WM 283: An error in Matthew 27:9?

 

Outline of notes:

1. Introduction: An error in Matthew 27:9?

2. Review of Protestent commentaries: A "hard knot" to untie

3. Towards a solution that upholds Biblical infallibility

4. Conclusion:

In the end, Matthew 27:9 was not considered a controversial matter in the days of early Christianity. As Metzger put it, the traditional text was “firmly established,” and it raised no serious questions about the infallibility of Scripture.

We can safely assume this same pre-critical posture in our generation.

In the end, the most reasonable explanation as to why the reference is given in Matthew 27:9 to Jeremiah when the quotes which follows is taken from Zechariah, is the fact that Matthew and his hearers would have been accustomed to making reference to the whole of the prophets by use of the name Jeremiah as a reference to the whole corpus of prophetic writings.

JTR

Lecture One: 2022 Kept Pure in All Ages Conference: Why do evangelical scholars fail in their efforts to respond to Bart Ehrman?

 

Book Review: Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels?

 

I have posted an audio version of my book review of Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Crossway, 2018).

The written review appeared in Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1 (January 2021): 204-207. I have also posted the pdf to my academia.edu site. You can read it here.

JTR

WM 167: Why do Muslim Apologists love the Modern Critical Text?

I have posted WM 167: Why do Muslim Apologists love the Modern Critical Text? Listen above. Notes below:

Those of us who defend the traditional text of Scripture have often been accused, especially by one PIA, of having no meaningful apologetic. We are told that we cannot use our approach “in the real world” while at the same time we are told that in order to meaningfully speak with non-Christians, and especially Muslims, that we must embrace the modern approach to text criticism. We must convince Muslims that the text of the Bible, though it has supposedly been corrupted, it can be reconstructed, and its past corruptions do not affect the Bible’s authority and reliability.

Defenders of the TR have pointed out that such an approach is, in fact, a capitulation to Muslims who gleefully embrace scholarly rejections of the Bible’s textual integrity and abandonment of the doctrine of providential preservation of the text.

We all know there is one apologist who quite frequently humble-brags (humble-boasts) about being invited to give presentations on the text of the Bible before Muslim audiences and within Muslim mosques, where he concedes its textual corruption. He never seems to stop and wonder why it is that the Muslims are so eager to have him “dialogue” with them, or why they so often post extended clips of his teaching (not taken out of context but given in full context) to their own apologetic social media sites.

Along these lines, I would commend to you the CB Roundtable #3 from May 26, 2020 in which Pastor Pooyan did a presentation on the TR and Apologetics, explaining that in fact it is the traditional text that is most useful in doing evangelism with non-believers and with those who Muslim backgrounds, in particular. One of the things that stood out was that Pastor Pooyan noted that the ministry of religion in the Iranian government is actively involved in translating scholarly materials from the West (including works of prominent evangelicals) on the text of the Bible. Why are they doing this? Not to promote Christianity but to undermine it and to further the Muslim narrative on the hopeless corruption of Scripture.

So, let’s move on to the first clip. This was sent to me a couple of months ago by a friend. It is a video from the Muslim apologist Adnan Rashid from a 4/17/20 titled “Will David Wood Accept Islam?” Start at the 15:22 mark.

Notice how Rashid draws on Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, as well as Michael J. Kruger to make his point.

Next, let’s go to a more recent clip. This comes from an online debate between the Eastern Orthodox internet philosopher Jay Dyer (perhaps POIA, Popular Orthodox Internet Apologist) in a debate with Shabir Ally from June 6, 2020 where the topic was “Is Jesus God Incarnate?” What is interesting here is the fact that while they were debating the Trinity, Ally drew upon James White as an ally to disregard the CJ. Listen to 50:45-54:30.

So, “Why do Muslim Apologists love the modern critical text of the Bible and those who promote it?”

Sadly, the answer is because it fits their narrative of the Christian Scriptures as being textually corrupted, hopelessly confused, and not providentially preserved by God?”

It is, in fact, only those who hold to the historic Protestant view of the Bible as “kept pure in all ages” who will be able to offer a meaningful apologetic to Muslim and other skeptics.

We are living in some strange times. It is sad to see historical monuments begin torn down without regard for the history and traditions which undergird them. And it is equally sad to see a literary monument come under withering attack (since the nineteenth century) and unrelenting attempts to topple it.

