Gospel of John, Pt. 4
Posted on November 29th, 2007 by joebib into the Scriptures, joebib writes categoryHaving pretty much irrefutably resolved, I think — to any open-minded person who accepts the authority of the Word of God — the question of Christ’s Deity in the previous post (hopefully that was helpful, in spite of the length), let us proceed.
Anyone who has spent any time at all in reading the four Gospels will soon notice that the Gospel of John is markedly different from the other three.
So much so that Matthew, Mark and Luke have been grouped together and referred to under the name Synoptics, which basically means “same view.” These Gospels record many of the same parables, miracles, and teachings from the Life of Jesus in a similar style, chronological order, and oftentimes, in almost identical language.
But John’s Gospel is another story. It is quite unique in both style, wording, and content. Scholars believe that it was the last of the Gospels to be written, probably sometime around 90-100 A.D., towards the end of John’s life. It has been surmised that at that time, John was the Pastor of the church at Ephesus, and that since he was so close to their Savior — John 13:23, 20:2, and 21:7,20 all refer to John as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” — the Christians of John’s day were constantly asking him to give his account of the Good News as he remembered it: a spiritual record of the Life of Jesus.
The Early Church Father Irenaeus (died ca. 185 A.D.) states that John wrote his Gospel to specifically refute the Gnostic heretic Cerinthus. Church history tells an interesting story of John, who upon encountering this Cerinthus in a public bath house, cried to his disciples, "Up! Let us leave, lest the building fall down upon us; for Cerinthus the enemy of the truth is among us!”
Quite a strong response to false doctrine, as well as perhaps an example for us in our day! 
John does not open his Gospel with a genealogy of the natural life of Jesus the Man, as do Matthew and Luke, nor with action as does Mark, but instead goes back to Eternity past, and describes Jesus as God Himself.
Also, it may be noticed that the wording of the Gospel of John is different. The way he describes things, and the words he uses, are more simple and straightforward. Notice the subdued, almost understated way John begins in chapter one:
“In the beginning”
“was the Word”
“the Word was with God”
“the Word was God”
“in Him was life”
“the life was the light of men”
This is especially apparent from his usage of the Greek language, which is of an extremely simple and basic construction. So much so, in fact, that all beginning students of Greek start out their study of this intricate and complex language in the writings of John, usually in this very Gospel. After that, it’s on to more intermediate Greek such as is found in James, the Gospel of Mark, and the Epistles of Peter. Finally — almost as punishment — one concludes with the baffling perplexities of Paul’s scholarly Greek, very complicated indeed. 
It should be noted that while John does use the most basic constructs of language to communicate his message, the words are nevertheless deeply profound in spite of their simplicity. Jerome (died ca. 420 A.D.), the writer of the Latin Vulgate, remarked that “John indeed excels in the depths of divine mysteries.”
Students of the Bible have also noticed certain distinctive overall themes in the four Gospels.
Matthew has been recognized as being directed to the Jews — it is believed to have originally been penned in Hebrew — and being replete with O.T. citations, is thought to have been written to prove the Messiah- and King-ship of Jesus. Thus, it is perhaps addressed to the religious man.
Mark is thought to be addressed to the Roman world, to the man of action. Mark does not open his Gospel with a genealogy, but instead goes directly into the Ministry of Jesus. Inasmuch as Mark was known to be Peter’s companion (see 1 Peter 5:13 and Colossians 4:10), who also was connected to Rome — the “Babylon” reference in 1 Peter 5:13 is thought to be a reference to Rome — it is thought to have essentially been the Gospel according to Peter, and thus it truly seems to be the “Gospel of Action.” If you look up the words “straightway,” and “immediately” in a concordance, you will find that they occur in Mark more times than any other book.
Luke is the longest of the four Gospels, and as he was probably a Gentile (compare Paul’s distinctions in Colossians 4:7-14), his Gospel has been recognized to have been addressed to the Greek world. His Gospel has more parables than the others, and is thought to have been directed to the thinking man.
John focuses his Gospel on the Deity of Jesus Christ (see 20:31), and selects 8 major Miracles from the Life of Jesus to show this. This book has traditionally been recognized as being addressed to the believer.
Thought: Many people say John is their favorite Gospel, the one they turn to in times of difficulty.
Question: What is your favorite Gospel?
