Benjamin Keach: Eight Duties of Church Members to Pastors

Note:  The article below appeared as the Paradosis column in the last issue of the RBT.  Note Keach's references to Owen as an authority as evidence of the respect he enjoyed and influenced he exercised among early Particular Baptists. 

Benjamin Keach was a Puritan Particular Baptist pastor who lived from 1640-1704.  He is the namesake for the annual Keach Conference.  The slightly edited extract below is taken from The Glory of a True Church and its Discipline Displayed (1697), one of Keach’s many works addressing ecclesiology and ministry.

Eight Duties of Church Members to Pastors

By Benjamin Keach

Of the duty of church members to their Pastor

1.      It is the duty of every member to pray for his Pastor and Teachers.

“Brethren pray for us” (1 Thess 5:25; Heb 13:18) that the Word of the Lord may run and be glorified.  Again, saith Paul, “praying also for us that God would open unto us a door of utterance to speak the mystery of Christ” (Col 4:3).  Prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.  Those that neglect this duty seem not to care either for their Minister, or their own souls, or whether sinners be converted, or the church edified or not. They pray for their daily bread, and will they not pray to have the Bread of Life plentifully broken to them?

Motives to this:

(a)   The Minister’s work is great:  “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor 2:16).

(b)    The opposition is not small which is made against them (see 1 Cor 16:9).

(c)    God’s loud call (as well as Minister’s themselves) is for the saints’ continual prayers and supplications for them.

(d)   Their weaknesses and temptations are many.

(e)   The increase and edification of the church depends on the success of their ministry.

(f)     If they fall or miscarry, God is greatly dishonored, and his ways and people reproached.

2.      They ought to show a reverential estimation of them, being Christ’s ambassadors, also called Rulers, Angels, etc.

They that honor and receive them, honor and receive Jesus Christ.  “Esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake” (1 Thess 5:13).   Again, he saith, “Let the elders that rule well, be accounted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in word and doctrine” (1 Tim 5:17).  That is, as I conceive, those that are most laborious.

3.      It is their duty to submit themselves unto them, that is, in all their exhortations, good counsels, and reproofs.

When they call to any  extraordinary duty such as prayer, fasting, or days of thanksgiving, if they see no just cause why such days should not be kept, they ought to obey their Pastor or Elder, as in other cases also.  “Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves” (Heb 13:7).

4.      It is their duty to take care to vindicate them from the unjust charges of evil men, or tongue of infamy, and not to take up a reproach against them by report, nor to grieve their spirits, or to weaken their hands (Jer 20:10; Zeph 2:8; 2 Cor 11:21, 23).

5.      It is the duty of members to go to them when under trouble or temptations.

6.     It is their duty to provide a comfortable maintenance for them and their families, suitable to their state and condition.

“Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things” (Gal 6:6).  “Who goeth a warfare at his own charge? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof?.... (1 Cor 9:7).  “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (v. 14).  “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” (v. 11).  They should minister to them cheerfully, with all readiness of mind.  Ministers are not to ask for their bread, but to receive it honorably (Matt 10:9-10).  Though the Minister’s maintenance is not by tithes, etc., as under the law, yet they have now as just a right to a comfortable maintenance as they had then.  The equity of the duty is the same.  Our Savior, saith Dr. Owen, pleads it from the grounds of equity and justice.  All kind of rules and laws of righteousness among men of all sorts calls for it.

7.      It is their duty to adhere to them and abide by them in all their trials and persecutions for the Word.

“Ye were not ashamed of me in my bonds…” (cf. 2 Tim 1:16-18).

8.      Dr. Owen adds another duty of the members to their Pastor, viz., to agree to come together upon his appointment.

“When they were come, and had gathered the church together…” (Acts 14:27).  Ω

New issue of "The Reformed Baptist Trumpet" posted online

I sent out the April-May-June edition of The Reformed Baptist Trumpet (Vol. 3, No. 2) yesterday.  The pdf of this issue has also been posted to the RBF-VA website.  Here’s the note we sent with our email to those on our list:

Dear friends,

Attached is the April-May-June issue of “The Reformed Baptist Trumpet,” the quarterly e-journal of the Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia.

In this issue:

·        An Announcement about the upcoming 2012 Keach Conference;

·        An article by Dr. W. Gary Crampton on Jonathan Edwards' doctrine of the Holy Spirit;

·        A book review of Jeffrey D. Johnson's "Behind the Bible";

·        An excerpt from Benjamin Keach on "Eight Duties of Church Members to Pastors".

We hope you'll join us for the Keach Conference on Friday evening-Saturday morning, September 28-29, 2012.  You can register online at the RBF-VA website.

If you want to be added or to add someone to the RBT mailing list, send your request to reformedbaptist.va@gmail.com

JTR

The Vision (7/19/12): On a New Bible Museum and Hostility to Scripture

This week I ran across an online article from the Washington Post (7/10/12) on plans to construct a large-scale Bible Museum in our nation’s capitol within the next four years.  The museum project is being funded by a wealthy philanthropist and will draw from a collection of over 40, 000 Bible related artifacts.  It sounded like an interesting project, and I plan to make a pilgrimage to visit when it opens.