As noted here more than once, such attacks seem to continue to be resisted and frustrated by at least a remnant. To what do we attribute the tenacity of the traditional text? Ignorance? Naivete? Threadbare tradition? Perhaps, but there is another explanation for this tenacity. Perhaps it continues to persist, because it is the Word of God.

JTR

CB Roundtable #3: The TR and Apologetics

I have posted to sermonaudio.com the audio-only version of the Confessional Bibliology Roundtable from last Tuesday (5.26.20). This was the third of three presentations and discussions, over the course of three consecutive Tuesdays, on text, theology, and ministry. For all three in the series, look here. In this final session, Pastor Pooyan Mehrshahi of Providence Baptist Chapel in Cheltenham, England gave an excellent presentation on the value of using the TR and translations based upon it in evangelism and apologetics, in general, and with Muslims, in particular.

JTR

WM 162: Apologetics, Uncertainty, and Apostasy

Image: Rhett McLaughlin and Link Neal

Note: I have posted WM 162: Apologetics, Uncertainty, and Apostasy. Listen here. In this episode I discuss issues related to epistemology and the text of Scripture, looking in particular at the recent "deconversion" of "internetainers" and foemer CRU  college ministry staffers Rhett & Link. Here are some notes from this episode:

Introduction:

A PIA (popular internet apologist) is fond of saying that if one embraces the confessional text position that he necessarily abandons any meaningful apologetic. According to this person, one can only do apologetics in the “real world” if he embraces the modern critical text.

The confessional text is attacked, in particular, for claims of certainty that the true text has been preserved within the traditional printed texts of the Reformation.

It is suggested that such claims are but a form of narrow-minded fundamentalism. It is, supposedly, to trade “truth for certainty.” But are truth and certainty incompatible? Can one not seek BOTH truth AND certainty?

What has been the fruit of modern text criticism (even among evangelical and Reformed Christians) in these postmodern days?

It is suggested by some, for example, that the PA (John 7:53-8:11) is an authentic account of a historical incident in the life of Jesus, but that it was not an original part of John’s Gospel, is not inspired, and (in the most extreme cases-as in the THGNT) it should be removed from our Bibles and relegated to a footnote. Others suggest, though not original, that it still might have some place in John, but should be placed in brackets with explanations that it is a later spurious addition. This is but one example of the undermining of confidence in the text of Scripture. If the PA is not original, then why and how did it ever find its way into the Bible? If it is not authentic then what else is not authentic? The PA is but one example.

This epitomizes the problems raised by the modern critical text with respect to epistemology (the doctrine of knowledge-How do we know the truth? How do we know what Scripture is and what it is not? What is out authority?).

Garnet Howard Milne begins the introduction to his book Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? with this statement: “The Protestant Reformation was essentially a dispute over religious epistemology” (20).

The Reformers held to sola scriptura, Scripture as the preeminent authority for faith and practice, that Scripture is inspired (theopneustos), self-authenticating (autopistos) and providentially preserved.

This view was opposed by Rome and later by “free thinkers” who attempted to use the existence of scribal variants as a means to undermine Scripture’s authority. Later there developed the modern critical method (of which modern text criticism is a subset) to treat the Bible as any other book.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries evangelicals began to abandon their confessional defense of the preservation of Scripture and instead attempted to defend the “inerrancy” of the Bible by “reconstructing” a supposedly lost original, using the terms and techniques dictated by modern text criticism. The result was the rejection of traditional text and the abandonment of any consensus on the certainty of the text.

Again, this has been presented to believers by the scholarly experts as a superior intellectual and spiritual method. Christians are asked to believe in the Bible, even if we cannot be certain in articulating its canonical content and boundaries. It is even suggested that this has always been the position of the church and that it was the Reformers who were departing from Christian tradition in putting forward the whole notion of a fixed text, a fixed canon, and divine preservation.

One odd development has been the fact that while essentially embracing the method of the unbelieving academy and its most prominent thinkers (like Bart Ehrman), evangelicals then turn around and say that only they are suited to do “apologetics” against the academy (see, e.g., the ehrmanproject.com).