-joebib
RSS feed for posts
November 29th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Luke. It’s more ’scholarly’.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I dunno, joe. That’s a really hard one. What would we do without Matthew 5-7 and 23-25? And what about Mark’s whirlwind tour of the life of Jesus and his inclusion of Mary of Bethany. Then there’s the classic story in Luke of Jesus’ birth and beginning of ministry. But maybe it’s true that John becomes so many people’s favorite. Where would the believer be without John 14-17? I like them all.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Sadly you have failed to heed the Biblical admonition to “prove all things”, for even though there is not a single verse in scripture that would justify teaching the idea that John was the one whom “Jesus loved” you assume that this man-made tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this idea. But if one heeds Ps. 118:8 then the NON-BIBLE sources on which this tradition is based need to give way to the facts stated in scripture which prove that John was not this anonymous author.
One can chose to base their belief on Irenaeus and those who have parroted his unbiblical opinion if they so wish, but those who search the scriptures will find that the man-made John tradition is not so.
TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com has a free Bible-only based study that compares what the Bible says about John with what it says about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and the Biblical evidence proves that whoever this person was he was not John because the Bible cannot contradict itself.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:15 am
Jim–
Thanks for the reply, strong though it was.
I haven't followed your link yet, but I plan to do so.
I see you deny John the Evangelist as the author of this Gospel.
Since you claim to be basing your assumption on the Bible alone, I think I can safely assume you're not proffering the elusive “John the Presbyter/Elder” as author, another guess/invention by modern (liberal?) scholarship. Who was probably John the Evangelist anyway
So, I imagine you propose it was written by Mary Magdalene, or perhaps Lazarus whom Jesus raised in John 11. I have heard those two names suggested before. If I’m wrong in this please forgive me.
Suffice it to say that Church History — comprised of those scholars whom eventually established the very canon of Scripture, including this Fourth Gospel, BTW — has nearly unanimously accepted Johannine authorship until the advent of Higher/Form/Redaction Criticism near the end of the 18th century, or so, with "founding father" F.C. Baur.
Which ended up casting suspicion upon pretty much everything, from the authorship of not only the Pentateuch — viz., the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis: JEPD — to most of the rest of the books of both Old and New Testaments, as well as upon the validity of predictive prophecy.
And then, finally, upon the historicity of Jesus, as well as the efficacy of vicarious/substitutionary blood atonement.
You pooh-pooh Irenaeus (died ca. 185) — whom I seem to remember based his opinion on what Polycarp, who sat at John the Evangelist’s feet, had told him — as well as the many ensuing Fathers who concurred with this opinion.
I really don't want to go into another ponderous, theological — or in this case specifically, textual — dispute listing all the internal proofs, as well as external sources, which point to Johannine authorship.
But I will say this: I usually choose to side with the opinions of those learned men, whom not only lived within a few mere decades of this time period, but whom also possessed purer sources/documents, than what those of us living now have — whom attempt to peer back through the fog of 2000 years of history — or can speculate. YMMV
-joebib
P.S. (Sigh)……..another hijacking in the name of proselytization.
Methinks this blog’s readership is getting way out of hand.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:33 am
Joebib,
You refer to “another guess/invention…” (the name calling debate?) which suggests that you believe that a conclusion that is wholly based on Biblical evidence is a matter of opinion. On the other hand what I argue is that the Bible has sufficient evidence to prove a given idea ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ then that is the truth — and to decide to believe an idea that is contrary to these facts is to shut one’s eyes to the truth.
You wrote: “I imagine you propose it was written by Mary Magdalene, or perhaps…”
My reply: What you fail to see is that if the Biblical evidence can prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that John was not the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” then it doesn’t matter whether or not we can establish his identity. What matters is once has been offered Biblical evidence that proves that John was not the one “Jesus loved” then they must stop teaching that false idea if they respect the word of God. For to continue to present an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL when the Bible proves otherwise is to make void the word of God by your tradition — a bad decision indeed.
The funny thing is there are just as many verses that could be cited to support the Mary Magdalene idea as can be cited to support teaching the John idea but since the3 number in both of these cases is ZERO there is no Biblical justification for teaching either of these ideas – especially since BOTH of them can be PROVEN FALSE by the plain facts that have been preserved for us in the Biblical record.
