I love language and the English language in particular. While I have always enjoyed using words and studying language, I found that my love of English was forged during the time I spent studying other languages, primarily those from which English is derived—Latin, Greek, and to some extent, French. I also studied linguistics and, of course, the English language itself. I came to love understanding how people use words to craft ideas. There is a good reason that people continue to study Shakespeare in high school despite increasingly antiquated language. Shakespeare was a master of the language, a master word crafter, and it benefits anyone to learn from his example. The same is true of Dickens or any other number of authors. What I learned is that words are important. Who would want to read a modern translation of Shakespeare? We would be left with nothing but a second-rate story. And an author's words are important. That may come as no great surprise and may even seem obvious, but the translators of dynamic equivalent translations would have to disagree, at least somewhat, as their translation philosophy proves that they feel ideas are more important than words.

Whenever I take the time to read the Bible slowly and meditatively, and this is particularly true of reading the Old Testament, I am struck by the beauty of the language as it is translated in the English Standard Version, my translation of choice. While I do not know how to read Hebrew, I often hear people speak of the poetic nature of the language which leads even the prose to have poetic qualities. It seems to me that the ESV does an admirable job of capturing that. The same cannot be said of all Bible translations. I have come to love the little literary devices, the metaphors and phrases used by the ancient writers and find that they add so much to the reading of the text. Without a translation that accurately rendered these sayings we would lose so much of the flow and meaning of the text.

There is so much beauty in the prose of the Old Testament and I am thankful to have access to a translation (and to several translations, really) that accurately renders the metaphors and phrases used by the original authors. Let me provide you with a few examples. I am going to use the ESV as my standard essentially-literal translation. I do this not necessary to indicate that it is superior to the others within the category, but simply because it is the translation I use for my devotional and study work.

Let's begin with 1 Kings 2:2 where King David gives his final wishes to his son Solomon. The ESV renders this "I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, and show yourself a man." The other essentially literal translations agree with this translation as the NASB, KJV and NKJV are all very similar. There are two constructs here that I feel are essential to the text. "I am about to go the way of all the earth," and "show yourself a man." Let's see how several other common translations render this particular verse:

• "I am about to go the way of all the earth," he said. "So be strong, show yourself a man." (NIV)
• "I am going where everyone on earth must someday go. Take courage and be a man." (NLT)
• "My son, I will soon die, as everyone must. But I want you to be strong and brave." (CEV)
• "I'm about to go the way of all the earth, but you--be strong; show what you're made of!" (Message)

As we see, the NIV renders the verse in a way that is consistent with the original text. The NLT deviates a little bit, expanding the meaning of "the way of all the earth" to "where everyone on earth must someday go." It also says, "be a man" rather than "show yourself a man." The CEV further interprets the verse, removing any sort of literary device in both parts. The Message does a little better, maintaining the first half of the verse but removing the "show yourself a man."

What is lost in the NLT and the CEV is the metaphor "the way of all the earth." It is an important term, beautifully poetic, and surely one that is worth some time in meditation. There is a depth of meaning to that phrase that is clearly missing in words like "I will soon die, as everyone must." Readers of the NLT and CEV have no access to this phrase and miss out on the wonderful opportunity to meditate upon it and learn from it.

Another example comes only one verse later. 1 Kings 2:3 continues David's instruction to his son. David exhorts Solomon to follow God and "walk in His ways." The ESV translates the verse as "…and keep the charge of the LORD your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn." Let's see how other translations render "walking in his ways."

• “…and observe what the LORD your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go,” (NIV)
• “Observe the requirements of the LORD your God and follow all his ways. Keep each of the laws, commands, regulations, and stipulations written in the law of Moses so that you will be successful in all you do and wherever you go.” (NLT)
• “Do what the LORD your God commands and follow his teachings. Obey everything written in the Law of Moses. Then you will be a success, no matter what you do or where you go.” (CEV)
• “Do what GOD tells you. Walk in the paths he shows you: Follow the life-map absolutely, keep an eye out for the signposts, his course for life set out in the revelation to Moses; then you'll get on well in whatever you do and wherever you go.” (Message)

The term "Walking in his ways" is a wonderful metaphor for living a life that honors God. We seek to emulate Him by following carefully in the footsteps of God. I am reminded of a song by the Smalltown Poets, "Call me Christian," where they sing, "As a boy I'd put my steps / In my brother's bigger tracks / To match his stride / And just like that I follow Jesus / Jesus is my guide." That type of imagery is absent from the New Living Translation as well as the CEV. The Message is quite close and the NIV is, once again, accurate.

Moving along we come to 1 Kings 2:9. David asks Solomon to exact revenge against Shimei, a man who had cursed David. "Now therefore do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man. You will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol." The metaphorical phrase here is "bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol." Again, this is a wonderfully descriptive phrase that has more meaning than simply "kill." Yet several translations provide only this meaning.

• “But now, do not consider him innocent. You are a man of wisdom; you will know what to do to him. Bring his gray head down to the grave in blood." (NIV)
• “But that oath does not make him innocent. You are a wise man, and you will know how to arrange a bloody death for him." (NLT)
• “Now you must punish him. He's an old man, but you're wise enough to know that you must have him killed. (CEV)
• “But neither should you treat him as if nothing ever happened. You're wise, you know how to handle these things. You'll know what to do to make him pay before he dies." (Message)

The NIV does a good job, only changing Sheol to grave. The NLT writes about a bloody death. This seems to miss the point for the verse is not primarily concerned with the mode of death, but with the reason for the death. The Message misses the mark altogether. Neither the NLT, the CEV or the Message see fit to render the word "grey" or "hoary" (as the King James renders it). Is that not a word God placed in the text? Is it not an important word? I do not understand why they would knowingly remove a word God saw fit to include.

One of the most beautiful and oft-repeated phrases in the Old Testament is found in 1 Kings 2:10. "Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David." Several essentially literal translations render "slept" as "rested" but the meaning remains the same. The Bible Knowledge Commentary says of this verse, "The picturesque phrase rested with his fathers beautifully describes David's death and suggests that his activity did not cease forever. Indeed, the bodies of all believers who die simply 'rest' until they are resurrected to live with God and serve Him eternally." David entered a temporary rest as he, along with the rest of Creation, awaits the final consummation. Here is how other translations render that verse:

• “Then David rested with his fathers and was buried in the City of David.” (NIV)
• “Then David died and was buried in the City of David.” (NLT)
• “David was king of Israel forty years. He ruled seven years from Hebron and thirty-three years from Jerusalem. Then he died and was buried in Jerusalem.” (CEV - combines verses 10-11)
• “Then David joined his ancestors. He was buried in the City of David.” (Message)

The NIV remains consistent with the text. The NLT and CEV say simply that David died. The Message extends the verse by saying that David joined his ancestors, something that is a bit of a stretch but at least somewhat true to the meaning of the verse. The NLT and CEV do not allow their readers to see the beauty of "resting with his fathers." Instead, David simply died. What a tragic loss! Readers of these translations will not see any hope beyond the grave. They will not know that David has gone to be with his fathers and that he is merely resting. Once more, are these not words that God deliberately placed in the text? Should readers not have access to them?