If we could draw an analogy, it might be this one: What if the Republican party said they were going to embrace all the public policy commitments of the Democrat party (including socialism), so that they could better position themselves to critique the Democrat party and defend the Republican party? Would that make sense? [Aside: Alas, some believe that Republicans have done that very thing. But we are talking about text criticism].

What has been the fruit of evangelical embrace of the modern critical method?

Rhett and Link:

These ideas came to mind recently when I heard about the recent “deconversion” or, as they called it “deconstruction” of their faith, by two prominent youtube personalities and former CRU staffers.

I must admit that before hearing of their deconversion I was completely oblivious to the existence of these two men and their youtube notoriety. My young adult children would say they are not at all surprised by my ignorance of this.

Rhett and Link are Rhett McLaughlin (b. 1977) and Link Neal (b. 1978) describes themselves as “internettainers.” They created and host a youtube comedy and variety program called Good Mythical Morning (GMM) which they started in 2012 (making them pioneers in becoming professional youtube personalities) and they now have more than 17 million subscribers.

Part of their story is that they met as children in Buies Creek, North Carolina, where Rhett’s father was a law professor at Campbell University (I almost went to college there—but that’s another story) and Link was raised by a single mother. They have been best friends since 1984. A central part of their lives was involvement in the First Baptist Church of Buies Creek and then in a split from that church and in various youth group ministries sponsored by that church. They later went off to NC State together where they both studied engineering and became professional engineers.

They came onto my radar screen, however, when I read in various Christian press about their “deconversion” from evangelical Christian faith, which they announced on a separate videocast they host titled “Ear Biscuits.” This announcement came in two episodes: First, the story of Rhett’s deconversion on 2/9/20 and then Link’s on 2/16/20.

Many of their “fans” did not even know they were Christians, though I am told that some thought they were and that their videos were popular with some in the homeschooling community some years back. Many were even more surprised to learn that before becoming professional “internetainers” they had worked full time with the ministry of CRU doing comedy/discipleship events. They preceded their “deconversion” stories with two episodes unpacking their previous lives in evangelical “ministry” (see here and here).

There is a lot that is sad, discouraging, and disheartening that comes out of their story. There is a lot in their story that I can identify with, given that I grew up in NC (my wife’s family is 30 minutes from Buies Creek) and I was also influenced by college campus ministries. We can add Rhett and Link to the growing list of former evangelicals, and even evangelical ministers, who have apostatized (from Josh Harris to “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” fame to former Caedmon’s Call “Christian musician” Derek Webb, and more). Of course, from a Reformed perspective that upholds the perseverance of the saints we would say that if they remain obstinate in their rejection of the Gospel, such men were false professors. “They went out from us, but they were not of us” (1 John 2:19a).

I was reminded of what now seems a very prophetic article by the “Internet Monk” Michael Spencer on “The Coming Evangelical Collapse” back in 2009. I did a blog post on the article. I had almost forgotten that I was also invited to do a talk on this topic to the “Society for the Preservation of Baptist Principles and Practices”, a minister’s fraternal in 2009 (listen to that talk here).

I do not look at their testimonies as representing a failure of Christ at all, but it does clearly point to the failures of the evangelical church, of modern youth ministries, and entertainment drive para-church ministries.

As I listened to Rhett’s “deconstruction” of his faith, I was struck, in particular, by the ways in which they reveal how modern evangelical apologetics, particularly regarding the Bible, had failed this man and many others of his generation.

Listening to a few clips from Rhett’s “deconversion” anti-testimony:

Rhett: “I stopped being certain, and I lost my appetite for certainty.”

JTR

Cyprian of Carthage on Pointless Apologetic Exchanges

I’ve recently been reading through Cyprian of Carthage’s On the Church: Select Treatises in the Popular Patristics series from SVSP and was struck by Cyprian’s exasperation in the treatise “To Demetrian” in dealing with the pagan apologist:

You often come to me with an eagerness for making a case against me rather than with intentions to learn anything. On such occasions you prefer, sounding off shouted insults, to press your own case more repeatedly and indecently rather than to listen to ours tolerantly.

It seems silly to engage with you when it would be easier and less effort to quell the billowing waves of a stormy sea with cries of protest than to restrain your rage by means of arguments. It is definitely a pointless task, and not liable to success, to present light to a blind man, speech to a deaf one, wisdom to one irrational, when the irrational man cannot think, nor the blind allow in light, nor the deaf hear (pp. 68-69).

