Every now and then I take my van to WalMart for an oil change. I generally try to make these appointments for as early in the morning as possible, for early in the morning, I very nearly have the place to myself. A little while ago I brought the car in and then spent the next hour wandering from one end of the store to the other, just marvelling at the incredible variety of products on the shelves. There is part of me that despises WalMart, but another part that admires a store that can offer so much at consistently good prices. WalMart is one of the most clear statements you can find about North American consumerism and the insatiable desire to have more for less.
As I wandered I came across the electronics section where they sell (obviously) electronics but also video games, DVDs and so on. One DVD in particular caught my eye. I do not remember the title, but right below the title were the words “bringing the Bible to life.” I picked it up, took a quick look, and tossed it back on the shelf. I still don’t really know what it was. I suspect it was a DVD-based multimedia experience that was intended to help bring the Bible to life. It made me think of a ministry I saw not too long ago, and their description was almost exactly the same: “bringing the word of God to life.” And just this weekend I watched a DVD, and quite a good one at that, that claims it will “make the Bible come alive” as it leads the viewer through the ancient lands where the biblical drama unfolded.
I understand what is being suggested in these statements, but the fact is that the Bible doesn’t need us to bring it to life. If the Bible depended on us to bring it to life I would want no part of it for it would indicate that the Bible was all too human a book.
Do you remember that rather awful movie Titanic? What was it that made the movie so exceedingly popular? When the movie released I was working next door to a brand new, state-of-the-art theatre that showed Titanic all day and all night. I saw all sorts of people come into the store after seeing the movie. Many had red eyes and some even continued to sob as they walked around and tried to compose themselves. I was amazed at how that movie caused so many people to openly weep. But I digress. What made the movie so popular? What gave it the ability to make grown men cry? I think a large part was that it brought history to life. Everyone who remembers what happened on the Titanic is dead. In fact, just a few days ago the final survivor, who was only a small child at the time, died. The events of that day had long-since been relegated to the history books when James Cameron decided to make the film and bring that small piece of history to life. We all got to see what the Titanic looked like, got to meet some of the people who were on it and got a glimpse of life in that day. In that regard it was fascinating. In that regard the filmmaker made something that was dead to us come to life, even if the life was only three hours long. Once he brought history to life, it allowed us to become emotionally engaged with the characters so that their joy became our joy and their pain became our pain. We were drawn in by the realism of the history the film displayed—a history that had been dead to us.
History is like that, isn’t it? History is dead. History books are dead. They may be interesting and can provide all sorts of great information, but they’re dead. But not so the Bible.
The Bible says of itself “the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12) From that passage, do we see God telling us to bring life to His word? Is it our task to take the dead words of the Bible and make them alive, to make them more interesting or to make them more appealing? Clearly not! Jesus tells us that “the words I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63) How can we bring life to something that is already alive? And why would we want to replace Scripture’s immortal life with the mortal life we experience on earth. Imagine perverting God’s perfect word with our imperfection!
I understand the intent of the people who seek to make the Bible come alive. On the whole I believe that their intentions are pure but their wording is imprecise. In most cases I would suggest that these people are attempting to “bring the history of the Bible to life” or to “bring the setting of the Bible to life.” This is a far different task than bringing the actual Scripture to life. It is a far more noble task. The Bible is, after all, a historical document that was written within particular places and within particular cultural contexts. It may be helpful, at times, to bring to life some glimpses of the culture, customs and history of the Bible. This is what the Paul: Apostle of Grace DVD sought to do, even under the poor wording on the video’s cover. This is what many godly pastors do when they study the ancient people and describe them to their congregations.
I would urge people to guard their words when they speak about bringing the Bible to life. Imprecise wording can bring confusion and can cause people to believe that the Bible, like any other historical book, is mere dead wording that requires human effort to bring it to life. But this is not the case.
We can bring history to life. We can bring culture and ceremony and customs to life by illustrating them, filming them or re-enacting them. But not so the Bible. Will you try to bring life to God’s word? You will fail. You must fail, for the word is alive before you even begin to breathe your life into it. Do not try to bring life to the word. Bring the word. That is enough.
Comments (34) »
1. Logan Mauldin
May 15, 2006
10:56 AM
Tim,
Great point. So often we try through our striving to “bring the Bible to life” but in doing this we are obfuscating the message further. The Bible is alive already it simply needs to be unleashed. The Holy spirit moves greatly through the clear presentation of the word of God, not through our attempts to make the Bible more relevant or exciting.