You wrote: “I usually choose to side with the opinions of those men who lived within a few mere decades of this time period”
My reply: Given the explicit direction of Ps. 118:8 the wiser course of action is not to side with the opinions of men from any time period but rather to trust in “every word of God” — EXPECIALLY when the men who exposed those opinions (A) cannot/didn’t cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea [ i.e. the teaching is BASED ON THE OPINION ITSELF] and even worse if (B) the facts that are stated in the PLAIN TEXT of scripture prove that said opinion cannot stand up to Biblical scrutiny. And your assumption of “mere decades” for NON-BIBLE opinion on this topic can be shown to be false – as you will see below.
You wrote: “Irenaeus (died ca. 185) — whom I seem to remember based his opinion on what Polycarp…”
My reply: Consider the bait-and-switch that is done by proponents of the man-made John tradition who want to attribute the opinions of men who lived in the late second century and early third century to others who never said them (in order to suggest a connection to John that an honest examiner will admit does not exist). Specifically those who want attribute the opinions of Irenaeus to Polycarp simply because they say Irenaeus met Polycarp one time in his life is a patently dishonest characterization of the NON-BIBLE sources that the promoters of this tradition are want to claim. And if you care to see clear proof of this, check out DebatingChristianity.com under the “Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma” section, the “Authorship of John” thread, where the false attribution of the John idea to Poly carp is thoroughly exposed to be a fraud. [I challenge you to send along Polycarp’s OWN words on this topic, but you will look in vain because no such words exist.]
Jim
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
At the risk of further derailing the topic…
This is such a “chicken and the egg” argument, because it supposes that Scripture itself should be the authority on who wrote it and when, but since the author didn’t sign it (the Gospel of John), what authority are we to use to ascribe its origin? You see the problem here? You seem to want to ascribe a divine authority to canon, but as you’ve pointed out, we cannot prove definitively who wrote it exactly! How can you even then be sure that the Gospel of John is “the word of God” (in reference to your quote from Psalms)? By your tactics, that is, detracting from historical opinion and context of the origins of canonical works, we can discredit the entire Bible as being the “opinions of men” rather than “the word of God”. Your argument undermines your own beliefs about the Scripture.
I’m tired of random people coming on this blog stirring up pointless debate about the who/if/what/when of the origins of Scripture in order to defend their pet theory about the divine authorship of the Bible. I know I’m going to stir up a hornet’s nest here, but let’s all stop the BS and agree that the Bible is a collection of writings that are historical accounts of real people AND that we do NOT have ONE SINGLE ORIGINAL COPY of those accounts. In fact, books like the Gospels are all second hand accounts of what others were told and were then written down. We cannot even verify that the writers spoke with the people who gave the original accounts. At best, we have copies of copies that were handed down through several generations, and it is the historical documents that surround those writings that are our best method of investigation as to their accuracy and authenticity.
I’m so tired of Christians going to war with each other over the issue of the “divinity” of Scripture, because it’s intellectually dishonest to suppose that these documents are anything more than the best historical evidence we have of past events. To assume that these hand-me-downs from 2000+ years ago are the “Word of God” is a misplaced leap of faith. One does not have to make this intellectual death defying jump to believe the truths within them or to make them relevant to today. Many would label me a heretic for defying one of the most absolute tenets of evangelicals today, but my conscience is clear and me and God are still on speaking terms. The Holy Spirit is my witness to the truth and I don’t need a modern Evangelical Inquisition to correct me.
On the flip side, what I have studied about the origins of the Bible has not convinced me that my faith is misplaced or that these writings are in error. On the contrary, with the exception of a few translation issues, I find the Bible to be an accurate and invaluable road map for my beliefs.
Back on topic, I like the Gospel of John because it shows the “human” side of Jesus more than any other. We get to see his emotions, especially his deep love, in their purest. It has very little to do with the history of Jesus, but everything to do with who He was. We get the message of how much God wants to be united with us completely! Yes, God wants to be a part of us and for us to be a part of Him! His love for us is complete and it’s His only desire for us. I’ll tell you something that was a key moment for me in my healing process from CBC: it was when I realized that God loved me completely and that there was nothing I could do to make things any better or worse between us. It was when I realized that all the years of trying to please God were pointless in that God already loved me completely. I am His absolute delight and the center of His attention at all times! And all that He wants from me is to love Him the same way and express that love to others. It’s a far cry from living under the curse of tithing…
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:52 am
I tire of such debates too, FICM. Here’s a thought:
I love the preceding scripture; it’s NOT “and by the 2) word of scripture”, but the word of our testimony - our experience with the living Jesus Christ has ‘devil defeating’ power!
