Word and Deed Together Always?

Over and over we are learning that God always reveals in both "Word" and "Deed" and that any view of revelation that omits one of these aspects is seriously wrong. The connection of these two aspects is becoming more and more a central issue to every theological realm. I would like to take the time to develop this more, but at least I thought I'd get my cards out on the table concerning these as revelational norms and the discussion of the creation views.

It is my contention that if our creation view is to accommodate a history in which God's "Word" is not temporally tied to his act, so that many years can pass between the two, we may gain the applause of modern science and make room for all kinds of anthropocentric speculation, but we will not be consistent with our theology elsewhere. Our theology that is founded upon the bond between the two great aspects of revelation... Word and Deed!

This kind of split is not forced by the bookbinders but allowed. So the question then becomes why allow such an understanding without qualifing the necessity of the bond between word and deed? I suppose the obvious answer is that will take us very nearly, if not totally, back to a literal understanding of the time frames where word and deed are bound together - and amazingly are bound together in language that we (God's covenant people) understand... evening, morning and day.

The Analogy of Scripture and the Opening pages of the Bible...

The analogy of Scripture is a exegetical tool where scripture interprets scripture. This tool may (and should) help us when discovering the meaning of parts of scripture which are less plain to us, and since the attack on a plain meaning in Genesis chapter 1 is now becoming common we should spend a little time here.

Those that use scripture against the literal view are keen to address this subject. For some when the Bible declares that a day is unto the Lord as a thousand years and the "hour has not yet come"- they see justification to the idea that the Bible frequently uses a time frame to refer to a concept rather than to the historic limitations of the time frame. There is also an idea circulated that the Hebrew words used to depict that the "earth was formless and void" would be better translated "formless and empty" by the analogy of Scripture.

To address the first objection (i.e. the Bible frequently uses non literal time frames) I would like to underline that the Bible does not frequently but rather infrequently use time frames in non literal senses. It should be noted that the bulk of the OT has a contextualized literal time frames, and most importantly that the concept of a seven day week is prominent. It should in connection with this be stressed that this literal concept of the week is often surrounding major redemptive events. First, in the consecrating of the firstborn and food and the people - a major redemptive event - Exo 22:29-31a "You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me. "You shall be consecrated to me." - obviously a literal week. Also the very first "Atonement offering" done by Aron was done on the "eighth day" Lev 9. And of course there is the circumcision that was to be done on the "eighth day". Connected with the levitical law there is a repeated use of the seven day ceremonial washing or cleansing on the seventh day that is followed by the sacrifice an redemption back into fellowship on the eighth day (cf. Lev 14:10,23 15:14,29 22:27 23:36). Then of course their are the "feast" - particularly interesting is Lev 23:39 "On the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the produce of the land, you shall celebrate the feast of the LORD seven days. On the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest. But who can forget the feast of Solomon after dedicating the "Temple" and praying for the people? (1 Kings 8:65,66 - 2 Ch 7:9). These are just a few of the numerous significant places that the concept of a literal week are used in the OT and tied to redemptive activity or at least significant activity in redemptive-history. It goes without saying that if the concept of the week is literal, then the days with in - or the first day after (8th day) is literal as well. The overwhelming evidence is that the normal mode of communication concerning time frames is itself normal or historical. In fact it is most significant that the Scripture itself utilizes this literal time frame again and again when revealing redemptive events acts. Scripture has no problem then communicating a redemptive message through a historical time frame, which we have already said numerous times - but it bares re-emphasis here, especially considering that the Bible no where else uses the week in non literal terms! 10 days...yes; 1000 yrs...yes; an hour...yes again, but a week...no (unless of course you're a dispensational, then Daniel is loaded with figurative weeks)

Now the second objection is to the effect that the Genesis narrative is purposing some kind of problem to which the creation account is the solution - namely the form-less and empty-ness of the earth. The idea is that the creation days are divided up to address these problems. Day 1-3 address the problem of form and 4-6 take on the "filling" character to address the problem of empty-ness.