Logan
2. Kim from Hiraeth
May 15, 2006
11:18 AM
That was an amazingly relevent post, Tim. One of those “I wish I’d said that!” moments.
Excellent.
3. Wendy West
May 15, 2006
11:34 AM
Tim:
Amen and amen. Truer words couldn’t have been spoken. God has gifted you with an ability to articulate truth in a penetrating way. I praise Him for that.
4. Chris Bruynzeel
May 15, 2006
12:34 PM
Hi Tim
I really appreciate your insight & challenge to saying “make the Bible come alive”! I admit I have said that when referring, for instance, my visits to Israel. Seeing the land, where our history played out & we study so intently… well, in my enthusiasm, I have used that phrase - however, intending to convey “adding insight and/or an almost tangible feeling” - it’s hard to explain… but the point is, you are correct and I appreciate your exhortation!
The Bible is alive and I will be very careful not to use that expression. Your article has made me realize that I am undermining my own, consistent message to the people I minister to - that the Bible is our bread, our daily need and we can understand it as we have it - if we will make the effort to dig in ourselves & pursue its meaning & long for God to open our eyes as we study.
Long way to say “well done!”
your brother
chris
5. wfseube
May 15, 2006
1:12 PM
You and iMonk must be on the same general wavelength today: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/how-much-is-too-much
Make sure to visit the web page he links to in his article, which discusses the merits of a “fire engine baptistry” - done to “capture the attention of today’s children”, in the words of the former children’s pastor at that church.
Why do we have to “bring things to life” when the Scripture can do a very capable job of it all by itself?
——
bill
6. Jonathan Erdman
May 15, 2006
1:17 PM
I would have to add a dissenting voice here.
Tim said…
In most cases I would suggest that these people are attempting to “bring the history of the Bible to life” or to “bring the setting of the Bible to life.” This is a far different task than bringing the actual Scripture to life.
The thing about this comment is that it is hard to see what the difference is between bringing the history of the Bible to life and bringing the Bible to life. After all, the Bible (in many cases) is
history.
Tim also said….
If the Bible depended on us to bring it to life I would want no part of it for it would indicate that the Bible was all too human a book.
Again I disagree here. Doesn’t the Word, itself, give us an indication that there are those who are blind to its truth and those whose eyes are open? Hence, for those whose eyes are closed there is no life in the Bible. In fact, it may be the “scent of death” - the opposite of life. The Bible is only alive for those who can connect with it. And, as far as the humanity of the Word, let’s be careful not to deny the human side of inspiration.
Thirdly, I’m curious why this is such a big deal to you. Why does the word have to exist as “alive”? Both of the Scriptures you quoted (Heb. 4 and John 6) only apply to people who are receptive to the Word. Is the word “spirit and life” to those who are in darkness? Is the word “spirit and life” for those who will suffer condemnation in hell? Obviously the answer is “no.” Just curious as to what point you’re trying to drive home here, b/c I’m not sure I see the significance.
7. Jason
May 15, 2006
1:27 PM
Conrta Jonathan, there does need to be a proper distinction between the cultures and customs of Bible times and the Bible itself as the living Word of God, even though the point is well received (namely that much of the Bible is history).
Certainly a balance needs to be struck here.
8. Scott
May 15, 2006
2:05 PM
Yes! Words have meaning. People must mean what they say and say what they mean. Even if you say, “Bring the Bible to life” and know exactly what you are talking about; someone else might get a totally different idea.
9. David
May 15, 2006
2:14 PM
In response to Jonathan and Jason, the distinction that Tim was making seems pretty clear to me. He explained what he meant when he mentioned the intentions of some as being to “bring the history of the bible ot life” or “bringing the setting of the bible to life” by noting how most of us are uneducated concerning the historical context in which the various portions of the bible were written. Jonathan was right in stating that the bible is history, but it seems like he missed Tim’s point completely, perhaps by failing to see a sentence or two in context.