Who has not felt the same when dealing with those who only care to build and knock down straw men? Let the reader understand.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.5.14-17: Against Heresies: Montanism

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 5, chapters 14-17. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters survey the Montanist or Phrygian (or Kataphyrgian) heresy.

Chapter 14 introduces this Montanist heresy and its adherents who “like poisonous reptiles crawled over Asia and Phrygia.” Its leader Montanus was called the Paraclete (of the “Comforter” the term for the Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel) and two women of the sect, Priscilla and Maximilla, were considered to be his prophetesses.

Chapter 15 notes two other heterodox men who had been turned out of the church at Rome, Florinus and Blastus..

Chapter 16 describes Apolinarius of Hierapolis as a “powerful and invincible weapon” against Montanism. He and other “learned men” opposed the heresy.

Eusebius cites several passages from a work by one of these men [perhaps Asterius Urbanus to whom reference is made] addressed to a certain Abercius Marcellus. The Montanists are called the sect of Miltiades, one of their early teachers.

The writer expresses his hesitancy to write, since he did not want to add to or take away from the gospel (canonical Scripture?).

What the Montanists claimed to be prophecy, he called “false prophecy.”

He says the movement began in the village of Ardabav in Phrygian Misia where Montanus had been a Christian convert led astray by an unbounded lust for leadership control. He had ecstatic experiences, spoke strangely and prophesied contrary to church tradition. Some assumed he was led by the devil or a spirit of error. The two women were then raised up who were also possessed by the same “bastard spirit” and spoke madly, improperly and strangely, like Montanus.

When this arrogant spirit blasphemed the universal (catholic) church, the Montanists were drive our and excommunicated.

This author reports the miserable end of these “prophets”, relaying a tradition that Montanus and Maximilla, like Judas, committed suicide.

Another Montanist teacher named Theodotus is also said to have come to a miserable end.

He reports that faithful bishops attempted to refute Maximilla, while she lived, but were muzzled by the Montanists.

He also cites prophecies made by Maximilla about the end of the world, but 13 years later these prophesies had proven false.

Finally, he cites a report that the Montanists, like the followers of Marcion, claimed to have martyrs, as did the orthodox. The martyrs of the true faith, like Gaius and Alexander of Eumeneia, however, separated themselves from those in these sects, so as not even to die with them.

Chapter 17 continues this survey of the anti-Montanist work, citing another anti-Montanist author named Miltiades [not to be confused with the Montanist teacher of the same name] who described Montanist attacks against the orthodox teacher Alcibiades. The Christians pointed to the prophets of the OT and of those with prophetic gifts in the NT (Agabus, Judas, Silas, and the daughters of Philip) as well as early Christian prophets Ammia and Quadratus. It is noted that the Montanist prophets had not one to succeed them when they passed.

Finally, other writings of this Miltiades are mentioned including works against Gentiles and against Jews and an Apology to the secular rulers.

Conclusion:

These chapters are important for understanding the Montanist heresy, which was something like a “charismatic” sect, relying on ecstatic experiences and utterances. The Romans in their persecutions lumped those of this sect in among the orthodox Christians but, according to Eusebius, the martyrs from the heretical sects were not authentic. Against the Montanists, there were also raised up orthodox writers and teachers to oppose them.

JTR

Charles Marsh on avoiding the "comparative religions" approach to evangelism

I shared this quote in WM 136 from Charles Marsh, who served as a longtime Brethren missionary in North Africa, from his book The Challenge of Islam (Ark Publishing, 1980), under a section headed “Mistakes to avoid” in doing evangelism with Muslims:

Do not give him a free tuition in Islam! Remember that not every Muslim is a theologian. In fact, many who come to Europe as students or workmen know very little about their faith. A man in the villages of Algeria once assured me, ‘Everything I know about Islam I learned from the missionaries!’ The Christian states, ‘The Bible says…, but you Muslims believe….’ The Muslim was totally unaware of that particular point of the Islamic faith. It is the missionary who taught him. Avoid the type of discussion which is based on comparative religion. Religions have always antagonized, but faith in a living God who works in men’s lives carries conviction (171).