In 1 Kings 2:12 Solomon has assumed his father's throne. In fact, according to an essentially literal translation, "Solomon sat on the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was firmly established." While the meaning of the phrase "sat on the throne of David his father" is clear, meaning that Solomon succeeded his father as ruler, there is an interesting sense of continuity in the original words. Doing more than simply replacing his father, Solomon actually assumed his throne. This may seem a small distinction, but I feel it is important nevertheless. It is similar to verse 3 (above) where David exhorted Solomon to walk in God's ways. Now Solomon is sitting on his father's throne. Let's see how other translations have rendered this verse:

• “So Solomon sat on the throne of his father David, and his rule was firmly established.” (NIV)
• “Solomon succeeded him as king, replacing his father, David, and he was firmly established on the throne.” (NLT)
• “His son Solomon became king and took control of David's kingdom.” (CEV)
• “Solomon took over on the throne of his father David; he had a firm grip on the kingdom.” (Message)

Once more the translations are varied with the NIV being most literal and the CEV straying furthest from the text. The NLT, CEV and Message see fit to explain the verse while the NIV, along with the essentially literal translations, leave the words as they are. Through reading a literal translation we can picture Solomon ascending his father's throne and taking over his responsibilities. This imagery is foreign to the dynamic equivalent translations.

Examples multiply as I read the Bible. I love these little literary constructs and love to think about them. They offer more than meets the eye and there is reward in doing the work of understanding them. I’ve also found that they provide wonderful “teachable moments” where I can ask my children what they might mean. They require thought and meditation.

I am grateful that I have access to such a solid translation of Scripture. While I do not know Hebrew, I still have access to an accurate translation of the author's original words, complete with the phrases, words and metaphors that set one author apart from another. I have access to the full meaning, or as close as I can come without access to the original language, of what was written so long ago. I simply can't understand how anyone would be satisfied with anything less.

This is the third and final article in this short series dealing with inerrancy and with the Bible’s supposed errors and contradictions. In the last article we defined what inerrancy is not and then attempted to adequately define the term. I suggested the following definition: The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. Today we will look at some common objections to this doctrine as well as some problems that may arise if we deny it. Here are links to the first two articles: Are There Errors in the Bible? and What Does “Inerrant” Mean?

Problems With Denying Inerrancy

We turn first to problems that may arise when we tacitly or expressly deny inerrancy.

First, if we deny inerrancy, we make God a liar. If there are errors in the original manuscripts, manuscripts that testify they were breathed out by God, one of two things must be true: either God purposely lied or he mistakenly lied. Either way this would indicate that God is capable of making or of producing errors. Needless to say, this would destroy our ability to trust any of God’s revelation and cause us to doubt God Himself.

Second, if we deny inerrancy we lose trust in God. If there are errors in Scripture, even if in the smallest detail, and these were placed there intentionally by God, how are we to maintain trust that He did not lie in other matters? When we lose trust in the Scriptures, we lose trust in God Himself and we may consequently lose our desire to be obedient to Him.

Third, if we deny the clear testimony of Scripture that it is inerrant, we make our minds a higher standard of truth than the Bible. At the outset of this series I indicated a concern I felt towards those who deny inerrancy is when they indicate that the doctrine does not “feel right.” But nowhere does the Bible appeal to our feelings or our reason for its authority or inerrancy. We must submit to the Word, for it will not submit to us. We must give to the Bible the place it claims for itself. We cannot stand in judgment over it.

Fourth, if we deny inerrancy, and indicate that small details are incorrect, we cannot consistently argue that all the doctrine the Bible contains is correct. Admitting error in even the smallest historical detail is only the thin edge of the wedge, for we then allow the possibility that there may be error in doctrine as well. And when we allow this possibility, the Christian faith soon crumbles into a mess of subjectivity and personal preference.

So inerrancy is not an optional doctrine—one we can take or leave. Rather, it is a doctrine at the very heart of the faith and without it we impoverish our faith and destroy our ability to trust and honor God.

Objections

There are many objections that are commonly raised against inerrancy. For the sake of brevity I will address only the most common objections, and the ones I have encountered in recent discussions on this topic.

We Do Not Have The Original Manuscripts - The first objection has to do with the transmission of Scripture. Many people argue that since we no longer possess any of the original manuscripts, it is irresponsible to speak of inerrancy. What is the purpose in affirming an important doctrine based on documents we no longer have? I answered this, in part, in the first article of this series, when I quoted John MacArthur. “We possess a wealth of biblical manuscripts in the original languages of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. John MacArthur writes, “With this wealth of biblical manuscripts in the original languages and with the disciplined activity of textual critics to establish with almost perfect accuracy the content of the autographs, any errors which have been introduced and/or perpetuated by the thousands of translations over the centuries can be identified and corrected by comparing the translation or copy with the reassembled original. By this providential means, God has made good His promise to preserve the Scriptures. We can rest assured that there are translations available today which indeed are worthy of the title, The Word of God.” We can be certain that we have accurate copies of over 99% of the inerrant words as they were first transcribed. When we focus on the less than 1% of the text that contains errors, we must realize that these are human errors and that God is in no way responsible for them. The fact that there are some errors in Scripture as we have it today, does not negate inerrancy which speaks only of the original documents. The Bible as we have it today is worth of our confidence.

Inerrancy is a Poor Term - Generally people who make this objection believe that inerrancy is too strong a term. They believe that such a word demands a type of scientific precision. And furthermore, they may claim that this term is not used in the Bible and was unknown through much of the history of the church.

To the first objection, I point again to the definition of inerrancy, and that it refers to truthfulness and not precision. The Bible claims to be perfectly true, but nowhere does it claim to contain perfect precision. As we saw in the second article, the Bible may round numbers, speak in human terms and contain odd grammatical constructions and still be inerrant. In response to the second objection I would point to any number of terms we use that are foreign to Scripture. The word “Trinity” does not appear within the pages of Scripture, yet the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly affirmed in the Bible and the term is very useful in summarizing the doctrines of the persons of the Godhead. The doctrine of inerrancy is taught within the pages of the Bible as clearly as if the word “inerrancy” was used.

Proving Inerrancy is a Circular Argument - The fourth objection is that we can only prove Scripture’s inerrancy by circular argumentation. After all, we say that the Bible is inerrant because the Bible tells us it is inerrant. This poses a problem for some. In Reason to Believe R.C. Sproul addresses circular argumentation in proving the Bible’s infallibility and we can extend this line of reasoning to inerrancy. Consider the following premises and the subsequent conclusion:

• Premise A—The Bible is a basically reliable and trustworthy document.
• Premise B—On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe confidently that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
• Premise C—Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an inerrant authority.
• Premise D—Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is more than generally trustworthy; it is the very Word of God.
• Premise E—The word, in that it comes from God, is utterly trustworthy because God is utterly trustworthy.
• Conclusion—On the basis of the inerrant authority of Jesus Christ, the church believes the Bible to be utterly trustworthy; i.e., inerrant.

Where this model of linear reasoning may break down, is that some of what we accept about the Bible we accept by faith. Faith does not render reason invalid, but the Holy Spirit helps us believe in what our sinful, human minds will not accept. Therefore, I do not believe that an unbeliever—one who does not have the Spirit’s help—can accept the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. But this line of reasoning ought to be sufficient for the believer. I trust that all Christians believe in the first premise, as even most non-Christians, who have made the effort, can see that the Bible is basically reliable and trustworthy. But what the unbeliever cannot do is accept that Jesus is the Son of God and that He is thus an inerrant authority.

The Bible is Full of Errors and Contradictions - This is a common objection that has been leveled at the Bible too many times to count. It has been answered just as often. It is the question that motivated me to post this series.

As often as not, this objection is made by people who really have no clear idea of where these errors can be found, as they are merely passing along what they have heard from others. They read a web site with a long list of contradictions and allow that to feed their disgust for the things of God. For those who are honestly seeking information on the alleged contradictions, there is a wealth of resources available to prove that there are no errors or contradictions within the text of the Bible. For example, Answers in Genesis answers many of these objections. So many of the objections can be answered so easily. For example, here is one I have seen on some sites:

[The Bible claims that] one day can last 930 years.