Furtheremore, rather than saying that the bible itself is dead to the unregenerate (as Jonathan said) and that the passages discussing the living nature of God’s word only apply to believers, it would be more accurate to point out the fact that it’s really the unregenerate who are dead and blind to the life of the Word. Jonathan unconsciously made this point himself when he said that there are those who see and those who are blind. This points to a problem with unbelievers’ hearts, not the life of the word. It seems a bit silly to say that the word is both full of life and full of death at the same time, depending on who is reading it/hearing it. The only reason any of us became believers to begin with is because the verses Tim quoted applied to us before we made confessions of faith, that is, at the moment our hardened hearts were converted. Romans 10:17 reads: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” The word of Christ is alive all the time. The life in the word (the life of Jesus himself, who is the word according to John 1) imparts life to the unregenerate when the Holy Spirit applies it to their hearts. We also know that his “word does not return void.” So the problem with unbelievers is not a lifelesness in the word, rather a lifelesness in their own hearts that has to be shattered by the Holy Spirit bringing the word’s life to them.
Anyway, great post Tim! I think your distinctions were plenty clear. The bible is a historical document, and we can bring the historical context in which it was written to life. However, there are those today who, with good yet misdirected, are attempting to do what only the Holy Spirit can do, namely to bring the heart-changing life of the word to unbelievers’ hearts. No worldly modifications to the bible are going to make it happen any easier. We must be faithful to the preaching of the word and let the Spirit do the rest.
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
10. Jonathan Erdman
May 15, 2006
2:45 PM
Clarifying my question about the history of the biblical text….
My question, to state it again, is this:
How can we separate the history of the biblical text from the Bible itself???
The Bible contains clear historical narrative, i.e. the majority of the Old Testament. When we undergo historical and cultural study about the history that the Bible is discussing then we are bringing to life the historical narrative. And yet, the Bible, in this case is the historical narrative. The conclusion I make is that when we bring the historical narrative to life then we are bringing the Bible to life.
The burden of proof then falls back on Tim Challies and his disciples to explain how we can bring the biblical narrative to life and yet we are not bringing the Bible to life. I’m just not convinced that we can separate the Word and history in the Word. In fact, is it healthy to separate the history of the Bible from the Bible itself? Isn’t this what many Liberals did in the past when they talked about how the Bible is a spiritual book, but is not historical??
11. Jeremy Klein
May 15, 2006
2:58 PM
Just a side comment re WalMart: I am mildly distressed when I hear someone ‘diss’ WalMart, probably becaue most of the dissing is coming from the hard left (don’t throw anything; I know Tim’s not hard left, and I know he must not totally despise WalMart since he shops there!).
I don’t pretend to know about it’s corporate ethics, decision-making, etc, and I strongly suspect that most of those who claim to do so are no more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. What I DO know is that WalMart often provides me and my family with what we want to buy with a winning combination of availability and price. There is NOTHING wrong with this. This is free enterprise, and I’m given to understand that the Reformers understood that as Biblically based. If I ran WalMart would I stock everything they do? No. Would I do things differently? Yes. Is it possible for a store to go so far astray that I won’t patronize it? Yes, but WalMart would have a long way to go before I would do that.
Doc
12. deborah
May 15, 2006
3:01 PM
Tim, you have made an excellent point. I have to admit that I have not thought about it that way. Like Chris, I have used that phrase when a certain presentation of the gospel caused the words to have a greater impact on me, or gave me a different understanding of a Bible passage. Mistakes are easy to make, but we really should strive for accuracy in what we say. I will be more careful in the future.
FYI, as a historian with an interest in Titanic trivia, the last American survivor, Lillian Asplund, died a week ago. She was also the last survior with actual memories of the sinking. She was not, however the last living survior, both Barbara Dainton and Elizabeth Dean are alive, and in England.
13. wfseube
May 15, 2006
3:03 PM
Jeremy, you might want to go back and read the review that Tim did on “The Bully of Bentonville” back in March:
http://www.challies.com/archives/001753.php
Quite a discussion entailed, and I’m sure most of what you’ve mentioned was discussed there…
——
bill
14. pr
May 15, 2006
3:21 PM
Great post. Thanks for showing how mundane things, like oil changes, can glorify God and cause eternal reflection.
15. Kim T
May 15, 2006
7:08 PM
Good musings Tim. A blessing to me and many others. It is so easy to slip, with no disrespectful intent at all, and devalue the divine.
16. 4ever4given
May 15, 2006
9:54 PM
Yes, the Lord can be reflected upon and glorified in the midst of the mundane… like even in wiping poopy diapers and runny noses, scrubbing dishes, and folding endless laundry… taking the mundane as an opportunity to pray, to worship, to memorize scripture.