The scripture above I have come to see as a sort of prophecy, in as much as scripture itself admits it is an abridged version of Christ’s life and work, while leaving the door open for more books on the life and work of Christ! But where are these books?
You are a book of the testimony of Jesus Christ. So am I. We all are!
Who then is our author? Who is the REAL author behind the book of John?
Naming John, Mary or anyone else as the author of the 4th gospel, is akin to crediting the works of Shakespeare to his quill pen!
Sam
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
So, esteemed colleagues, I pose a question: What happens when what a person hears by the spirit contradicts what is written in the canon? Which “word” does the person go by?
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I guess this where you get to judge whether or not you’re hearing from God or you need medication to stop the voices in your head.
Seriously, there are places in the Bible that don’t fit our modern view of Christianity in different ways. There are scientific inaccuracies, translational difficulties, and archaic cultural values just for starters. I think one has to look at the big picture and remember Jesus’ command to love God and love each other and by doing that we fulfill everything expected of us. The Bible is a big picture with much truth contained therein, but in the most important issues, it doesn’t contradict basic morality and common sense. I think the mistake here is to assume that the Bible can address every single question offered, and answer every moral dilemma, when Jesus came to abolish the Old Law and replace it with the Law of Love. People who get caught up in arguments over rules have clearly missed the point of what Christ did for us.
Take for example 1 Corinthians 11. How many American women cover their heads when they pray? When was the last time a Christian woman had her head shaved by a deacon because she failed to cover her head while praying in church? (Those brazen hussies!) Paul had specific guidelines for Christian propriety that don’t seem to apply to us any more, and he had rather strong opinions on subjects that don’t seem to matter in a modern context. I’d rather follow his advice in Romans 14, to use your freedom as an opportunity to build up one another in love, rather than to judge each other harshly.
I think if you’re really having a hard time deciding which “voice” is right, you’ll seek out the advice of those you can trust. In some cases, it might even involve some historical research into the origins and context of the Scripture in question. It would do the Christian community great good if more of us actually understood the origins of the Bible!
Or, it may be that your opinion or voice is the right one, and those who are teaching the opposite about the Bible are incorrect (thus, this blog!). In my own experience, I had to unlearn a lot of teachings and doctrines gained from my years of CBC and their ilk. The Bible was never “wrong”, but I came to different conclusions about what it said. Tithing is just one example, and it wasn’t until I studied it carefully that I was able to judge that the Holy Spirit which had been telling me for years to stop giving was the right voice to listen to!
Is that a fair answer?
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Thank you, FICM. I understand your points. I had a few “yes, but…” thoughts as I read it, but I know what you’re saying.
I’m curious what the other esteemed colleagues think.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:58 am
My, but aren’t we a bit cranky this morning.
-joe
December 4th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Anna, I believe we should follow the Spirit’s leading, though it should be tested. FICM voiced a concern I’ve had about ’scripture is the final / only authority’ above as it invokes a kind of circular logic that ultimately defeats itself. One of the ways I’ve looked at it is, at the time scripture was written, there was NO PRECEDENT for how God would interact with people. But once God interacted with people and it was recorded, it became a “precedent” from which God could never deviate, lest someone accuse God of being contradictory. Imagine that we had “cut off” the cannon at Deuteronomy and declared that to be the whole and infallible “word of God” - we’d still be offering burnt sacrifices, tithing, wearing tunics and ephods, following the law, etc. But God left open the possibility of a new covenant through prophecy and His promises, and thereby the potential for more records of God’s interaction with people.
That said, there are STILL said to be unfulfilled prophecies from the old and new testaments. Dare we say that we can not write about our interaction with God and His work toward the fulfillment thereof? It may be we’ll experience God in unprecedented ways! Realistically, we’ve never seen anything on the earth the likes of which Revelation describes. So do we tell God “You can’t do that because You haven’t set the precedent in the other 65 books?”
What I’m getting at Anna, is that as a people we seem to have this locked mindset about how God can interact with us - that He can never ask us to do anything or tell us anything that isn’t already recorded in the Bible - which has had the net effect of silencing God in this generation. Yet at the same time, the (so-called) prophets frequently cite the scripture “behold, I am doing a NEW THING” as justification for what they often refer to as the “latter rain”, etc. So I see a kind of hypocrisy - on the one hand they expect God to behave in ways only described in scripture, while on the other, expect Him to ignore the precedent (and prophecy) of scripture and turn the world upside down to bring about the “latter rain/reign” or so-called “3rd day church”, etc.