• "And YHWH God commanded the human, 'You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die'" [Genesis 2:16-17]. The original text makes it clear that God is not speaking metaphorically or spiritually. Isn’t it lucky that since death hadn’t been invented yet, the human (“ha’adam,” pronounced “ha ah DAHM”) had no idea what God was talking about! "When Adam had lived one hundred thirty years, he became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years."-- Gen. 5:3-4

This, of course, ignores the obvious—that humans really did die on the day they ate of the fruit. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit they died spiritually and made physical death a horrible reality. They did not drop dead at that very moment, but already, at that very moment, death had begun to stalk them. And their perfect communion with God had been killed. When we see that inerrancy allows for normal human speech and that it relates to truthfulness more than precision, we see that it can easily account for such “errors.”

Many of the alleged errors within the Bible have to do with historical facts. Allow me to provide one example. Only a couple of generations ago, scholars pointed to the Bible’s claim that there was a king of Assyria named Tiglath-Pileser as an obvious error, for archaeological evidence had not proven that any such king existed. But a few years later, archaeologists excavated Tiglath-Pileser’s capital city and found his name carved into bricks which read, “I, Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria…” It is a fact that “the results of sound scholarship have not tended to uncover more and more problems…Rather they have tended to resolve problems and to show that what were once thought to be errors are not errors at all” (James Boice, Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace). R.C. Sproul writes, “The Christian has nothing to fear from rigorous historical research. Rather, we have everything to gain” (Reason to Believe, page 27).

Consider the following quote from Dr. William Foxwell Albright. “For much too long a time the course of New Testament scholarship has been dictated by theological, quasitheological, and philosophical presupposition. In far too many cases commentaries on New Testament books have neglected such basic requirements as up-to-date historical and philological analysis of the text itself…The result has often been steadfast refusal to take seriously the findings of archaeological and linguistic research. We believe that there is less and less excuse for the resulting confusion in this latter half of the twentieth century. Closely allied with these presuppositions is the ever-present fog of existentialism, casting ghostly shadows over an already confused landscape. Existentialism as a method of interpreting the New Testament is based upon a whole series of undemonstrable postulates of Platonic, Neo-Platonic, leftwing scholastic, and relativistic origins. So anti-historical is this approach that it fascinates speculative minds which prefer cliches to factual data, and shifting ideology to empirical research and logical demonstrations” (emphasis mine). The Christian has nothing to fear from scholarship, science or archeology.

Truly, in my experience, the vast majority of supposed errors and contradictions fall into the realm of what we saw in “What Inerrancy is Not.” They point to a lack of precision that may be found in ordinary language or in a language that had no capacity to provide verbatim quotes. Those that do not fall into this category, most often simply reflect a misunderstanding of the Bible’s historical context or language. There are some that really are difficult and for which there are no easy answers. But even then, they have been dealt with by scholars and have been answered well.

So how do we answer charges of error and contradiction? First, I think we assure ourselves that the Bible is inerrant and then we ensure that what we believe about inerrancy is correct. We read what the Bible says about itself and express faith that what God says in Scripture is true. Having done that, it is often valuable to turn to the many resources available for those wrestling with apparent errors or contradictions. Most of these questions have been dealt with very well in the past—well enough to give you assurance that they reflect contemporary arrogance or misunderstanding more than error. When challenged with a list of contradictions I believe there is often little value in answering the charges of error point-by-point and engaging in lengthy dialog about each of them. Anyone who is really seeking the truth will find not only the contradictions but the many answers to them. Rather, it is better, I think, to point people to what is true. Point people to the Bible’s claims of truth—what it claims about us, as humans, and what it claims about God. Point people to the gospel and ask God to do His work in them.

Conclusion

My intent for this series was to do two things. First, I wanted to define inerrancy and separate it from the other doctrines of Scripture such as authority, inspiration and transmission. While the basic sense of the word “inerrancy” is clear, the theological meaning is not always so easy to grasp. Second, I wanted to answer some objections to inerrancy and show why this is a critical doctrine and why it is important that the church continues to affirm it.

Ultimately, inerrancy is true because perfection is consistent with God’s character and because He has told us it is true. We must be careful with any objections to this doctrine, for if we indicate that we believe there are errors with the original manuscripts, we strike at the very character of God. The Bible is inerrant because it was breathed out by an inerrant God. Because of this we can have full confidence, today and always, that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.

Yesterday I began a short series on the inerrancy of Scripture, looking at whether there are errors and contradictions in the Bible. You can read the first article and the response to it here: Are There Errors in the Bible?. When I first began to develop and understanding of this doctrine, I found that the doctrines of Scripture cannot be neatly separated, one from the other, for they are intertwined and interrelated. So in the first article I wrote about inspiration, canon, transmission and authority. Today I will turn to inerrancy, first explaining what it is not (often a good place to begin, I find) and then providing a working definition.

What Inerrancy Is Not

I find it is often useful to define what a term does not mean before I learn what it does mean, and I will do that with inerrancy. So let’s look at four statements dealing with what inerrancy does not entail. I should note that there is no authoritative body to which we can appeal to define what inerrancy means, for it is not a term that is neatly defined in Scripture. Thus I am presenting information consistent with the way it has been defined by scholars who have pursued the study of this doctrine over the past century and who have drawn what they believe from the Bible.

First, inerrancy does not preclude the use of ordinary language. A clear example of this in the Bible is where it speaks of the sun rising. We know that the sun does not rise at all but that the earth rotates to bring the sun into view. However, we can be consistent in our belief in the inerrancy of Scripture despite this type of ordinary, human, geocentric language (the kind of language we continue to use today).

Another way this happens in the Bible is with the use of numbers. Some time ago a friend was given some tickets to see the Toronto Rock, our local professional lacrosse team, and asked me to go along with him. Never having attended such a game before, I had no idea what to expect. I found that I thoroughly enjoyed the sport and was amazed at how many people were there to cheer on the team. At some point there was an official announcement of that evening’s attendance and I made a rough mental note of it. Later, after I got home, my wife asked how many people were at the game and I told her “10,000.” Now the actual number may have been closer to 10,243 or 9,678, but yet I had not told her a lie. My wife was clearly not interested in an exact number, but rather a useful gauge to know how many people attend such games. So when the Bible says that Jesus feed 5,000 people with just a few loaves and fish, He may have actually fed 4,998. Yet the Bible would still be inerrant when it says 5,000.

In the same vein, consider measurements. As many of you know, I live in Toronto, Ontario and my family lives near Atlanta, Georgia. When I make the long drive to visit them, people sometimes ask me how long the journey takes and I tell them it takes me 14 hours. Or they may ask me what the distance is, and I’ll tell them 900 miles. In reality the drive time varies every time we do it based on traffic, weather, the behavior of children, the anger of the border guards, the health of my car, and any other number of factors. In reality the distance, according to Mapquest, is 931.96 miles. And while we are clarifying, both my parents and I live in suburbs of our respective cities and I have offered Toronto and Atlanta simply because people generally know the locations of big cities but not smaller towns and suburbs. And I don’t drive a car, but a van. But have I lied in any of this? Is any of this truly contrary to fact or have I been inerrant in what I have said? Here is the crux of the matter and this is particularly important to our discussion: Inerrancy speaks of truthfulness, not the degree of precision with which events are reported. When I say that I drive 14 hours and 900 miles to get from Toronto to Atlanta, I have not lied. I have been truthful, but not perfectly precise. This is consistent with inerrancy.

Second, inerrancy does not preclude the use of loose and free quotations. Wayne Grudem makes a critical distinction between our culture and the New Testament Greek culture when it came to reporting the words of another person. In our culture we consider it a terrible sin to misquote another person; we believe that precision in quoting a person’s exact words is of tantamount importance. The Greek language, at the time the New Testament was written, had no quotation marks and really no similar construct. What was considered of utmost importance was to accurately represent the content of what a person said. There was no expectation that a writer needed to transcribe the speaker’s exact words when quoting him. Thus the Bible is inerrant if it accurately and truthfully describes the content of what a speaker said. Whether the actual words Jesus spoke are “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,” or “I am The Truth, the Way and the Life,” the Bible is still inerrant in how it transcribed these words, for the content remains intact.