We don't need to spend a lot of time here since it will already be assumed that if this is true or not- it should bare no weight to the idea or need for ditching a literal/historical sequence. Still, I would like to say that in terms of content, what ever the earth was in Genesis 1:1 it was contextually different than any other time. Thus of how it was void or empty we have no other model. But if filling this emptiness is the intention behind days 4-6 then so be it, it hurts me not.

The Eternal Sabbath and the Arch-type/type problem...

Funny how pivotal a role the Sabbath can play isn't it?
There is an objection to the view that the creation days where normal days - in that the seventh day is said to be the Arch-typical Sabbath, God's Sabbath, which as you might well guess is eternal. Those that espouse this view see Hebrews chpt 4 as defending there idea that after God created he entered into His rest - and remains in that rest.
There may be some benefit to such a view, but the question of the nature of the first Sabbath - the seventh day of creation - is what is crucial for us to consider. If we take such a view, we have to be careful not to confuse God's covenantal relations with his aseity. By this I mean that we have to ask ourselves, Did God intend to communicate to Moses something of His covenant relationship to His creation by resting on the seventh day from His work of creation - or should we maintain that God in himself rested? Or perhaps more importantly - is the Sabbath a reality because of the covenantal relationship between God and man (i.e. is God saying something to man in it)? Lastly, the question could be phrased - "was man created for the Sabbath or was the Sabbath created for man"? Do we conclude from Christs phrasing that the Sabbath was "created"- as Christ referring to the creation events recorded in Genesis chapter 1 - or is he referring to the institutionalizing of it as a religious observance in the giving of the Law in Exodus? This seems rather plain, since the idea of man's being made clearly refers to his original creation and not the giving of the Law. But the objection is that God enters rest on the seventh day of creation, so why does Christ say that the Sabbath was made for man? Well, it shouldn't be to hard for us to see that the whole creative enterprise is first and foremost for God's own glory, so in that sense everything was created for Him (and unto Him), but at the same time we see rather quickly that all things are a revelation of God in His covenant relation to His creation, and this revelation is for the good of man not because God needed it. In this sense we do not so much see the first Sabbath as an Arch-type detached from man - but rather we see God as the Arch-typical covenant head entering into the rest that He intended for us to enter, which fits very nicely with the reasoning behind the institution i.e. rest on the seventh day because I rested on the seventh day! - but still points eschatologically toward a better rest. Also we must confess that the only way in which God is said to enter into rest must be covenantal, for we can not conceive of it otherwise. Therefore the duration of the rest that God enters into and the benefits of that rest - are they not all to confirm and illustrate and teach what man covenantally has been given in the Sabbath? Hebrews 4 indeed alludes to an eternal rest, but not so much from the creations seventh day as from Christs completed work (which unfortunately is why many would deny any Sabbath observance in the NT). However, we should begin to see that the first Sabbath was proto-typical for man in his religious and covenantal obligations - and Christs Sabbath is the new Arch-typical Sabbath; changed in reference to the object being rested in - from creator to redeemer. But even Christ entering into His rest is covenantal, a participation in His person, and though it is "Arch-type" it still has an eschatological force to it. It is the Eternal Sabbath for man in the not yet, but proto-logical for man, again in his religious and covenantal obligations, in the now.

By these things I cannot see any weight to a statement that the seventh day of creation was not a normal day in duration, and that is the basic thrust of there position. Again unless we are willing to obscure God's covenant dealing with man - the plain meaning of the Sabbath both OT and NT belongs as beneficial to man - not as an intangible mega-mystery.

The Introduction of Myth...

