devil’s part in destroying the reliability of the Scripture. We have been duped that the enemy of God has nothing to do whatsoever, whether God’s word has been preserve to this day or not. But this is an outright lie. Satan has been working full time in opposing God and his Scripture every since from the beginning. Are we then to believe that the Adversary ceases he opposition against God only when it comes to Textual Criticism? Come on! We should know better than this. Satan is alive and will, and still continues in opposing God’s plan for mankinds salvation. If you hear someone speak to you and tells you not to believe the preservation of the Scripture, do not believe him because it is a vicious lie. God did preserved his Word. Paul told us not to be ignorant of the works of the adversary (2 Cor. 2:11).
The Old Testament and God’s Promise for Preservation
If God with all his power and sovereign in inspiring the Scripture why would he not preserve it also? What is there to stop God from preserving the original contents of his Word from the day of Moses to us? Surely, God could not have failed his promise by keeping the authentic manuscripts from corruption (addition, deletion etc). Either God supernaturally preserved his written word or he did not. Either the original manuscript has been corrupted or wasn’t. There really is no other option. We cannot have it both ways! Jewish historian Josephus, wrote (in 100 AD), the inherited collection of books that the church enjoyed, namely, the Old Testament. “”For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have), but only 22 books, which contain the record of all time; which are justly believed to be divine…” [Against Apion, I.8]. Josephus was assuming that though Moses and the prophets had written their books centuries before, the Jews still had in possession the Holy Scriptures! God has not just promised to preserve the Scriptures for future generations, he has also given a convincing demonstration to prove that he has kept and will keep this promise. This demonstration is the Old Testament.
-
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psa. 12:6-7)
-
Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever…Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. (Psa. 119:152,160)
-
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (Isa. 40:8)
-
Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever. (Isa. 30:8)
Jesus And The Confirmation of Bible Preservation
No doubt that the Old Testament writers affirmed the preservation of their Scripture. Likewise as we soon shall see, Jesus, and his follower also confirmed that God would preserved his written word and that it would never change and ough not be altered. There is nothing more important than that God is willing to let humans know about his character, will, salvation and judgment, henceforth, it does not make any sense to deny the preservation of God’s holy writ. Also, God intended the Scriptures to guide people of future generations (cf. Psa. 102:18). But, this also does not make any sense if the future generations no longer possess the preserved Word of God. ALAS! God did promised to keep and preserve his written Word. So we can rest assured that what we have today is 100% accurate copy of the original manuscripts. Jesus said, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matt. 24:35) Jesus also said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18)
The apostle Peter wrote, Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever and But the of the Lord endureth for ever. (1 Pet. 1:23,25). The teaching of these passages is that God would preserve his word in detail to every generation. This, and this alone, is the biblical doctrine of preservation. This is my view and you do not have to agree with me that God has preserved his Word exactly just as it was written for centuries ago. Ron Rhodes tells us that,
| “The respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is an expression of their confidence that God providentially preserved these copies and translations so that they were substantially identical with the inspired originals.” [The Complete Book of Bible Answers, Ron Rhodes, Harvets House. p.25] |
What Is The Apocrypha?
By L. R. R.
The word “apocrypha” means “Hidden” or “concealed.” But was also used in reference to a book whose origin was doubtful or unknown.The Apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 BC and the time of Christ. Though both Roman Catholics and Protestant accepted the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, The apocryphal books of The Old Testament was not embraced as canonical books by the mainstream Protestants. When one picks up a copy of a Catholic Bible he sees that there are several additional books included in its Old Testament section which are not found in Protestant Bibles. These extra books are generally known as the apocrypha.
For our purposes, the early Authorized Version, and other Reformation Bibles, included the apocrypha but solely for referencial reason. Not because they are inspired or canonical. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. “…[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine.” The Westminster Confession, which was written in England between 1643-48, only a few years after the publication of the King James Bible, says, “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.”
The Old Testament Apocrypha
The Old Testament apocrypha 15 in number, were written during the period from about 190 BC to about AD 70. Catholics accepted these books as part of their Bible see the chart below.
| The First Book of Esdras | The Second Book of Esdras |
| Tobit | Judith |
| The Additions to the Book of Esther | The Wisdom of Solomon |
| Baruch | Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach |
| The Letter of Jeremiah | The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men |
| Susanna | Bel and the Dragon |
| The Prayer of Manasseh | The First and Second book of Maccabees |
In 1546 the Council of Trent decreed that the canon of the OT should include them (except I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh are not considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church). The Old Testament Apocrypha covers a broad range of subjects and represents different variety of content. Some are historical (I Edras, I and II Macabees) of events concerning the Jewish people. Some are short sayings similar to the Proverbs (Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon), and some legendary accounts (Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Additions to Daniel), other are prophetical in content (Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, II Esdras).