God is the essence of ALL that is good, to be served and adored, no matter where we are… Wal-Mart, for example.
I remember going to college with and working with an older man from China. He came to America to get a degree. Left his family behind, yet, always working to get them to America with him. He knew little English, but graduated with honors. His daughter came after him to also graduate from college… and then he brought his wife. His wife, (GREAT COOK!!!)… her first experience with Wal-Mart, I will never forgett… she was so overwhelmed with all the choices she had to leave. She said it was easier in China where there was basically one brand, few choices. How often do I take that for granted? How often do I take my Lord and what He has done for me for granted? Dare I say, more than I wish to admit.
17. Mike
May 15, 2006
9:54 PM
I scanned the comments and don’t believe I’m repeating anything that’s been said previously, although I do think I’m elaborating on and clarifying something Logan alluded to in the first comment.
We need to be careful not to ascribe aseity to the written word: it does not have life in itself, something possessed only by God, but rather has an imputed life. The Holy Spirit gives life to the word: if there were no Holy Spirit in the world - i.e., if deism were the nature of reality - then the Bible would not have life.
The Bible is a divine book and is living, but it lives only because of the work of the Holy Spirit. He makes the Bible come alive, not us and not the Bible itself. This, I think, is the biblical teaching and makes most of the objections and/or problems moot.
Of course, I could be wrong … but you’d have to show me biblically where I’m off-base.
18. Jim Crigler
May 15, 2006
10:06 PM
Tim, you’re right, the “bring the Bible to life” wording is sloppy (if goodhearted) at best. It would be somewhat less sloppy (though some slop still remains) to say the Bible (the gospel preached) brings us to life. David said something just like that above, though with more precision and more words.
19. donsands
May 15, 2006
10:44 PM
Excellent. The Word of God is the Treasure of all treasure’s. We need not enhance it. Of course, Jesus Christ Himself is the truest Treasure, but He is the Word as well.
20. Brian Thornton
May 15, 2006
11:09 PM
the written word: it does not have life in itself, something possessed only by God, but rather has an imputed life…Of course, I could be wrong … but you’d have to show me biblically where I’m off-base.
Mike,
Three thoughts on your comments - from Scripture - that may show the Bible has life in and of itself, rather than “imputed” life, as you put it:
1. John 1:1, 14 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God…and the Word became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us…
-What else is John doing here but ascribing life to the logos? Yes, here it is clear that the ‘Word’ is Christ…but why describe Him as the ‘Word’?
2. Gal. 3:8 - ‘The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.”’
-In this passage, Paul talks about the Scripture as if it is a living, breathing thing.
3. Heb. 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
I think these are three examples that may show how Scripture does not have imputed life…but is life ITSELF.
Thoughts, anyone???
21. Mike
May 15, 2006
11:19 PM
Brian:
1. Jesus is not a text but a Person: we must distinguish between the Word (Jesus Christ) and the word (which is the spoken (first) and written (second) account of Him and all of God’s doing..
2. In adducing Gal 3.8, the key phrase is “as if.” It is not a “living, breathing thing” unless you are reading it in a wooden literalistic manner. Eisogesis might get you to your conclusion, but not exegesis.
3. Yes, it is living, but Heb 4 does not say what the origin or source of this life is. I am living an active, too: does that mean I possess aseity? Hardly.
Sorry, still not persuaded otherwise. The Godhead is triune, not quadune.
22. Brian Thornton
May 15, 2006
11:47 PM
Mike…WHY was Jesus called the “Word”…the logos?
God the Father is not living and breathing either. He is a spirit, and does not have a body like men (as also with God the Spirit). SO, is it also, concerning the Father and Spirit, AS IF They are living because They are not actually living and breathing as we?
You do not have “aseity” since you live and move and have your being because of the Father.
Has not the Scripture ALWAYS existed? In the beginning was the Word???
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you completely (or maybe I am…who knows), just trying to get you to flesh out your position.
23. Mitch
May 16, 2006
7:34 AM
As a pastor, each week I am reminded that the effectiveness of any sermon is dependant upon how much of the living Word goes forth rather than my commentary upon it. As the Puritan’s prayed, “I am desired to preach today, but go weak and needy to the task; Yet I long that people might be edified with divine truth, that an honest testimony might be borne for Thee…help me not to treat excellent matter in a defective way, or bear a broken testimony to so worthy a Redeemer.”