Today during a lecture in intro to systematics our esteemed professor rejected the idea that Genesis chapter 2: 8-25 has the earmarks of myth. "We outright deny that this is a mythological account of expression...to introduce myth here is to introduce something totally foreign" Now the point for us in class was directed at the veracity of the idea that God speaks to Adam and that He is able to do so with verbal, audible language. One might see it as historical and literal verses mythological and literary. Here we were concerned that any introduction to the idea of myth would destroy the very foundation of revelation and the religious or more emphatically, covenantal aspect of the relation between God and man. It was a wonderful discussion that underlined the import of God being friends with, having fellowship with His creation as a real and ultimate reality. Which lead to the thought that: "if some heretics will say that intercourse between God and man is too sublime for words, then the heretic who would say this is trying to be wiser than God."

As I reflected on these important things I wondered why this same force of denial of the mythological is not applied to the preceding chapter of Genesis? After all the effect of such mythology seems to do damage to the type of relationship - or rather to the mode of covenant communication that we are so keen to protect here in chapter 2. What I mean is if the "book binders" are correct in the mere literary import of chapter 1 are we not forced to conclude that God's communication bares little or no resemblance to actual history? That God teaches through a myth of creation construction the history of which is somewhere in the background, but certainly not revealed?

Granted the creation account is told to Moses not Adam (at least as far as we know) for the starting of the redemptive/covenantal-history whereas chapter 2 although recorded by Moses was also certainly spoke to Adam. But that does not diminish the idea that God's communication is in both places - normal, as a friend would speak to a friend and understandable.

From this I must infer that the normal reading of Genesis 1 - where a day means a day - an evening means the close of a day and the morning the beginning - is quite simply not mythological and natural to the type of real and understandable communication that we are so intent to keep with Adam. The idea is that God's revelation is plenary. However, the idea that Genesis 1 is not concerned to relate the plain understanding of day, evening, morning etc, is truly mythological and vague. It uses language to describe a meaning other than what is obvious, which as far as I can tell is not the way that friends speak to friends.

So much work has been done to refute the error of Barthian thinking who championed the neo-orthodox view of the "theology of the cross" - which he describes as a theology that is necessarily hidden and vague - why? Because man can not handle direct plenary revelation. To which we say a whopping NO! So why would we be tempted to start of on this same foot - on the same path of vague revelation couched in literary device unseen to the untrained eye, i.e. not clear?

Why ditch the sequence even if there is literary artistry?

OK, we have to ask: "What forces us to ditch the idea of sequence?" It might well be conceded that when ever God writes a word there is more than historic action involved. There is deed and word, and both deed and word together are revelatory of a greater subject matter than they can fully contain by themselves. Thus even a 24hr literalist view must not be contained in the mere communication of a time sequence. It might be noted again here that there is no prohibition to seeing the Kingdom/King relationship in the creative events and retain an historical sequencing of 24 hr periods.

To illustrate it may be helpful to notice that the text speaks of evening and then morning - which are themselves a sequence. The text could just as easily said morning and then evening reversing the order, but we find it significant that God speaks in such a sequence, namely that light breaks through or into darkness - the light overtakes the darkness and the sequence becomes important to carry this idea. Literary artistry? - of course... Historical reality? of course, morning always does follow evening and resurrection is always preceded by death. So here we have a word revelation, with a historical correlative, that underlines theological truths and yet creates no tension between the word and the deed in there revelatory validity nor their historical veracity. In other words, we don't have to imagine an evening that is not meant to be a true evening or a morning that is not meant to be a true morning in order to understand the literary beauty and the redemptive-historical implication.

So again, why do we have to ditch the idea of historical meaning - a correlative historical event that happens along side of and is interpreted by the word (literary construct)?

Addressing the elasticity of historicity...

It should not be a surprise that the "book binders" do not want to make a stand against historicity. In fact it should be noted that some "book binders" are some of the foremost proponents and defenders of the historicity of revelation in other quarters. So how do they escape the quite obvious problem when denying sequence that they retain historicity?