Reasons For Rejecting Apocryphal Books
-
Church Fathers
The council and fathers of the church rejected the apocrypha as false. For instance, The synod of Laodicea (canon 59.1) forbids the reading of any non-canonical books in the church, and allows only the “canonical books of the old and new Testaments” to be used for that purpose. The church fathers agree that the apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon. Athanasius says “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired and hath books not infinite in number, but finite and comprehended in a certain canon.” There was, therefore a certain canon by the late 300′s. He then enumerates this, “The canonical books of the OT are two and twenty. Equal to the number as the Hebrew alphabet.” Then he says, “But besides these, there are also other non canonical books of the OT which are only read to the catechumens.”Then he lists the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit and the like. “These” he says “are the non-canonical books of the OT.” [Athanas. Opp. Ii. 126. sqq. Ed. Bened.] Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the Roman Catholic Church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” So, we should not conclude that the Church Fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn’t. Josephus, as mentioned earlier, knew of other Jewish writings down to his time, but he did not regard them as having equal authority with the canonical works. So the Apocrypha were never received by the Jews as God-given Scripture.
-
Unbiblical If Not Heretical
Not only did the early church father rejected the apocrypha as part of the canonical books, it in itself contains unbiblical and/or heretical accounts. They are not included in the original Hebrew OT preserved by the Jews. In Romans 3:12 states that God used the Jews to preserve his Word and therefore guided to reject the apocryphal from the canon of Scripture. They do not claim to be the inspired Word of God because the apocryphal books contain no statements such as, “Thus saith the LORD,” or “these are the words of God.” This is unlike the inspired Scripture that firmly affirms its divine origin (2 Tim 3:16) of the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible. Dr. David Cloud tells us why the apocryphal books are heretical and said,
| “They contain teachings contrary to the biblical books. II Maccabees teaches praying to the dead and making offerings to atone for the sins of the dead. Consider this qoute from II Maccabees 12:43-45: “He also took up a collection…and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering…For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen asleep would arise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead…Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” The Bible, though, says there is only one mediator between God and men, the Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5-6). Also He. 10:10-14 says believers have been perfected forever through Christ’s one sacrifice. Thus, the dead in Christ need no human, earthly prayers or offerings. At death the lost go immediately to a place of torment: thus there is no purpose in praying for them (Lk. 16:22-23)” [Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity, Edited by David W. Cloud, Way of Life Literature, p.31] |
Is The Bible Sexist?
By L. R. R.
One among many false allegation against the Scripture is that it is oppressive, and sexist. This particular criticism against the Bible comes from people who are biblically illiterate.
Not only that they are illiterate they are also hyper-biased if not prejudiced. Think about this, how many of these critics in our local media, radio stations, magazines or newspaper had a time to look at the Scripture lately? Yet these people are very critical and anti-Christian in there attitude toward the Bible and Christianity. Let us now look closer and examine this false allegation against the Scripture.
Critics of the Scriptures tells us that the Bible we read is sexist and therefore demean women and makes them into a second class citizen. I do agree that much in our society is indeed sexist and this is also true in our Christian churches and that portions of scripture have been used to perpetuate sexism, the Bible does not condone discrimination in any manner.
Introduction
In the Old Testament women share the image of God at creation (Genesis 1:27). At the second coming of Jesus, the Church is represented as the bride of Christ (Rev. 19:7).
The Church or body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the “bride” of Christ and God is said to be our “husband.” Whenever referred to by sex, the Church is described as “she” or “her.”
In addition, the Greek word for church is a feminine noun. From beginning to end, the Bible includes the feminine as an integral part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
Created In The Image of Jehovah
Most of us, well at least those who have studied their Bible properly know that both man and women are created in God’s image. Both males and females are created in the image of God.
When the Bible reads “man,” that word is sometimes used in reference to “mankind” or to the “human species.” To substantiate this is Genesis 1:27:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
What this passage tells us is that man and woman both created in God’s image and this of course mean that the sexual traits of these two enclosed and that the physical sexual differences between the sexes are not significant characteristics in terms of how mankind was created in the image of God.
In Galatians 3:28 the scriptures explicitly state that women hold a position of equal value and importance to men: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Women In Both the New and Old Testament
Throughout the Bible there are numerous positive images of women. And unlike what our Bible-bashing society tells us about the Bible being sexist this is not true to women in the OT.