Third, the Bible can be inerrant even if it contains unusual grammatical constructions. It is commonly known that there are various writing skills represented in the Scripture. Some authors were stylistically excellent while others were much more rough and common in their style. Sometimes this means the writers did not follow the accepted rules of grammar or used stylistic irregularities. Once more, the issue of inerrancy is not precision but truthfulness.

Fourth, Scripture is inerrant only in its original autographs. It is critical to note that, strictly speaking, inerrancy does not apply to the transmission of Scripture through the ages and its translation into other languages. We affirm that only the original autographs, or original manuscripts, are inerrant. What we enjoy today is very good translations of very accurate reconstructions of the biblical text. We do not have any of the original documents—none of Paul’s original letters and none of the actual gospels written by the hands of the Apostles have survived. Yet through the science of textual criticism we have very accurate reconstructions of those texts and through translators we have excellent translations of them. So while we do not affirm inerrancy for any particular English translation of Scripture, we do have great confidence in the best translations available to us.

The impetus for this short series was a series of questions regarding so-called errors and contradictions in the Bible. Keep these four points in mind as you’ll see in our next article just how many of these errors are demolished simply by a proper understanding of inerrancy.

A Working Definition

Now that we know what we should not expect in inerrancy, let’s attempt to define it. I was surprised to find, as I consulted many books on this issue, that very few clearly and concisely defined inerrancy. Most use the term without defining it (or without thoroughly or accurately defining it). For example, James Boice, in Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace writes several pages on the topic, but provides no definition. In Scripture Alone, James White refers to the Council on Biblical Inerrancy and the desire of the participants to create a “concise statement on the meaning and importance of inerrancy” (page 68). He turns to and provides commentary on the council’s definition, which may be precise by theological standards, but still extends to 24 articles. Nowhere does he provide a concise definition. Of the few definitions or attempts at definition that I found, Wayne Grudem’s definition in his Systematic Theology seemed most clear. Here is a solid working definition of inerrancy: “The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.” It is that simple. So what we affirm in this definition, is that a perfect God moved human authors, by His Spirit, to perfectly transcribe what He wanted to communicate. This definition is based on the clear teaching of Scripture, several passages of which I presented in the previous article, as well as the character of God. If God is unable to lie and if he inspired Scripture, it must have been completely consistent with fact at the moment of transcription.

Conclusion

At this point we have defined our terms and indicated what we mean and what we do not mean by inerrancy. In the third (and final, I believe) installment in this series, we will turn to common objections and to the problems that may arise if this doctrine is denied. And then I’ll provide some thoughts on how to respond to those who are so eager to pull out the lists of supposed errors and contradictions.

A few days ago I received an email from a reader of this site who was concerned about how to answer those who claim that the Bible is a book filled with error and contradiction. Such claims are common and, sadly, are more and more being put forth even from within evangelical circles. This reader affirmed his belief in the inerrancy and authority of Scripture but was looking for some guidance on how to answer the multitudes of claims against the Bible.

I’d like to take that on. At first I was going to do that in a single, short article. But as I thought about it and as I began writing, I determined it would be best to first lay some groundwork. I’ve written about this subject in the past and find it a deep and fascinating one. I think I would do well to revisit some of the doctrine of Scripture and from there to examine the question this person has asked me. So we’ll likely make this a three-part series.

The doctrines regarding the Bible have been discussed and debated at length throughout the history of the church. At the time of the Reformation, the main thrust of the debate had to do with the Bible’s authority, and whether the Bible would be the sole ultimate authority over the lives of Christians over against popes, creeds, councils and the Catholic Church. In more recent days, the doctrine of the Bible’s inerrancy came under intense discussion and scrutiny. In response, several evangelical leaders, including Francis Schaeffer, J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, Roger Nicole and James Boice, created an organization called The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. This organization had as its purpose “elucidating, vindicating and applying the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as an essential element for the authority of Scripture and a necessity for the health of the church of God” (James Boice, Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace, page 68”). Three gatherings were held which produced three scholarly documents, the first of which was “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” The second dealt with principles of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) and the third with the application of Scripture. These documents still stand as pillars on the subject. Though the majority of Christians agree with them, it is becoming increasingly common today to doubt or question such fundamental doctrines.

In his book Scripture Alone, James White has a chapter entitled “Definitions: More Than Half The Battle.” He is absolutely right that properly defining terms is often more than half the battle. Whenever I discuss this subject of inerrancy, I find that very few terms receive any clear definitions. While a term like “inerrancy” has a consistent theological meaning, this does not indicate that every person who uses the word means the same thing by it, and that the person truly understands it. I will suggest an appropriate definition of inerrancy shortly.

I found also that the issues at stake go far deeper than merely the inerrancy of Scripture. They extended to areas such as the canon of Scripture, the authority of Scripture and the inspiration of Scripture. Perhaps this is because, although inerrancy stands on its own biblical merits, it is also a doctrine constructed from other doctrines. While the Bible contains many passages that prove it true, it is also true that it follows logically from other doctrines of Scripture. So before we can approach inerrancy, I believe we need to step back and examine aspects of these other doctrines. We will do that briefly in this article. Certainly there is much more that could be said about any of these subjects, so understand this as a mere introduction.

Authority

When we examine the Bible’s authority, we must begin by answering the question of, “What does the Bible say about itself?”. We find throughout Scripture that the Bible claims for itself a position of unique and supreme authority. In doing so it appeals only to its own authority for proof because there is no greater authority to which it can appeal. After all, if something is the ultimate authority, to what else can it appeal? Were the Bible to appeal to our reason to substantiate its authority, it would implicitly show that human reason is a higher authority. In an article written a couple of years ago by a popular blogger I found cause for concern when he expressed one of his main disagreements with inerrancy is that it did not “feel right.” “My problems with inerrancy have been going on for a very long time, and I’ve heard it presented and taught by the best. It’s never sat well with me, probably because I have a lot of literary interest in the text of scripture, plus I don’t like to be bullied. I get a rash.” But as I indicated, the Bible does not appeal to our feelings or our reason for its authority. Nor could it while remaining Scripture.

We can define the doctrine of Scripture’s authority as follows: “The authority of Scripture means that all the words in Scripture are God’s words in such a way that to disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 73). I do not know of any Christians who claim that they have the right to disbelieve or disobey what God has taught in Scripture. They may do this in their lives (and we all do, at times) but I do not know of any who believe Scripture gives us such license. This doctrine forms the basis of apologetics, for we can only appeal to the Scripture when we trust its authority.

Inspiration

Closely related to the authority of Scripture is the inspiration of Scripture. Inspiration tells us how the Bible was transmitted from God to men. We find that the Bible draws its authority and inerrancy from the indisputable fact that it is inspired by God. The Bible teaches that “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). The words the ESV translated as “breathed out by God” are also translated “inspired” and this is the basis of inspiration. This is explained further by the apostle Peter who writes, “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20,21). The Holy Spirit was actively involved in bringing God’s words to humans.

The actual form this inspiration took is much disputed. We know from reading the Scripture and observing the different styles of writing and differing levels of expertise in writing, that God did not merely use men as automatons. If He had done this, we would expect to find a consistent writing style throughout. Somehow God used the specific skills, backgrounds and situations of the authors to transmit His words. Zechariah 7:12 sheds light on this. “…lest they should hear the law and the words that the Lord of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets.” We see that the ministry of the Holy Spirit extended to the whole and to the individual parts (…the words that the Lord of hosts…).