The first thing is to limit historicity. Here the idea is to discover what is essential to understand as necessarily real history and affirm that - then digress from there to what is not necessarily historical. "Book binders" will confess that Adam must be and was an historical man, that he really was created perfect, that he really did fall and plummet mankind into an estate of sin and misery. They will, and often are foremost in supporting, that God did really enter into a covenant of works with Adam for perfect obedience upon pain of death. This much they will establish and defend as ardently as any 24hr fellow. There is probably more that they will affirm - but what is important is that they affirm these things as the core historical truth. Other descriptions of the creation events may not be as "real" and may only frame a story rather than a history. Upon the latter it should be noted that it differs little from historic liberalism and the issue becomes how elastic or how static does the concept of historicity need to be to maintain orthodoxy.

Now, it does us no good to simply claim that all Scripture is equally historical - or that everything that falls with in a development of time is communicating sequence as one of its necessary elements. The Gospels clearly destroy that approach. However, we must I think, be able to apply exegetical disciplines properly. We should be able to say that "historicity" means this here, and that "historicity" means the same thing over here. In that way we should be very careful when making the historicity of Genesis 1 limited to a core and the "historicity" of Mark 15 unlimited.

Limiting terms to a core is one way of affirming "historicity" while denying sequence, but you can also stretch the term. For example one person may deny that Satan actual came in the form of a serpent, but affirm that there really is an historical creature called "Satan" and that he really did historically tempt Eve, and thus claim that he believes in the historicity of the temptation of Eve. In like manner, the "book binders" may affirm that God really did historically create all the things He said He did in Genesis 1 and that God really interacted by Word historically, but deny that the time sequence of one day passed between some of the creative fiats. The text may say evening and morning day..., but what is meant is not historical here, however, since I affirm the historicity of creation and of God and man, I am still understanding things historically.

Again, this kind of stretching is a danger - for it equivocates on the meaning of at least the terms evening, morning and day. It is my belief that whether we limit the historicity to a core, or we stretch the meaning of the term to fit broader semantic terms, which really means non-historic terminology, the effect is virtually synonymous, and that is we force the text into literal ambiguity and we limit the scope of revelation to the written story and detach it from the real history. It is interesting to note here what Murray said concerning revelation and "History" - he said that special revelation and historical revelation always follow the same pattern. This would mean that the special revelation of Genesis 1 - must have a correlative pattern in history - Which in fact it does - if you see the week (7 - 24 hr periods) historically. =-)

6 seconds 6 days 6 thousand years...

Just a quick thought here. God being God, what kind of time restriction can we put on Him in order to create?

The answer is obviously that we can not put any restrictions on God. We serve a God Who can do as he pleases, and for God the time frame that he chooses is not arbitrary but revelatory and because he also tells us about it in the Scripture it is both General and special in its revelation content. Although, not much is made about these time frames in most systematic theologies, the truth of its revelatory content is still maintained.

The 6 seconds view (which no - one I know really holds) indeed would favor the power of God and also perhaps the idea of speed to the cross theology. It is true that 6 seconds can be held as a possibility - baring of course the plain fact that God told us that the time frames included evening and morning and those are on anyones count longer than a few seconds.

The 6 thousand year view (remember a day is to the Lord as a thousand years... yada yada yada) perhaps shows a long suffering God - but maybe more like a slow god. This view stinks with anything biblical - but goes quite nicely with secular science that wants to nod to some kind of creative start - but is really seduced by evolution in the end.

The 6 day view makes sense with the historical phenomenon of the 7 day week. It also has nicely on it's side the fact that Genesis actually says DAY 1 etc. The theology of redemption is also built in nicely to this view with the repetition of redemptive acts that happen on the 8th day, or to put it another way - the first new day.