See also this blog post on Marsh from 2015.

JTR

A Challenge to James White on Apologetics and Text Criticism

A friend sent me a copy of comments apparently posted today to FB by popular internet apologist James White (JW) responding to the recent Text and Canon Conference (find audio here), in which he began with the following (bold and underlined added):

I have gotten through 4+ hours of the Text and Canon conference from last weekend. A great deal to talk about as time permits, but two things right now:

First, to my fellow apologists who do not buy into TROnlyism and who seek to give a defense of the NT against atheists, Muslims, etc., in the public square (something that to my knowledge the TR Only position has yet to attempt in any major way), you will need to tune into the arguments being put forward by the TR Only guys, because *they will be taken up and used against you by the atheists and Muslims.* ....So, you will have atheists and Muslims, in particular, quoting these guys in their favor against you. ....

So, JW believes that content from our conference will be used by atheists and Muslims to disprove the Christian faith and the Christian Scriptures?

In light of his statement, I want to issue a challenge to JW. I am going to provide embeds below to five videos posted from just one Muslim apologetics youtube.com channel (Muslim by Choice), which feature clips from James White’s teaching on text criticism. These videos are posted by Muslim by Choice in order to support the Muslim contention that the NT is hopelessly corrupted. One will also note that Muslim by Choice sometimes tandems clips of JW’s teaching with similar teaching by Bart Erhman and others.

My challenge to JW is to post at least five similar videos in which Muslim apologists have posted teaching from advocates of the Traditional or Confessional Text to support their attacks on the integrity of the Christian Scriptures.

If he is able to find five such videos (which, admittedly, I am doubtful he will be able to locate), I will then match them with five more videos in which Muslims apologists have posted clips from his teaching, and then (if he can find them) he can post five more videos, and so forth, until we see who runs out of material first.

This should allow us, in a fair and open manner, to see whose views on Scripture are actually more prone to being used by atheists and Muslim apologists in order to promote their cause. This, then, will help us evaluate which approach to the text of Scripture, in fact, provides the strongest defense of the faith (apologetic) in the “public square.”

Here are my first five videos:

On Mark 16:9-20:

On 1 John 5:7, Mark 16:9-20, and John 7:53-8:11:

On Mark 16:9-20:

On 1 Timothy 3:16:

On Luke 23:34:

JTR

Update (11.5.19): After I posted this someone also shared with me the following video which essentially makes the same point of this blogpost "challenge" in a perhaps more entertaining and less time consuming manner:

Esuebius, EH.4.10-13: Against Heresies: Valentinus, Cerdo, Marcion, & Marcus

Image: Marble portrait of the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, c. 138-161, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History. Here is Book 4, chapters 10-13. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

In chapter 10 Eusebius here marks the transition in Roman imperial leadership from Hadrian to Antoninus Pius. As has been his custom, he likewise traces the transitions of the bishops in the most important cities of early Christianity, focusing especially on Rome and Alexandria.

In Rome, Telesphorus was succeeded by Hyginus.

He notes that according to Irenaeus Telesphorus died as a martyr.

He adds also from Irenaeus that at this time at Rome the heretic Valentinus was active as was Cerdo, the founder of the “Marcionite error.”

Chapter 11 provides an extended citation from Irenaeus on the heresies originating at Rome.

He notes that Cerdo came from the circle of Simon Magus, and that he taught that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of Christ. He adds: “Marcion of Pontus succeeded him and increased the school, blaspheming unblushingly.”

Eusebius says that Irenaeus exposed the “bottomless pit” of Valentinus’s errors, as well those of another man named Marcus, “most experienced in the magical arts,” who conducted a mysterious “bed-chamber” rite for his initiates.

In Rome, Hyginus was succeeded as bishop by Pius (not the emperor, of course), and Pius by Anicetus, and Anicetus by Eleutherus.

While in Alexandria, Eumenes was succeeded as bishop by Marcus (not the magician, of course), and Marcus by Celadion.

Eusebius describes the ministry of Justin Martyr whom he describes as dressed “in the garb of a philosopher” while serving as “an ambassador of the Word of God.”

Eusebius cites Justin’s description of the arch-heretic Marcion of Pontus.