In the Legalism thread, I shared an experience whereby the Holy Spirit led me to serve communion to my wife and pour out the remaining communion wine on the ground. That I know of, there’s no scriptural precedent for that. All I had was the Spirit’s leading, a vision, and a sister who independently and without prior knowledge confirmed the Spirit’s direction to me by having the same vision the Spirit had given me. I took that as confirmation, though there was nothing in scripture about it. So in that case, the Spirit directed me where scripture was silent.
There is another scripture, that says something to the effect of “nothing beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6) … I wonder if in making the Bible ’sola scriptura’ (or whatever), if we have gone beyond what has been written, by using scripture to tie-up God and render Him silent? Why not see scripture as the record of God’s interaction with people, and that His ways were many and differed from person to person, therefore establishing the precedent: God will do what God wants to do, rather than, God can only do/say what he has done/said in the past, as recorded in the Bible?
Thanks for listening to me ramble and for asking, Anna.
Sam
December 4th, 2007 at 8:57 am
PS, Anna, a Messianic Rabbi friend of mine, with whom I break bread on occasion, has pointed out a contradiction of God in scripture. I haven’t really studied it, but it is essentially this: God had established the sabbath as a day of rest, God decreed the Levites/priests were not to go into battle, yet in Joshua 6, God directed Joshua to have the Levites march ahead of the army, for 7 consecutive days, the 7th of which (Sabbath) they were to march around the city (Jericho) 7 times. In so ordering Joshua, God contradicted His law/word.
Like I said, I haven’t researched it out completely, but a cursory look at Joshua 6 clearly shows God ordering the priests and troops to march on the Sabbath for 7 laps around Jericho.
Thoughts?
Sam
February 29th, 2008 at 3:47 am
Thank you so much for writing about this! You don’t know how much your article saved my life! One question though, who is the man of action, religious man, thinking man and especially the believer?
March 28th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I have done a great deal of religious study over the years (many cultures) and continue to be bothered that the Gospel of John seems to be “putting words into the mouth of Jesus”. When I studied, for example, the Gnostic scriptures I felt that the Gnostics understood that the relationship with God was very personal and extremely complex.
“The Apostles Creed” and other documents like it enforce a regimentation that seems designed to be more “church-leadership-pleasing” than spiritual.
When I read a translation of the Koran I found it to be remarkably similar to the accounts of the Synoptics and the Gnostic scriptures but, once again, the Gospel of John stands in contrast.
Please be patient with me? I’m not trying to incite an argument here but am interested in hearing constructive comments.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Steve, please restate. I’m not understanding what you are asking.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I also have seriously studied the Gospel of John. I find it easy to accept the words that the author ‘puts into the mouth’ of Jesus as the notes of an eyewitness. John’s Gospel has a theme concerning eye witness testimony concerning who Jesus is (Jn 20:30,31 & 21:24,25). I find it fascinating. I am totally unimpressed with the Gnostic writings. I find them unclear, contrived and generally so disattached from history, geography and politics that one cannot possibly determine their validity. I find them vapid. I haven’t read the Koran much. But, I do know that Mohammed owned slaves and put down women. He cannot possibly represent the God who is LOVE. Jesus provides the highest moral code of any religion when He says, “You shall love your enemy.” Even the fringe of Christianity (eg Mormons) do not accept this moral code. Yet, love your wife, your neighbor, and your enemy resound with clarity, beauty and human impossibility. Lord, with your guidance and grace let me love You, Your Word and my fellow human beings.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Well, there is some evidence that the Gnostic Christians actually felt that John was mis-quoting Jesus and that he may have expelled from the early church for “falsifying” the records. Those are harsh words, I know, but the Gospel of John is most certainly the one most often quoted to prove, for example, the divinity of Jesus.
Steve
April 6th, 2008 at 4:52 am
Oops, sorry.To re-state as a question:
My question is whether you think the Christian churches of today would have been different in any way if the Gospel of John had NOT been included in the New Testament. Would the writings of Matthew, Mark and Luke by themselves have resulted in a different worship service?