I suppose that the "book binders" really don't care what view one takes concerning the time frame - since time is not the working framework for them. I wonder then if that means anything goes? Could day 1 have been 4hrs long and really connected with day 4? Could day 6 have been 12 weeks long to account for the vast amount of activity on that day? Are we to think that the historical possibilities are endless and non effected by the redemptive work of creation? Seems questionable to me to hold that Gods word in creation is literary artistry meant to show God's kingship figuratively and can not be understood to relate to what we know as time frames, and therefore has little historical traction. For this is exactly what liberals have been saying for years concerning the resurrection account.

Lastly, the 666 was intentional =-)

Proportion and the Sabbath...

We have already alluded somewhat to the Sabbath issue; we need now to direct that discussion to the realm of time and proportion. This will be helpful to us since the "book binders" take the stance that time or time periods are not what are being communicated in Genesis chapter 1 creation account - but mere literary devise.

I have often used the logic of proportion in defending the use of, and command for the tithe. The logic is simple - God requires that we are 100% His. Money is a central issue in our life and depicts better than almost anything where our allegiance belongs or to what or whom we truly pay homage (worship). God being merciful uses the picture of the tithe to accomplish the declaration of totality while at the same time displaying His kindness, mercy and sensibleness. So we give 1/10th to show 100%. This proportion works well because the nature of the numeric percents. 10 completes a set, and 100 also completes a set. Thus God allows us to give a complete (yet smaller) set, to represent the ownership of God over the larger complete set.

Now, if you follow me this far, it should not be hard to guess the direction I'm going. I said that: "money depicts better than almost anything" - why almost? Because it is possible for some (not many) to spend their money in ways that are not consistent with their devotion. Even though this is difficult and rarely seen it is still possible. However, I would maintain that if taken together with the element of time, the two become decisive. Where a man spends his time and his money is where his heart is. It is for this reason (and others) that I believe that God continues both the tithe and the Sabbath in both covenants (though that is a debate for another time). So time as well as money is to be 100% God's. Has God left us with such a beneficent religious obligation as the tithe is with money, concerning our time? Yes, the Sabbath is that, and in like manner - it too can be seen proportionately. 1/7th for 7/7th - perhaps not as nice as 10 to 100 at first glance, but notice that 7 is or historically has been considered the divine number of completeness - once again through 7 is thought to be a complete set, and it goes with out saying that 1 is a complete set of itself.

Proportion, at least as far as I understand, doesn't work very well in communicating if the comparisons being made are not equal. For example if you had 10 items and each separate item was worth differing amounts, then in the tithe example could you really just give one of those items to the LORD and have it fulfill the same picture = 1 complete set for another? I don't think so. This is what troubles me with the "book binders" anti-chornos. While they may believe that the 7th day of creation was actually 24hrs in duration - they seem scared to admit most of the others had such a duration - which leaves us with a faulty proportion.

Admittedly, to die on this hill would be silly for me, but it is worth considering and noting the liturgical and representational structure that is so interwoven into human history (i.e. time and money belong to God). Of course it should be again pointed out, that someone may believe that there are literary constructs (frameworks) involved in Genesis 1 creation account without denying that the time structures (frameworks) are simple, historical, 24hr periods. Once we begin stretching and pulling the activity of God to fit a structure not found in the Bible, whether to make room for scientific or academic accolade, then at that point we truly deny the framework of the Bible which is ever God's wisdom not man's. And that is a devastating prospect beyond proportion!

Day 1 and 4...

The "problem" according to the "framework" supporters is to the apparent confusion of the creation of light on day 1 and the creation again of light in the light agents on day 4. What is purposed as problematic (as far as I can tell at this point) is that the Hebrew expresses the verb "to give light" - you see the verb is in the causative stem in the infinitive construct form, which is claimed to prove that the "luminaries" are created for the purpose of producing light.