Eusebius relays an interesting observation here from Justin regarding those who called themselves Christians. He says there are many who are called Christians “just as the name of philosophy is common to philosophers though their doctrines vary.”

He further notes that Justin offered an apology or defense of the faith to the emperor Antoninus Pius.

In chapter 12 Eusebius cites from that apology.

In chapter 13 he cites a supposed decree sent by the emperor to his provincial “Council of Asia.” Lake notes in a footnote that this decree is usually considered to be spurious. The decree chastens the council for their harshness in dealing with the Christians, noting their being charged as being atheists, and expressed admiration for the Christians who were willing to die for their faith. The decree also notes several providential earthquakes related to these persecutions.

Conclusion:

Eusebius parallels changes in leadership within the Roman Empire through the succession of the emperors and changes within the churches through the succession of bishops.

He notes the rise of heresies, like that of Marcion, but also the resistance to these heresies by apologists and defenders of the faith like Justin.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.4.7: Against Heresies: Saturninus, Basilides, & Carpocrates

Image: Gnostic writings discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945.

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: book 4, chapter 7. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

In this chapter Eusebius outlines the various heretical teachings that assailed the early Christian movement.

These attacks came when the churches were shining like “brilliant lamps” throughout the whole world and as persecution waned.

He notes two heresies that arose from Menander (and Simon the Sorcerer) which were liked a double-headed snake:

First, Saturninus of Antioch, who established a school in Syria. According to Irenaeus his teaching was very much like that of Menander.

Second, Basilides of Alexandria, who established a school in Egypt and promoted “secret doctrine.” He was refuted by Agrippa Castor who says Basilides wrote 24 books, set up two persons as prophets (Bar Cabbas and Bar Coph), taught that it was permissible to eat food offered to idols and to deny the faith during persecution, and enjoined his followers, as Pythagoras did, to keep silence for five years.

In addition to these two, he also draws on Irenaeus to describe Carpocrates, whom he describes as the father of the Gnostic heresy. These promoted “magical ceremonies,” “love charms,” and other supposed spiritual experiences. They especially stressed mystical initiation rites. Many were piteously deceived and enslaved in this.

Eusebius also notes how these false movements damaged the reputation of orthodox Christians, whom he describes as being a distinct “race” (ethne). Christians were thus falsely accused of incest and of eating “wicked food.” Of the latter Lake write in a note: “The reference is to the story which was at that time told by the heathen of the Christians and has since been told among Christians of the Jews that they kill and eat small children.”

Eusebius contends, however, that these various attacks were refuted as the truth vindicate itself and shone “ever more brightly.”

He seems to say that one of the reasons for the successful refutation of heresy and false attacks was the consistency of the orthodox witness. The true church “ever held to the same points in the same way.” This perhaps anticipates the dictum of Vincent of Lérins in his Commonitorium (c. 434) that the true church is characterized by “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all [Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.”].

Conclusion:

This chapter is important for showing the centrality of apologetics in distinguishing orthodoxy from heresy, especially Gnosticism, in the early Christian movement. Eusebius writes with confidence of the eventual triumph of the orthodox position.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.4.3-4: Quadratus's Apology to Hadrian

Another episode is posted to the series on Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: book 4, chapters 3-4. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters mark the transition from the reign of the emperor Trajan to that of Aelius Hadrian (AD 76-138; emperor AD 117-138).

In chapter 3 mention is made of the apologist Quadratus’s defense (apologia) for the Christians presented to Hadrian. Quadratus was introduced in EH 3.37. Other tradition say he was bishop of Athens, a martyr, and among the first Christian apologists. Eusebius claims to have a copy of the apology and testifies that it gives proof of “his intellect and apostolic orthodoxy.” He cites a portion from Quadratus in which he mentions those who were cured and raised (resuscitated) from the dead by Christ and who remained alive up to his own times (cf. Matt 27:52-53?).

Mention is also made of an apology by another apologist Aristides, “a man of faith and devoted to our religion.” Other traditions say he was a philosopher of Athens.

Chapter 4 continues to chronicle the Christian leaders in Rome and Alexandria. In Rome Alexander was succeeded by Xystus, and in Alexandria, Justus succeeded Primus.

Conclusion:

The mention of the activity of the early apologists calls attention to the fact that early Christianity was an intellectual and literary movement and that it presumed to have influence in the highest levels of Roman society (evidenced by the fact that they made direct appeals to the emperor) in the faced of persecution.