Steve
April 6th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Steve,
Without John, I imagine the church of today would have even less understanding of communion, for example. It’s bad enough now with a crumb of bread and 1/2 oz. shot of grape juice with people who do not understand the prophetic / metaphoric meaning of the broken bread, the hidden manna (afikomen), the wine - and how communion relates to the original passover meal eaten by the Israelites last night in Egypt before the exodus.
As for whether there’d be an impact on worship services, I really don’t think so, as “worship services” seem more like “old testament temple worship re-incarnate” than anything born of the new testament or by the leading of the Holy Spirit …
I think the Church was quickly sidetracked from being Spirit-led back to the tradition of Israelite / Hebrew synagogue worship and leadership heirarchy … how many times have Christian leaders pointed to the OT as reasons for elements of modern worship services? I’m just surprised they don’t sacrifice animals still …
Sam
April 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Steve, I would like to see the evidence that your proposed Gnostic view is true, or at least that it is likely. In looking at the documents, my criticism is unanswered. The Gnostic Gospels present almost zero political, geographical or historical statements which would help verify them. They were also written well after the original gospels. Not only this but there are far fewer Gnostic manuscripts of any given Gnostic Gospel. A plurality of manuscripts indicates respect and even authority (that is unless when can find a conspiracy to produce the false documents…theories anyone? evidence?). In any other case the earliest document would get automatically more credibility than a later document (see the Westcott/Hort view of the NT manuscripts). The 4 Gospels, including John offer a large amount of consistent political, geographical and historical notes that have been significantly verified and never contradicted.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Steve said,
Do you mean would orthodox Christian doctrine be different without the gospel of John? Because I’m with Sam here; I don’t think John affects church services one way or the other.
I also think it is possible to give a scriptural case for the divinity of Jesus without using the gospel of John. … if that’s your other question.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
[Comment #29849 Will Be Quoted Here]
Samaritan- your Rabbi friend has kind of missed the entire point of the Sabbath. The point of the Sabbath is one day in 7 that man significantly prioritizes to do the will and work of God. God is not constrained by the Sabbath law and His command to the Priests (and all Israel for that matter) is totally within His prerogative as GOD. If God says march (and He is certainly ‘allowed to’) then God’s people march, no matter the day or the hour. Remember the words of Jesus, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” So the Sabbath law is for the benefit of man. The Sabbath law is not for God at all.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
You missed the point, Paul M.
Anna asked about it seems like the Spirit of God via rhema word, contradicts the logos word (the 8th reply to the original post).
I simply pointed out that God gave man the law of the Sabbath, and law(s) concerning the Levites, and then God gave them directions that if followed, broke His previous command(s).
Often it has been said, especially in word faith / charismatic crowd that God can and will never contradict Himself. Well, there’s record of it in scripture, so clearly, we can’t make that claim about God now, can we?
Sam
April 7th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Sam- I still see no contradiction between God’s Law on the Sabbath and God’s spoken word to the Israeli army (including priests) at Jericho. Obedience to God on the Sabbath is worship,and is honoring the Sabbath. Perhaps the common understanding of Sabbath has created the alleged contradiction. One does not work for one’s own benefit on the Sabbath. One sets aside (rests from human struggle) to do what God wills on the Sabbath. Jesus even showed where helping one’s fellow man or even an animal on the Sabbath was consistent with God’s Sabbath law. God cannot and does not contradict Himself. Man makes up narrow definitions so as to distort what God’s Word (spoken or written) says, and thereby creates apparent contradictions. Mankind loves to distort God’s Word so as to have reason not to obey. At this time we have no other absolute and objective Word of God except the Scripture. All the alleged present day ‘rhema’ must be consistent with the written Word or cannot be considered valid.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:01 am
A response to FICM- I do not find the need for my faith to be a “death defying leap”. I believe that “All Scripture is God-breathed and… capable to complete” the one who adheres to it (2 Tim 3.16). ‘God-breathed’ sure seems ‘divine’ to me. Elsewhere the Apostle Paul will make an argument for the legitimacy of Jesus based on the difference between a singular and a plural noun form in the OT.
I also do not find it accurate to call the Bible a collection of second-hand accounts. Luke, John and Peter claim to be providing eye witness accounts. Just because there is no ‘inspiration’ in the translation and transmission of the Bible does not mean God did not seriously preserve the written Word. You even admit in your comment that the transmission and translation of the Bible has evidence of a quality beyond expectations.