The Testimony of Scripture

If it was God who inspired men to write the Bible, what does that teach us about Scripture? Is it possible that Scripture, as it was given from God to men, can be anything less than perfect? Would God lie? Would He write in only half-truths? The Bible tells us otherwise:

2 Samuel 7:28 - “And now, O Lord God, you are God, and your words are true, and you have promised this good thing to your servant.”

Numbers 23:9 - “God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”

Psalm 12:6 - The words of the Lord are pure words,
like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times.

Proverbs 30:5 - Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

We find a consistent Scriptural witness that God does not lie, for He is incapable of telling falsehood. The men who wrote God’s words, had supreme confidence in the rest of His words. If God is incapable of telling a lie, it follows that the words He spoke to those who wrote the words of Scripture must also be perfectly true. At this point, I trust we have sufficient Scriptural basis to conclude that Scripture is authoritative and that the words given by God to men were without error. But how can we know that the words we have today accurately represent those words?

Canon

Many people do not understand the concept of canon and this is especially true in the fallout of The Da Vinci Code and hundreds of similar books. There seems to be a misconception that when the Bible was compiled as one book made of many different books and letters, people were engaged in gathering together some writings attributed to God and publishing them in one volume, much as one might do with the writings of a favorite poem or play-write. But this is not how the canon came together. The Bible is more than a “best of” compilation of God’s writings.

The term “canon” originally referred to a stick which was used for measurement. It later came to describe a standard or rule. By extension, it came to describe an authoritative list of something. In the case of Scripture, it speaks of the authoritative list of God’s writings, yet it is more than a mere table of contents. It refers to all the writings that were breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16). Thus without the act of inspiration, there could be no canon.

As we have seen, canon refers to the entire body of an author’s work. Allow me to provide an example. If we look at the canon of a man like John Piper, we would say that it includes Desiring God, The Passion of Jesus Christ, Don’t Waste Your Life and so on, from the first book he wrote to the last. The canon of John Piper would only be complete when it included every word he had ever written. But who can infallibly know a person’s canon? In truth, only the author really knows what he or she has written. John Piper may have many books available to us, but who is to say that every word of his has been made available to us? Who is to say that he has not released other books under a pseudonym? Only he infallibly knows his canon. Similarly, it is only God who infallibly knows all He has written. The Scriptural evidence compels us to believe, then, that if we have the complete canon, God helped people find out what it includes. When the Bible was compiled into the book we know and love today, it represented every word God had ever written. So there is a sense in which the primary task of the men who compiled the Bible was to find the complete canon of God. The primary measure they used was whether a book was inspired by God.

This is a topic that could (and perhaps should) be covered at length, but I am not writing today to defend the canonicity of Scripture. As far as I can tell, most people who struggle with inerrancy, do not deny that the canon of Scripture represents God’s words to us.

Transmission

The final topic I will write about in this opening article is transmission which describes how the words of God were transmitted from the original documents to what we have today. This is a topic that can only be done justice in a much longer treatment, so allow me to merely point to some of the facts. We possess a wealth of biblical manuscripts in the original languages of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. John MacArthur aptly summarizes as follows: “With this wealth of biblical manuscripts in the original languages and with the disciplined activity of textual critics to establish with almost perfect accuracy the content of the autographs, any errors which have been introduced and/or perpetuated by the thousands of translations over the centuries can be identified and corrected by comparing the translation or copy with the reassembled original. By this providential means, God has made good His promise to preserve the Scriptures. We can rest assured that there are translations available today which indeed are worthy of the title, The Word of God” (John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Handbook, page xxii).

And Now…

Having begun to define terms and provide background to the study of inerrancy, I will turn at last to the doctrine in the next article.

Modern Parables: Living in the Kingdom of God is an original Bible study curriculum designed for people who like movies and is just the first in a planned series of film-driven studies on the parables of Jesus. The films are geared towards use for youth groups, small groups, evangelism or even home schooling curriculum. Volume 1 features six of Jesus’ parables, told anew through film and set in a contemporary context.

The 12-lesson study combines cinema and theology in short dramatic films that exegete (or explain) Jesus' parables. In other words, just watching the films helps teach the historical, grammatical, contextual and interpretive elements in the parables.

Modern Parables lets people grasp the parables at an immediate, gut level. This emotional immediacy enables them to engage the Bible in a powerful and compelling new way.

Each parable is covered in two lessons. The first lesson is geared towards understanding the parable. Viewers watch the dramatization, ask questions about it, teach and then discuss the parable. In the second lesson viewers watch the application video, ask questions about the application video and then review the film and discuss the parable. Each of the application videos features a different pastor (some of whom you may recognize) simply providing basic teaching about the parable and then bringing a few words of application.

Here are the six parables covered in this volume along with a brief description and a trailer for each one.

Hidden Treasure

The parable of the Hidden Treasure is told through the story of Jeff Smith who was having a really bad day trying to sell a horrendous piece of property until he found oil oozing out of the ground. The comedy of the set, this quick-moving and funny piece asks what we would be willing to sell in order to gain great treasure. It is “a light, screwball comedy filmed in the style of Frank Capra. We tried to find funny, heartwarming characters who represented middle America, then built a story around them.” The application video is provided by Dan Doriani of Central Presbyterian Church in St. Louis (You may know Doriani for his commentary on James, part of the Reformed Expository Commentary set).

Samaritan

The story of the Good Samaritan is told in the context of an old man who is assaulted and left for dead (though the assault takes place before the story begins). A group of church kids, a deacon who is also a doctor, and a youth pastor all pass him by. It is an Arab man, eyed suspiciously by everyone else, who eventually comes to the old man’s rescue. This video was awarded as the Best Narrative at the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival. According to the creators, it is a “tribute to the Swedish film director Ingmar Bergman. We kept the camera still and tried to frame shots simply and with sensitivity to mise en scene. Our score uses a chamber ensemble for a more classical, austere sound.” The application video features George Grant who pastors Parish Presbyterian Church in Franklin, Tennessee. You may remember Dr. Grant for his contributions to the Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinsim DVD.

The Shrewd Manager

The Shrewd Manager deals with one of Jesus’ strangest parables, and one that is most difficult to understand. In this adaptation, a farmer plays the role of the shrewd manager, finding a way to make all the neighbors love him before being fired from his job. The movie relies on exaggerated rural accents, old school folk music, and a little bit of humor. Calling this an ironic comedy, the filmmaker says, “The Shrewd Manager tips its hat to Woody Allen with its long takes, simple zooms, and dry humor. We shot the film in Adairville, Kentucky and used a number of townspeople for extras.” Frank Lewis of First Baptist Church in Nashville, Tennessee handles the application, explaining and applying the parable.

The Widow and the Judge

The Widow and the Judge tells the well-known story of a widow who kept coming to an unjust, uncaring judge begging for justice to be served. Eventually, though he cares nothing for the woman, the judge hears her case even if only to be rid of her. The filmmaker says it is “based on the style of the film To Kill a Mockingbird directed by Robert Mulligan. Set in a small Southern town and presented in black and white, it attempts to paint a gentle portrait of an old widow. The film also bears the slight influence of Frederico Fellini's masterful 8 1/2.” The application is handled by Gene Mims of Judson Baptist Church in Nashville, Tennessee.

The Sower

The Sower turns to a different genre of film—the documentary. This one is “shot in the documentary tradition starting with Robert Flaherty and Dziga Vertov, and continuing to present. Although the documentary has seen many forms throughout its history, we have attempted a simple, self-narrated exploration of a farmer and his field.” In this film, an elderly farmer simply explains what he has learned through a long career of sowing and harvesting wheat. He leads the viewer through his fields, showing wheat that has fallen in rocky soil, wheat that has fallen among the weeds, and wheat that has sprung up to produce a great harvest. Jeff Schulte of ChangePoint in Anchorage, Alaska shares some points of application.