JTR

WM 122: TR and Apologetics: Robert Truelove Interviews Pooyan Mehrshahi

Image: Cover to the Gospel of John in Farsi, translated from the TR, Trinitarian Bible Society (read online here).

I have posted to sermonaudio.com WM 122: TR and Apologetics: Robert Truelove Interviews Pooyan Mehrshahi (listen here).

This episode shares an interview posted to Robert Truelove's youtube channel on May 16, 2019 and is shared with his permission (watch the video here). Pooyan Mehrshahi is pastor of Providence Baptist Chapel in Cheltenham, England (listen to his sermons and teaching here). He is also engaged in ministry to Farsi speaking people through the Parsa Trust (look here and here).

The podcast addresses the challenge made by some modern text advocates that adoption of the confessional text means the supposed abandonment of meaningful apologetics, especially with Muslims. Pastor Pooyan ably points out that this challenge is groundless, and, in fact, it is the modern critical text position that proves problematic in apologetics.

Enjoy! JTR

For my Father is greater than I

Image: First snowfall, North Garden, Virginia, December 11, 2018

Devotion taken from my sermon on John 14:27-31 from 11/11/18.

John 14:28b: for my Father is greater than I.

The final statement in v. 28 is important to consider, because it has been twisted by unstable men down through the years, going all the way back to a man named Arius  (c. 250-c. 366) who taught that Christ was not equal in essence to God the Father (a teaching called after its founder “Arianism”).

Calvin says Arius and his followers “tortured” this verse “to prove that Christ is some sort of inferior God” who is “less than the Father.”

Jesus said: “For my Father is greater than I.” Does this prove Arius’ point?

No, it does not. But why not?

First, we need to consider that Christ is described as making himself “equal with God” (cf. John 5:18).  Consider also John 10:30 where he declared, “I and my Father are one.” Consider also all the “I am” sayings of John’s Gospel.

Second, we need to understand that Christ was speaking here of his circumstantial position and not his essence. At this point, as the incarnate Son, having taken on flesh, and not yet having taken on the glorious resurrection body, he had humbled himself as a servant. Positionally, the Father in heaven clearly was in the greater and more glorious position. But this says nothing of Christ’s equality of essence with God the Father. So, Calvin rightly says that the contrast here is between Christ’s “present state and the heavenly glory.” The Arians thus abuse this verse when they say it denies Christ’s equality with the Father.

Calvin also makes the point that Christ is here referring to the fact that as our mediator he was “accommodating himself to our weakness” and placing “himself between God and us.” This is why he says, “for the Father is greater than I.”

Paul makes this same point in 2 Corinthians 8:9 when he says, “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.”

Or, in the servant song of Philippians 2:5-11, Paul wrote of Christ: "6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."

This is not the only passage that the Arians have twisted in an effort to deny the deity of our Lord. Another favorite target of the Arian’s has been Christ’s encounter with the rich young ruler, when he says to Christ, “Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18), to which Christ responds, “Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God” (v. 19). They miss, however, the irony of Christ’s words. He was telling this man that by addressing him as good he was, in fact, saying more than he could possibly have understood. Only God is the absolute good and Christ as the second person of the Godhead is, indeed, the Good Master!

In his commentary on this statement in John 14:28 Calvin notes how Arians also have also twisted 1 Corinthians 15:24 where Paul speaks of Christ at his coming delivering “up the kingdom to God, even the Father” and so wrongly assume the implication of some inferiority of Christ. Calvin counters that Christ reigns “not only in human nature, but as he is God manifested in the flesh” (cf. 1 Tim 3:16). When Paul speak of one person of the Godhead, the Son, giving the kingdom to another person of the Godhead, the Father, this is not a denial of the equality of those persons, but of the tasks each will perform at the end of the ages. The Son will give what he has acquired, and the Father will receive and rule.

We must be, as Peter puts it in 1 Peter 2:15, “always ready to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is within you with meekness and fear.”

As Paul puts it in 2 Tim 2:15 the workman approved unto God must be “rightly dividing the word of truth.”

This right division includes the fact that we must be prepared to defend the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ against Arian twisting of Scripture.

JTR