It is hard for me to see a problem here. Why should it be a problem to create light and separate it from the darkness without governing bodies and then later create governing bodies that actually are causal agents of light on the earth? The science of how God accomplishes the separations are not explicit on either day 1 or 4 - they are simply stated as fact. Nor can it be said that day4 addresses the full comprehension of created luminaries. Day 4 is therefore not an explanation - and if it were an elaboration of the greater detail of day 1 creation then we have a strange sequence marker, namely "evening and morning the first day" not to mention the Hebrew here is expressed with the verb "becoming" - so that you have literally 'he became evening and he became morning day one' and this can easily be seen as a time marker of God concerning a whole day that emphasizes redemption 'death and resurrection' creation and new creation' . But even if we find no symbolic significance in the light out of darkness, evening and morning we still must recognize a definite marker that refers to time and the progress of it - which could be called real history.

Now, the framework guys (which I would like to call the book binders, in that they bind God's creative fiats to the literary page and restrict it from real history) suggest that the reason for the construct of day 1 creation of light and day 4 creation of light governing bodies - is that God is communicating a kingdom to king relationship. They say that the day 1 event is descriptive of the kingdom while the day 4 event is descriptive of the king(s) of that kingdom. To which we might say Amen. It is not awkward to believe that God would declare such kingdom terms in both the description of creation and in the actual history. Again the book binders assert a problem, but as stated before I see none.

Next, I would like to consider a few things about the Sabbath day command. The book binders have already anticipated the difficulties that arise hear, but I think we should look a bit closer at the significance of the "timing" of the Sabbath. By that I mean that the Sabbath command is comencerate with a particular period of time - namely sunset to sunset (Jewish reckoning) why? Because God had rested from all his work evening and morning the next day. Now if the Sabbath is for sure a real 24 hr period - a whole day - and that is what is to be kept holy because of the creation event, and we understand a time correspondence here - How can we muddy our thinking concerning the other "days" as if they can not relate to the same period of time?

A Framework for History...

Coming to this seminary I knew that I would have to confront the so-called "framework hypothesis" - so I'm getting a head start. I will have to meet this head to head in The Doctrine of Man class, but I thought I might as well start my defense early.

A while ago I was honored to teach a class on the Sabbath and the transfer from the seventh day to the first. I took a different approach than typical and placed emphasis on the significance of the "week" and the bibles use of time frames to set forth truths about redemption. As I studied I gained more and more appreciation for the actual structure of a week, that it is composed of 7 days. For a "restoring" that happened on an 8th or 16th day and the Holy Spirit thought we should know this - for circumcision being done on the 8th day and not the 9th and so on. Now some might be thinking that I am heading into the murky waters of numerology, and maybe there is a little bit of truth in that fear, but I must say that there is an obvious fact of a seven day week throughout creation that has never been undone. The French and the Russians both tried to change this (During the French Rev they tried for a 10 day week, the Russian went for a 6 day week) but neither were successful.

I could delve deeper into such structures, but my purpose here is to say - why would God reveal the greatness of redemption using the structures of time sets like the day (24 hrs) and the week (7, 24 hr periods) later in redemptive history and not have set up the time set itself?

Let me be more clear: The "framework hypothesis" constricts God's redemptive revelation to the literary devise, and perhaps inadvertently, perhaps volitionally, denies it from the actual history/chronology itself. The 24 hr view retains both!

In future post I plan to get more into a defense of my view and a critique of the "framework" view. I will try to unpack the supposed problem of day 1 and day 4 light creation, and address the diversionary language of "literary artistry" and "thematic arrangement" ( I say diversionary because the presupposition is that a 24 hr literal view must deny such - which is not true). For now let it suffice that the history of the world and the sacred history in the Scriptures have all been with in the "framework" of God's time sets - Which leads me to affirm a "framework hypothesis" - but not one that is bound only to literature or meta-physical thought, but rather one that uses history as well as literature, physical as well as meta-physical. Much like the rest of redemptive history actually, and that is the point isn't it?