Prodigal Sons

The final film of the set is easily the best-known of Jesus’ parables. Prodigal Sons tastefully and stirringly tells the story of two sons, one of whom takes his father’s wealth and runs away, and the other who continues to honor his father, though more in word than in deed. The younger son blows his wealth on wine, women and song, and soon finds himself working in a morgue. Meanwhile, the older son remains with his father, turning his back on his profligate brother. This film “has been influenced by the work of the great Orson Welles. With its non-linear structure, its constantly moving cameras, its oblique angles, its sequence shots, and its direct narration, the film seeks to pay tribute to one of America's greatest directors.” It has a powerful, powerful ending. Scotty Smith of Christ Community Church in Franklin, Tennessee provides the application and builds upon the teaching of Tim Keller, that this parable points to two different kinds of prodigal sons, the relativist and the moralist.

The films are entirely suitable for family viewing and, in fact, once we watched the first, my children pretty well demanded that we watch the rest. So we watched all six of them in an evening and spent right up until bed time discussing what the parables mean and asking why Jesus would share those stories. As the films began to play my children would suddenly grasp the story, remembering it from the Bible, and would find themselves absorbed in them. The only thing parents may want to watch out for with the children is the word “whores” shouted near the conclusion of the Prodigal Sons film (as in “he spent all his money on cars and whores…”). This word is, of course, implied in the story so does not seem out of place.

Of course this films are not intended primarily for children. Though I have not been able to use these materials in a Bible study setting, I suspect they would prove exceedingly useful for that purpose. Both a Teacher’s Guide and a Student Book are available. The DVD box set includes the DVDs, an Audio Teacher Prep CD, a Teacher’s Guide, and Student Book. The DVDs also feature director’s commentary which I found very interesting.

I think some of these stories impacted me on a level that the original stories have not for some time. It sounds terrible to write this, but somehow, through repeated retelling and study, so many of the parables have lost some of their punch. But to see them in a new context challenged me anew to grasp their significance. And, I thought, this must have been how Jesus’ disciples felt as they heard the stories for the first time. I may not understand what it was like to hear a story in which a Pharisee passed by a bleeding, injured man, only to have a Samaritan stop to help him, but I can feel some of that impact in watching a deacon and a youth pastor walk on by only to have an Arab taxi driver comfort the man and care for his needs. And maybe I’ve never really paused to consider what it would be like to find the hidden treasure and to sell everything I own to get it—my computer, my car, my television and my wife’s china. These films caused me to pause and to think about such things. And for that I am grateful. While I would not wish to make it sound like there is anything wrong with the biblical accounts, I do think a fresh retelling of the stories can be very beneficial.

I’m grateful for this series of films, a series which I learned about only recently. I am thrilled to know that it is only the first in what is intended to be a set. I’m going to watch these films often and am certain I’ll enjoy watching them again with my children. I hope I will other opportunities to use them. And I’ll wait impatiently for Volume II.

Buy It & Learn More

If you’d like to learn more about the films, you can visit modernparables.com. From there you can buy the videos and other material. Under the “Try” button you can try out two of the lessons and under the “Explore” button you’ll find an interesting “making of” section. There is lots of material to find. Amazon shoppers may wish to order from Amazon.

Have you ever stopped to ponder what it might have been like for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness, knowing that each day they would completely exhaust their food supply? Have you thought what it would be like knowing that they would go to bed with no food, but that the next day their supplies would be fully and miraculously replenished? It is an interesting, thought, really, and one that is worth considering.

In the Wilderness

Imagine that you are an Israelite father or mother and that you have three or four young children depending on you. Imagine putting these children to bed in the evening, knowing that there is not a bit of food to be found anywhere in your tent. Just to be sure, you wander over to the fridge and open it up. The glare from the light shows nothing but the glistening white of the inside of the Kenmore. There is nothing on any of the shelves; nothing in any of the drawers. There isn’t even a mostly-empty jar of relish left over from when you made burgers a few weeks earlier. There isn’t a clove of garlic or an old stick of butter. There is nothing. You close the door and open the freezer and as you wave your hand to brush aside the mist, you see that every corner of the freezer is empty. You turn to the nearby pantry and, looking high and low, see that there is not a bag, not a box, not a jar to be found. You have no food. Nothing.

As you tuck your daughter into bed that night, she says, “Daddy, what will we eat for breakfast tomorrow?” And with utter sincerity and utter confidence you say, “God will provide.” And, despite the bare cupboards and the empty fridge, you are able to go to sleep that night with full confidence that there will be food for you the next day. When you wake in the morning, you unlock the tent door, step outside, and see the world around covered in food like frost on a cold morning. You are able to quickly and easily collect enough food for the day, and can head inside knowing that the children will have all the food they need that day. As you nuke their mannapancakes, you whisper a prayer of gratitude that God provided again. Yet again.

But you also know that God has provided for only that day. The manna that lay on the ground was not enough for today and tomorrow. As the sun rises in a few minutes, the manna will melt into the ground and be gone. God has not provided for a week or a month or a quarter—He has provided for only one day at a time. You have heard of people who doubted God’s providence and hoarded manna, packing it into Tupperware and stuffing it into the deepest recesses of their fridges, freezers, and cupboards. But when they took it out and tried to eat it, they found it was rotten and disgusting, crawling with worms and smelling worse than sandaled feet in a hot desert. You know that as day fades into night, and as you prepare the evening meal, you’ll find that you have just enough manna to eat, and that as you close your eyes in sleep, you’ll lie in peace, knowing that God will provide again tomorrow. But only for tomorrow.

God knows better than to give manna for a month. If He did that, you know that you would soon forget about your reliance on Him. For twenty nine days you would forget what it was like to lay down at night with your only confidence being in God’s provision. Instead you would lay down knowing that the cupboard was stuffed full of manna. And you would forget about God, at least until the end of the month came around. Perhaps then you would begin to call out to Him again and begin to beseech His provision. You know the lesson God wants you to learn.

I’ve often wondered how the faith of the Israelites could ever waver. I’m sure you’ve wondered the same. How could the Israelites constantly turn against God despite all He had done and all they had witnessed. They had seen God do miraculous deeds in leading them out of Egypt. They had seen His hand time and time again as they made their way toward the promised land. And every morning God delivered food, food that was abundant and delicious. Every day He gave them what they needed for the day, and asked them to trust that He would do the same tomorrow. Never did He let them down and never did He give them cause to doubt His providence. But they did. They doubted His motives, they doubted His ability and they doubted His sincerity.

Unchanging Promises

God’s promise to provide has not changed. God still promises that He will provide and He still promises to provide only for today. Jesus says, “Do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? … Do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble” (Matthew 6:25, 34). And yet there are times when we still find ourselves paralyzed with fear, looking into the future and seeing not God’s strength, but our own weakness; we looking forward and see our inability rather than God’s power. But God still promises manna in the morning—He promises that He will take care of our needs.

There was a time in my life, just a few years ago, when money was tight. It was tight enough that Aileen and I often really doubted that we would be able to pay our rent and car payments. Some days we didn’t even know how we would be able to buy groceries. I would often wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, my heart pounding, wondering how I would scrape together enough money to keep us in our house. I would sometimes sit down with a pen and piece of paper and try to plot out the next few months—this was the money we anticipated spending and this was the amount I thought I would bring in between then and now. Rarely were these exercises any sort of comfort. More often than not they would increase my despair, leaving me to conclude that there was nothing I could do—we would lose our car and be forced to move.