The women described in the Bible are not always homemakers and mommies. Look at Deborah for instance. She was both a judge and leader of Israel. Other women were involved in ridding Israel of her enemies.
Quite a number of women are described as being prophetesses. (Exo. 15:20) Other women in the Bible were involved in teaching the Word of God (Acts 18:26) or serving as deaconesses in the early Christian church. (Romans 16:6;16:12). There are other characters in the Old Testament that has a significant role in the Scripture such as:
Hannah’s life centered on her family (I Samuel 1-2)
Miriam excelled as a prophetess (Exodus 15:20)
Esther successfully led her people through intriguing political conspiracies (Esther 4-7)
Naomi and Ruth sold real estate (Ruth 4:3-9)
Women aided in the defense of Thebez
An woman turned the tide of that battle against the wicked aggressor, Abimelech (Judges 9:50-55)
The first European convert to Christianity, Lydia of Thyatira, was a “seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God” (Acts 16:14).
Jesus and Womens Role
Amy Orr-Ewing wrote concerning Jesus and Women;
“Not only does Jesus act in a counter-cultural manner that affirms the feminine, His teachings include female imagery. For example, the parable of mending the garment, an everyday image from the female sphere, is coupled with the parable of making the wine, an everyday image from the male sphere (Luke 5.36-39). In Luke 15, Jesus follows a parable about a shepherd searching for a lost sheep with one about a woman searching for a lost coin. God is depicted as a woman down on her hands and knees, searching through her house for a coin!”
When we look at how Jesus treated women, we discover the difference between the way God wants men to treat women and the way they were treated by men in societies. The woman at the well is a prime example.
The disciples come across Jesus during His conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well, and we are told they ?were surprised to find Him talking with a woman.’ (John 4:27) Jesus goes against these cultural trends time and time again.
Besides talking to female strangers, He has female disciples. In a culture where the idea of women travelling around with a group of men or having the status of disciple was seriously questionable, Jesus has a number of women who are included in His circle who contributed financially to the needs of the group.
Miscellaneous Objections
Other objections such as, “The Bible was created by men, to control, and have power over women and society.” This statement is of course false. It has not been documented and no data to support the above statement and therefore it is nothing but pure speculation. Unless one find a solid proof to support the claim then the burden of proof is on their side. Besides, speculation is not enough to discredit the authenticity of the Scripture.
Another false and misunderstood idea is that the Bible allegedly indicates that women are to be blame because Eve took the serpents lie and therefore the “whole world is curse thanks to her!”
Again, this is misapplied and misunderstanding. Nowhere in the Scripture blamed any specific woman for bringing us into this disaster that we’re in rightnow. The worlds agony, pain, suffering and death were not cause because a single, particular woman named Eve ate the “forbidden fruit.” This is an outright lie.
The Scripture tells us in the New Testament in praticular, that it was by a ‘man’ that did this curse upon us. Infact the apostle Paul wrote about this in Romans 5:19;
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
The verse is very simple and plain. No woman in particular is being mentioned to have caused the curse. It is not by a woman but by one man that many were made sinners and destined to die.
Besides, it was’nt women who were viewed as gruesome, and even cruel characters in the Scriptures. Men were not exactly viewed as saints (murderer, liar, cheater, adulterer, disloyal, womanizer, idolater, self-righteous etc,) not even those whom God chooses.
The other classical argument against the Bible of being sexist is that God created Eve as a mere “helper” to Adam. So God made a woman as a “helper suitable for him.” Some would say that making woman as a “helper” is sexist if not demeaning. But of course “helper” in the mind of Bible-basher means a slave, servant or low status. Actually, “helper” ought not to be interpreted as slave or servant, especially in Genesis 2. The Hebrew word, ezer derived from the verb azar which means “other” or “helper” also refers to one who saves or delivers.
Most of the objection against the Bible as being sexist has been refuted long time ago but they seem to pop up when the time is convenien as if these myth were enough to dismantle the Scripture. Well, some myth never dies.
Who Wrote The Bible?
By L. R. R
The Bible is a special revelation to mankind. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read, “For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” This verse in particular tells us that prophets were Spirit-moved writers. King David in 2 Samel 23:2 similarly say’s, ” The Spirit of the Lord spoke through me; His word was on my tongue.”
The whole Bible from Old to New Testament was written by prophets, physicians and apostles of Yahweh. Their insperation or source was God and God used these prophets and apostles to write and record his words. To sum this very short article, though the Bible was written by men it nevertheless, originated from God.