Grammatic-Historical vs Redemptive Historical

More and more factors are beginning to introduce themselves as my study for pastoral preparation continues. I have already voiced the concern that an approach to the text of scripture that assumes some kind of neutrality or even some kind of merely contextualized truth is a wrong approach that leads invariably to a critical mind concerning the Scriptures and will, at least at some level, evaluate the text with an external criterion for knowledge.

This will at first seem problematic to the process of hermeneutics. We are used to the popular approach to hermeneutics called "grammatic-historical". This process stresses the first way to read the text is as one in the original audience would. Then explore the grammar for its most basic and common meaning with in that context. However, this would seem to be importing the socio-or cultural context as the governing principle over the text, therefore the process should be abandoned for a better model. A model that allows for significant contribution to be made by such contexts - but not as an ultimate or primary principle.

Now, adherents to the grammatical-historic hermeneutic will not easily give in to such a paradigm shift. Especially, those who have used this process well for some years. Again, I must stress that we are not seeking to abandon historical context - but merely to put historical context in its proper place before we let it have sway over our understanding of revelation. In a sense you could say that historic context is contextualized by a greater principle itself - and that principle the Bible teaches is redemption. You might be thinking that this sounds just like "redemptive-historical" hermeneutics, and you'd be correct. But the problem as far as I can see, is that there is not a good codification of "Redemptive-Historical" process. Most often we learn about Biblical Theology, that it is an over arching organizing and evaluating principle applied to exegesis - or as BB Warfield would say 'Biblical theology is the final and complete result of exegesis', which would clearly put the science of RH hermeneutics after an exegetical attempt to understand the text. Exegeses itself seems to pose problems - at least if we use the definition: "The word exegesis can mean explanation, but as a technical term it means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text..." and "Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text" which puts the explanation grounded upon the grammatic-historic information. So, either "exegesis" should be redefined with a primary goal of finding the redemptive meaning both in broad and narrow contexts and then the grammatic-historic events that give playground to such revelation should be explored - almost a reverse definition, or the order of exegesis - biblical theology should itself be reversed. But how is this possible?

An Issue of Translation...

Today in Hebrew class the topic was brought up: "was the language of Abraham the Hebrew which we have?" To which the professor and the class seemed to agree that it was not. The implications of this rather sticky issue can lead to a lot of speculations, but one thing stood out to me that may be a helpful thought when considering the confidence we can have in our Bibles being the "very" word of God.

I have always been a little bothered by the easy way out of textual difficulties which says "Its a problem of translation!". Even the BCO has a troublesome oath for members in that it states this question " Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice? " it is the "as originally given" part that causes trouble, because, frankly we don't have the originals - in fact the very languages that we study in seminary as "the originals" are really translations of the original, at least in the case of Hebrew. Far from being a problem for canonicity it actually seems a vindication on the highest level of the doctrine of Scripture in the modern age. Why? Because, we see a process of God's superintendence as always normal to the preservation of the Word of God and we see no problem with the translations. This is not to say that all translations are equally valid, nor am I trying to deny the difficulty of translation, but it is at least worthy to note that Christ would have had a Hebrew text that was not exactly the "original" and he did not mind one bit - nor did he ever say "well if you knew the original you'd understand". Some times it seems we are more in love with the idea of education than we are in revelation. I mean that we can be swept away by the thought that the Hebrew or the Greek hold some sort of secret meanings that the english simply cannot convey and that why God delivered it in those languages, all the while ignoring the very vivid display of the Gospel in our own tongue! Now, don't get me wrong, I like Greek and Hebrew a lot more than English and the Hebrew text is quite beautiful, but trust me, or rather trust God, the Gospel is just as much in the BHS as it is in the ESV!

I believe that this is an important step in having the confidence in the Word of God that we hold in our hands that we need. It also lends credence to the historical process and the vast difficulties of translation being subservient to the Lord just as everything else is.