But that never happened. There was always manna in the morning. God always provided, though only one day at a time. And he has continued to do so. I don’t remember the last time I woke up in the night with my heart pounding, panicked at the thought of the bills lying on my desk. It’s not that we have become wealthy or that our bills have decreased. Rather, God has helped me to understand that He has promised manna in the morning. When I am tempted to worry, I need only look to His promises and then to look to the past where I can see His hand of provision, day after day after day. He has always given manna in the morning and I have confidence that he will do so again tomorrow.

It was near the end of the book of Hebrews that I found some verses that have been bouncing around in my head for some time now. With the epistle drawing to a close, the pastor who authored this letter exhorts the believers to remember the men who had once led the church, to consider how these men lived, and to imitate their faith. “Remember your leaders,” he says, “those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.”

That verse has given me a lot to think about. God, working through the written words of an anonymous pastor who lived 2,000 years ago, challenged me to consider men who once spoke the word of God—men whose lives I should consider that I might imitate their faith. Unlike the recipients of this letter, I do not have a long legacy of being in a church where leaders have served for decades and have finished well. I have been more of a church pilgrim, often moving from one town to the next through my childhood and early years of my marriage. At long last we’ve settled in a town and in a church where we hope to remain for the long haul. But as I considered these verses I thought of a church like Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, a church that has prospered under the long ministries of men like Donald Barnhouse (33 years), James Montgomery Boice (32 years) and Phillip Ryken (12 years and counting). People who attend churches like that and who have been members of such churches for many years will be able to look to the past and to consider how these men lived. From there they can learn about the faith that sustained these pastors and then imitate that faith.

Not all of us have been so privileged. But we have the ability to find heroes in history by reading good biographies. And this is, I think, one of the reasons I am so often drawn to biographies of great Christians. Through these books we are able to read about the faith of Christians who served God through their lives and then finished strong. John Piper says, “This is why dead heroes are more important than living heroes. Living heroes are important, but they might cease to be heroes before they die. They might let you down. Rather, he says, ‘remember’ - that’s a word that reaches into the past. Remember those whose conduct you can survey from beginning to end, and consider all of it - especially how it ended.” It is really only when the final chapter has closed in death that we may know how a man has lived. Dead heroes harbor few surprises.

It is important to note that the exhortation is not to imitate these men—it is not to ponder their lives and then to imitate their conduct. Rather, the author exhorts people to ponder the outcome of these lives, to see how these men finished their races, and, having found worthy examples, to imitate their faith. John Piper sounds an important warning about imitating the conduct of others. “If you try to imitate their conduct, you become a religious fake, a spiritual counterfeit. This is a frightening reality when you see it - people who have learned the forms of godliness and know nothing of the power that comes from genuine faith. Instead he says: look at the whole course of their conduct and how they finished their course, and get the same motor that made them what they were: their faith.”

Verse seven cannot be separated from the verse that follows. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” Jesus Christ is the same today as He was when these men led the church and when they encouraged your faith. Jesus was worth serving then and He is worth serving now; Jesus sustained these men even through times of hardship and He can and will sustain you in the same way. Though months and seasons and years come and go, Jesus remains the same—still available, still powerful, still in control. Richard Phillips writes, “The writer’s confidence is not in men of God; it is in the God of men.” Though we are to imitate the faith of these men, we are to see this faith as a gift of God and to place our confidence in God who gives faith, not in men who express it.

By way of conclusion, Richard Phillips says, “This is the greatest legacy any of us can impart from the pattern of our lives, and it is by providing such examples that Christian leaders most powerfully serve the Lord and his church.” The questions I had to ask myself were these: First, whose faith am I imitating? Who are the Christians of days gone by whose faith serves as an example to me. And second, what will my legacy be? Will I leave behind a pattern of trust and faithful service that another person may find worthy of imitation, or will I be fearful and faithless, leaving behind a legacy I’d want no one to imitate?

Perhaps your faith would also be served by pondering those same questions in light of Hebrews 13.

All Scripture is breathed out by God…

In my personal devotions I’ve recently begun a study of Esther. Since it is a short book and one that is entirely narrative, I do not anticipate being in the book for long—probably just about one day per chapter. Esther is probably best known among Christians as being a book of the Bible that never mentions God, either explicitly or even implicitly. But though His name is never mentioned, His hand is all over the book. His name does not need to be mentioned for us to see Him in, over and behind the story. His providence and His care for His people is as clear in Esther as it would be if His name was mentioned throughout.

Yet it’s still easy to miss God in the story. The evidence of this is in how little attention we give to this book. It is rarely spoken of and rarely preached. I don’t know if, through all my years of going to church, I’ve ever heard a sermon that looked primarily to Esther. But there is a reason that Esther is in the Bible. Like each of the other sixty five books, its author is God—the God who is unafraid to leave His name out of this story.

A few weeks ago I spent a few days staying at the home of my aunt and uncle. They live in the countryside, far from any major urban center. They embrace country living, growing vegetables on their farm, allowing a giant, furry, stinky dog to roam and protect the property, and keeping a small collection of potent firearms. While not a seasoned hunter, my uncle does enjoy heading out into his property to chase down the occasional deer. One evening he and I sat outside while he grilled some steaks and he told of how he killed a deer on his property the year before. After killing it, he knew that he would need to figure out how to butcher the thing. So he loaded it onto a little tractor and drove it up to his barn. There he hoisted it up so it hung from a rafter, and he set to work.

Thankfully, he had had the foresight to get a copy of a book that gave step-by-step instructions on how to properly butcher the deer and prepare the meat. As he described the butchering process, he disappeared into the house for a moment and returned with the book. I began to flip through it, turning past chapters on how to butcher cows, pigs, sheep, rabbits, raccoons and chickens. It wasn’t hard to tell when I came to the portion on butchering a deer—those pages were covered in blood. Obviously my uncle had kept this book with him through the butchering process and had turned to it often. There were bloody fingerprints on the edges and drops of blood smeared across the pages. It looked well-used. Apparently it served as a good guide because my uncle managed to properly butcher the deer and prepare it for eating. The week we were there he was preparing a pit in which he could smoke the meat from the next deer that found itself in his crosshairs.

I thought about that book later and thought about the difference between the pages that are covered with blood and those that are still pristine (and which will no doubt remain that way until a hapless sheep happens to wander through my uncle’s property during hunting season). I thought of that book as I began my study of Esther, pondering the difference between the pages that show evidence of use and those that do not. There are some pages in my Bible that are covered in blood, so to speak. They are pages that I use to proclaim or defend my faith; they are pages with verses that uplift and inspire; they are the pages with verses that people like to adapt as their “life verses.” I turn to these pages often and love to learn from them.

But then there is Esther. I’ve rarely turned to the book at all. There is no blood on the pages of Esther, at least in my Bible. There is little evidence that I have learned from those pages and that I use them to bolster my faith. There is little evidence that I have used those pages to teach me more about the God I serve. But even from this brief study (in which I’m being guided by the commentary of Iain Duguid) I’m learning again that God didn’t put any unnecessary chapters or any empty narratives in His book. After all, this is the God who says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” Even Esther, the book that does not mention God, is given for teaching, reproof, correction and for training in righteousness. It exists to make me competent and equipped to live in the way God wants me to live.

I’ve become convicted that I can’t leave Esther until there is some blood on those pages.

Taking God at His Word.

Do you remember that amazing miracle of Jesus where he brought life to Lazarus? I’m sure you must remember it. Lazarus was sitting in his home along with his sisters Mary and Martha. He was chewing on some bread and cheese as an afternoon snack when, from outside the door of the house he heard a bit of a commotion as if a crowd was quickly approaching. There was mourning and weeping. And suddenly a voice boomed “Lazarus, come forth!” He licked his fingers clean and walked out the door where he saw that his good friend Jesus was standing there along with His disciples. Everyone gasped in amazement as Lazarus walked out into the bright sunshine.