24. Wendy West
May 16, 2006
7:56 AM
Mike:
If God “breathed out” His Word does that not give it life in and of itself? How or when does the Holy Spirit “impute” life to it? The Holy Spirit “imputes” the righteousness of Christ to the elect at the time of faith but when does He “impute” life to the Word? As Brian pointed out Jesus is called the Word of God. Jesus is eternal and never without “life”
God is the source of the Word. You said that Hebrews 4 didn’t give its origin. II Timothy 3:16-17 says that all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. Scripture is living because God gives it life. It is “breathed out by God.” Therefore, it is alive. It doesn’t need “imputed” life given to it by the Holy Spirit at some later time or in some later way does it?
25. Jonathan Erdman
May 16, 2006
9:15 AM
The fact that the written Word was “breathed” and “inspired” of God means that everything written was (and is) exactly as God intended it…..but the text is still a text: it is ink and paper. How is ink/paper “alive”?
Well, you could answer the above question by saying that it is not the ink/paper but the truth of the message that is alive. Fair enough. I agree with this in theory. But it is still very, very vague. For example, is the message alive because of its effectiveness? Is it alive because of what it does to people? The problem with this theory is that for some the message of the written Word will do nothing. This is certainly the fault of that person, but it nonetheless puts a wrinkle in the theory that the message of the Word is alive because of what it does….For some it does nothing and so it is not alive….
I think we could all probably agree, however, that it is not the ink and paper that gives life, but a connection with the God who gave us the ink/paper. Without the Living Word the Written Word is just text.
26. Brian Thornton
May 16, 2006
9:59 AM
For some it does nothing and so it is not alive….
Jonathon, I would disagree with this comment in that, the Word IS alive both to those who receive it and to those who do not.
1. To those who receive it…it is the power of God unto salvation…For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. - 1 Cor. 1:18
2. To those who do not…it is to their shame and condemnation…For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.” - 1 Cor. 1:19
I guess the question is…does this apply ONLY to the spoken word of the cross…or also to the written word of the cross?
In any case, it NEVER does nothing…it ALWAYS does something…whether saving or condemning…it is ALWAYS alive.
27. Mike
May 16, 2006
11:16 AM
Wendy:
“Aseity” means to be the origin of one’s own life; hence, only God possesses this attribute. The “life” of the Bible is from God; it is given by Him in the same way our righteousness is imputed to us. Life and perfect righteousness are bestowed but remain the sole possessions of God.
Brian:
Think through the implications of the Bible having a life that is not derived from God, i.e., a Bible that is not dependent on God for its power and life. The conclusions are neither orthodox nor unacceptable.
28. Brian Thornton
May 16, 2006
11:35 AM
Think through the implications of the Bible having a life that is not derived from God, i.e., a Bible that is not dependent on God for its power and life. The conclusions are neither orthodox nor unacceptable.
Mike,
I have not said the Bible has life not derived from God…neither have I said that the Bible is not dependent on God for its power and life. You, I believe, are separating Scripture from God…I am looking at it as if Scripture IS God…”And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”
I still have not seen any comments on why Jesus is called the “Word”.
In the beginning God (Gen. 1:1)…In the beginning was the Word (John 1:1).
What is the significance of calling Christ the “Word”, and saying that the Word was in the beginning?
I feel like that sometimes I have to place a caveat in my remarks, a disclaimer…my questions may - OR MAY NOT - reveal what I actually believe. Sometimes I am asking questions to get others to support their remarks and see the end of their conclusions about something…
29. Wendy West
May 16, 2006
11:42 AM
Mike:
Can you then tell me when the Bible becomes alive? I agree that life is FROM God. When He breathed life into Adam, Adam became alive. Christ breathed on the disciples and gave them life. God breathed out the Word and gave it life. So has the Word died in some sense? How can you argue that the Word doesn’t have life until the Holy Spirit imputes life to it? Again, when and how does that occur.
Brian is correct in that the Bible always does something—it either brings death to those who reject it or life to those who embrace it. To say that someone is not impacted by it means it is dead isn’t true. The Word doesn’t return void—God uses it to harden, quicken, convict, chasten, sanctify, etc. but it is never dead.