Brief and Untechnical

A digest of B.B. Warfields essay "A Brief and Untechnical Statement of the Reformed Faith"

In this short essay Warfield simply recaps the essence of the "reformed faith" by stating a series of beliefs which generally follow the systems of the Westminster confession of faith or the Westminster catechisms. Which may be summed up like: "God's creation reveals - but not enough, we need Scripture, where in we find how to live and serve the one true God. This scripture was brought about supernaturally and completed. The God that created and revealed himself is triune and truly God, having all the attributes of "divine" - and he is such a God that is both transcendent and imminent - which is clear in that He predestined all that comes to pass, yet He also sustains all that is. He created man to worship Him, but man disobeyed and thrust the whole of creation into rebellion. Thus all mind kind are children of wrath in their natural condition, but God in His mercy chose a (great) people for Himself. God redeemed these elect through Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God - who was both man and God by the incarnation. This redemption was by virtue of Christ being a substitution for the sins of His people. Now this substitution frees us to walk according to the Spirit and fashions us according to Christ - who was righteous not sinful. Thus creating an assembly of redeemed "the church" which is "one an the same in all ages" display the riches of the grace of God to the world. This church may be broken into smaller parts (denominations) but it is not destroyed. This Church is not for the government of this world but for the purpose of redemption of His people, and thus should not be mixed or confused with the state. And that Christ will come again and receive all His church for an eternity".

So I suppose this serves as my summary of Warfields summary of Westminsters summary of what the "Faith" is. Enjoy.

Handling the text

Today I had a conversation with a friend of mine on the hypostatic nature of the Word. I was intrigued by the notion that Christ who is the Word, has both a human and a divine nature, and that the two are not in conflict or competition but harmony. Though Christ grew and learned, he never set aside omniscience. And like wise the Word of God has both a divine nature and a human. Just as with Christ our great high priest, the human part of the union is not the fallible part, but rather the humbled "state" for the greater glory of God part. Consider Philippians 2 - Christ put on the form of total humiliation, with the result of total or ultimate exultation in the glory of God, with nothing or no one exempt (every knee...every tongue). And in the same manner the Word which is from God and is itself a perfect revelation of God by the Holy Spirit, with out error or contradiction, put on the form of humiliation and was handled by men, was protected by scribes, was burnt and lost, was hidden at times and often disputed - and still to this day scholars seem to work more diligently in finding her difficulties than her glories. They search carefully to find a humanness to the text that is not perfect. A humanness that is not like Christ - but like us. Yet as Christ, who endured even to the point of death on the cross by the very creatures that He created to worship Him, and yeah even worse by the very covenant children that He bound Himself to with His whole heart - was utterly humiliated, still we have this faith that God declared Him to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead and that Christ humiliation is not worthy to be compared to His exultation.

This is not to say that the written text of scripture is our savior. Or that the bible will follow in every detail the path of Christ, but rather to declare it normal in the economy of God to deliver His richest beauties to us in humble forms. Contemptuous by our standards, but perfect and powerful by God's. It is no wonder then that so many would love to find fault with the text of scripture. And my contention here is that perhaps we can see that this is not only to be expected, but that it is also to be part of the vindication of God's Word itself.

These are at this point merely reflections and random thoughts, but at some point I hope they can deal with the true grandeur of the Scripture even if they only serve as a spring board to the more refined discussions. But I should like to remember this during my studies, that the Apostle Peter saw the canon of scripture as a more reliable more sure word of testimony than when God himself spoke directly to him... and surely that is an awesome thought!

A good friend of mine once asked; "Why doesn't anyone say 'Thus says the LORD' anymore?"

The question was not ment to grapple with continuing prophetic gifts, but was in response to the fad of modern day preachers to be intentionally non abrasive. To stay as far away from sounding like there just might be authority behind what they say.

I say - the question is a good one. Preachers, you are wheelding a sword not a spoon! We need a sharper edge...please!

So, as I study to one day by the grace of God become yet another preacher in this spiritual hodge-podge America - perhaps this small corner might provide a good wet stone.