That’s absurd, I know. It didn’t go like that at all. In the biblical narrative Lazarus wasn’t sitting in his house but was dead in a tomb. He wasn’t eating a snack but was rotting and decaying. Lazarus was dead and was brought to life. If it was any other way it would not have been much of a miracle. It doesn’t take any special power to bring life to the living. Jesus would not have been a great miracle worker if He simply gave life to those who already had it.

But this is a claim I see far too often—that people can bring life to the living.

One of the dubious perks of being a reviewer is that I receive all kinds of marketing material for various products. Just recently I received a copy of the marketing package for the new Word of Promise New Testament audio Bible produced by Thomas Nelson. It is a recording of the New King James translation of the Bible that is performed by a talented and well-known cast of characters. It boasts Jim Caviezel as Jesus, Richard Dreyfuss as the voice of Moses (in New Testament quotes), Stacy Keach as Paul, Marisa Tomei as Mary Magdalene, Luke Perry as Judas and Stephen, and so on. Slightly dramatized and complete with a soundtrack and various sound effects, it is something of a throwback to the days before television—the days when radio dramas were all the rage. All-in-all it seems like a decent enough production, though I listened only to the few sample clips that were provided.

But there’s one thing about it that really bothers me.

The cover page for the brochure says this, and only this: “The Word Comes to Life.” On the inside of the CD case are these words: “Hear the Bible Come Alive!” Interestingly, a similar product and one I reviewed a short time ago, The Bible Experience, makes a similar claim: “Hear the words of the Bible brought to life like never before. Inspired By…The Bible Experience: New Testament Audio CD is a fully-dramatized reading of the Bible performed by an unprecedented ensemble of distinguished African-American actors, musicians, and personalities.” And as I pause to think about it, I realize I’ve lost track of the number of products that claim to bring the Bible to life or to make its words alive.

I object. Every Christian ought to familiarize himself with the incredible words of Hebrew 4:12 which read, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” The Word, it seems, is already alive. And like the living Lazarus, it has no need for us to breathe life into it. That is no cause for boasting; no cause for acclaim; no headline for marketing materials. The Bible is alive. We can’t make it more so.

Now I’m no dummy and will admit that I know what the marketing people mean when they say they will bring the Bible to life. I make no objection to people trying to inject some emphasis and drama into the biblical text. Just yesterday our pastor’s assistant preached about Jesus’ crucifixion and clearly invested a lot of effort in reading the biblical text in a dramatic way. A drab, monotone, unenthusiastic reading can certainly seem to rob the text of its life or vitality. I believe it is right and good when the text is read in a way that emphasizes what ought to be emphasized. But we need to be careful how we speak of such things. We need to show a little bit of theological precision lest we inadvertently cause people to doubt that the Bible has life of its own and that we somehow need to inject it with excitement in order to give it vitality.

If we claim that a dramatization of the Bible brings life to it, we tacitly suggest that Joe Christian, reading the Bible in the morning before heading to work, is somehow reading it in a way that is less living, less powerful than when Marisa Tomei and Jim Caviezel read it superimposed over a professionally-produced soundtrack. By emphasizing the life-giving nature of dramatization, we necessarily de-emphasize the Bible’s own qualities; we de-emphasize the Bible’s power of having and giving life.

After all, the Word does not gain its power or efficacy from the way it is read or through dramatization. Rather, the Bible has innate power—power given it simply by virtue of its authorship. Because the living God has given us the Word, it has power and life of its own. In that way it is absolutely unique; there is nothing else like it. We can bring other words to life; we can bring the plays of William Shakespeare to life; we can bring history to life; we can bring other cultures to life; but we cannot bring the Bible to life. Nor should we even attempt to do so. The Bible is already alive. It is living and active and powerful. It is sharper than any two-edged sword. It has life of its own.

So don’t try to make the Bible come to life. You don’t need to do that anymore than you need to perform CPR on a living, breathing, healthy individual. It’s already alive. Dramatize it if you wish; there is value in doing that, I am sure. But be careful how you speak of such things. Be careful how you understand such things. God hasn’t told us to bring the Word to life. He has told us simply to bring the Word. If we bring the Word, He will bring the life.

Yesterday I received a question from a reader of this site. The question was simple: “Is Scripture study required of Christians? Is it actually discussed in the Bible?” As I wrote an answer I felt that it might be valuable to think it through carefully and even to share the answer.

I’ll be the first to admit that my knowledge of Scripture is far less than encyclopedic. However, I am quite sure that if you were to read the Bible cover-to-cover you would not find a direct command from God saying “Thou shalt read the Bible daily.” However, as we will soon see, neither would He need to give Christians such a command.

When I think about this question I am led back to the question of assurance of salvation—whether or not a Christian can be certain that he is saved. I think I am led this way because the Bible is so central, so integral to the Christian life, that to feel no love for it, no desire to study it, must be a sign of spiritual malaise. I would certainly never say that a person who does not want to study the Bible or who does not enjoy studying the Bible is not a Christian. But I would venture to say that the Christian life is so dependent upon Scripture that a person who has no regard for the Bible and who shows little interest in it would have good reason to seriously consider his salvation. Such a person would do well to examine his soul to see if he really has come to know the Lord.

Let’s look to just a few reasons why we, as Christians, should desire to know and study the Bible.

The first reason is that God draws an undeniable link between our knowledge of the Bible and our ability to live in the way He desires we live. In the book 1 John the apostle writes, “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked” (1 John 2:3-5). How are we to know how Christ walked and how are we to imitate Him if we do not study the record of His life? How are we to be obedient to Him but by studying the rule He has given to direct us? The Bible is the primary means God uses to teach us about Himself and to challenge us by the Holy Spirit. “And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual” (1 Corinthians 2:13). So to be people who are obedient to God and who do His will, we must first know His will as given to us in the Bible.

The second reason is that God tells us that our desire to learn about the Bible and its doctrine is a sign of spiritual health. In 1 John 4:6 we read, “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” Those who are truly saved will long to be taught the Bible by skilled teachers and by the spiritual authorities God has placed in their lives. They will long to know the Word of God.

The third reason is that the Bible sets us free to glorify and enjoy God. “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). The truth, as we learn it in the Bible, gives us freedom to honor God through our lives. It sets us free from legalistic attempts to please God and frees us from our false views of God. It sets us free to know God as He is and to worship Him as He is.

In the face of this testimony, knowing that the Bible is so central to the Christian life, does God need to command us to study it and treasure it? No! Christians should be drawn to the Bible the way a baby is drawn to his mother’s milk. It is the Bible that feeds us, that nourishes us, and that equips us as saints that bring glory and honor to God. As Simon Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life!” When we wish to live in a way that pleases God, we must turn to Him and He has revealed Himself in the Bible. A spiritually healthy Christian will read the Bible and will want to read the Bible.

Now I’d like to make a rather practical observation. Desiring to know and to study the Bible does not necessarily mean that we will always be overflowing with enthusiasm to do so. When we say that we desire to study the Bible we can mean two things. We can mean that we spring out of bed in the morning eager to rush to a comfortable chair and spend some time drinking in the Word of God. Though I think all Christians long to be like this, the sad fact is that very few are. However, even if we do not have an overflowing passion of this nature, we can still desire to read the Bible in a less passionate (but no less sincere) way, knowing that the Word feeds us, that it tends to our souls, and that we would be remiss to ignore times of Bible study. Even on days when our hearts are not pounding with excitement as we turn to our Scripture reading, we can still desire to read the Bible.

My encouragement is not to wait until your heart longs for nothing more than to study the Bible before you open the cover of the Book. Rather, commit today to beginning to take time every day to read it. Ask God to give you the discipline to do so. Commit to spending even just a few minutes reading its words and a few minutes more to seek ways you can apply it to your heart. God will speak to you through His Word and show you the infinite, eternal value of studying the Bible.