30. Jonathan Erdman
May 16, 2006
1:12 PM
Brian said…
1. To those who receive it…it is the power of God unto salvation…For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. - 1 Cor. 1:18
2. To those who do not…it is to their shame and condemnation…For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.” - 1 Cor. 1:19
Brian, I may be wrong here but it seems like you are just throwing verses around without really thinking through why you are using them. I’m sorry to sound harsh here, but the verses you cited do nothing to undermine my point. To say the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing goes to my point that the written word has no effectiveness for those who do not believe. It is simply text. It is not living.
Few in these comments seem to really have taken the time to think through what it means for the “Word” to be “alive.” Instead they have quoted Scriptures that have no bearing on the issue. What do we mean by “Word”? Are we speaking of text, message, God himself??? And what about “alive”? Is this the effectiveness of the word?
This is a great topic, by the way. Just wish people would take some time to think about what they mean by the Word being alive. There is most definately a sense in which the “aliveness” of hte word depends upon the recipient both in the way it is received and in the study of the historical context to make the text more emphatic, real, relevant, and alive.
I appreciate, but disagree with Tim’s point in this post.
31. Brian Thornton
May 16, 2006
4:00 PM
Brian, I may be wrong here but it seems like you are just throwing verses around without really thinking through why you are using them.
Yes, Jonathan…you are wrong. You did not address any of my other comments on the post you quoted these verses from. These verses were to show how the word of truth DOES have an effect, both on those who believe and those who do not.
I was replying to your comment that the Scriptures…as you say it…”For some it [the Scriptures] does nothing and so it is not alive….”
I said, “In any case, it[the Word] NEVER does nothing…it ALWAYS does something…whether saving or condemning…it is ALWAYS alive.”
Your position is that Scripture does NOTHING, except to those who believe.
My question to you then, is this…How is one condemned before a holy and righteous and just God? Wouldn’t you agree that it is through the Law? So, isn’t it safe to say that the Word (at least the Law) DOES have an effect on all human beings? Awareness of transgression comes through the Law. Now, I could cite the verse for you, but I wouldn’t want to hit anyone with these verses I’m “throwing” around…
In the future, may I recommend addressing the issue being discussed and the questions asked rather than accusing others of not knowing what they are doing. While I very well may NOT know what I am doing…I would prefer you show that through addressing the topic rather than addressing me and my ability (or lack thereof) to coherently back up my argument.
Thanks.
32. Jonathan Erdman
May 17, 2006
2:41 PM
Fair enough, Brian! It does, indeed, seem that I missed your point.
You do make a good comment about the Law condemning. And the Law condemns regardless of what the unbeliever believes. However, the Law is only a portion of the whole Scripture. So, I’m wondering how the rest of the Word (the book of Esther, for example or the Song of Songs) is “alive” for people to whom it has no effect. If the Word is “foolishness” to someone, then it does not seem to be alive for that person.
And what about portions of the Mosaic Law that are no longer applicaple, i.e. laws about mold or Levirite Marriage? These laws clearly applied to only the Israelites. How, exactly, are these laws alive? I’m curious about this point…
33. Brian Thornton
May 17, 2006
5:06 PM
So, I’m wondering how the rest of the Word (the book of Esther, for example or the Song of Songs) is “alive” for people to whom it has no effect.
Jonathan,
Your questions about parts of Scripture other than the Law are good ones, I think. I guess that I would suggest the whole of Scripture - since I believe that ALL of God’s Word reveals the one redemptive plan for God’s people - is, ultimately, just as condemning to the unbeliever as the Law is. My justification for that is this: Jesus is the Word - The Word is Truth - the Truth is to the Gentiles foolishness, and to the Jews a stumbling block.
That may be stretching it, I know. So, I can’t be dogmatic about it. But, I do still believe that the whole of Scripture condemns the unrighteous.
Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the law and the Prophets, and the embodiment of the written Word, will stand as judge on THAT day…and on that day, EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…regardless of whether they are one of His elect of one of the reprobate.
So, I would put forth that Scripture, like Christ, is alive both to the condemned and the saved.
34. Milton Stanley
May 21, 2006
5:46 PM
Manual trackback:
Tim Challies recently used quite a number of words to remind us to be more careful about how we use a very few. To wit: how can we possibly “bring the Bible to life” when it’s already living and active?