Beyond the article, however, I was also intrigued by the hostile comments that were posted in response.  Here are a few of the various comments:

I thought that institutions that had books containing fiction were called Libraries rather than museums.

Maybe we can create a museum for the Collected Works of the Grimm Brothers as well?

User ID:http://washingtonpost.com/RH03qTQnCLIJ8%2BZXDADR8/JkV59ZvvsM2tG8oZLe/1VoGeVxxh

The Bible should be reclassified in the Dewey Decimal system from 220 to 753 (mythology) or to 813 (fiction).

Religion has always been the enemy of culture, the enemy of the human intellect, and the enemy of progress. The Bible certainly belongs in a museum, as do the neanderthals who continue to build their lives around it.

How wonderful...just where all those Bibles belong...in a museum right alongside all the other relics of mythology.

It is striking how some in our increasingly secular society are not content merely to be indifferent to Scripture but feel compelled vocally and vociferously to oppose and disparage it.  Paul’s insightful analysis of men in their unregenerate state who “hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18 AV; NKJV:  “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness”) still rings true.

May we who live in such a time as this be emboldened to admire and uphold the Scriptures even more boldly.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Note:  One opportunity we have to study and teach the Bible comes next week with our third annual “Puritan” Vacation Bible school for youth and children.  Pray for this outreach and ministry as we meet Monday-Wednesday (July 23-25) from 6:00-8:00 pm.

Sermon the Week: David Silversides on Social Networking

David Silversides has a good ministry of addressing various contemporary issues in the midweek meetings of his church.  His message on Social Networking:  Blessing or Curse? was recently featured on sermonaudio.com and is worth a listen.

JTR

Thomas Watson on Christ our Prophet

Note:  The afternoon sermon last Sunday at CRBC was a meditation on Question 23 in our Spurgeon Catechism Series on Jesus our Prophet.  I closed with a summary of Thomas Watson's applicatory "usages" from this question: 

After Thomas Watson addresses this catechism question in A Body of Divinity, his study of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, he offers three practical usages or applications on Christ as our Prophet:

1.      It is useful for information.  That is tells us more about Christ, “who is the great doctor of his church.”

2.     It tells us that we are to labor to have Christ as our teacher.

“A man can no more by the power of nature reach Christ, than an infant can reach the top of the pyramids, or the ostrich fly up to the stars.”

“Knowledge is in Christ for us as milk in the breast for the child.  Oh then go to Christ for teaching.  None in the gospel came to Christ for sight, but he restored their eyesight; and sure Christ is more willing to work a cure upon a blind soul than ever he was to do so upon a blind body.”

Christ can take the dullest man and make him “a good scholar’ so that “they know more than the great sages and wisemen of the world.”

Watson also points out that Christ does this through his appointed means.  “Ministers are earthen vessels, but these pitchers have lamps within them to light souls to heaven. Christ is said to speak to us from heaven now, by his ministers, as the king speaks by his ambassador.”

3.     It tells us to be thankful:   “If you have been taught by Christ savingly, be thankful.”

Watson draws on an ancient analogy. He says if Alexander the Great expressed thanks that Aristotle had been his teacher, then, “how are we obliged to Jesus Christ, this great Prophet, for opening to us the eternal purposes of his love, and revealing to us the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven!”

Godet on Luke 2:19 and speculation on Luke's use of a Marian source

“And Mary kept [syntereo, to protect, to keep safe, to preserve, to keep in good condition, to treasure] all these things, and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2:19).

I preached Sunday morning in our Luke series on Luke 2:8-20.  I was struck by Frederick Godet’s comments on Luke 2:19.  He argues for v. 19 as giving evidence that Luke used an oral recollection of Mary of the birth of Jesus as a source for his narrative of Jesus’ birth  (cf. 1:1-4).  Here are his observations:

The Aramaean coloring of the narrative indicates an ancient source.  The oftener we read the nineteenth verse, the more assured we are that Mary was the first and real author of this whole narrative.  This pure, simple, and private history was composed by her, and preserved for a certain time in an oral form until someone committed it to writing, whose work fell into the hands of Luke, and was reproduced by him in Greek (p. 84).

Spurgeon Textual Note

On the first day we met to begin our summer men’s Bible Study, reading together Spurgeon’s The Soul Winner, we ran into an interesting textual issue.  One of the brothers had an edition of Spurgeon’s book from Whitaker House (WH), while I had read the first chapter on my phone online from spurgeon.org.  When my friend read the opening paragraph from his edition, I noted some differences.  The WH edition begins as follows:

I purpose, dear ones, if God will enable me, to give you a short course under the general head of "The Soulwinner." Soulwinning is the chief business of the Christian; indeed, it should be the main pursuit of every true believer. We should each say with Simon Peter, "I go fishing” (John 21:3), and our aim should be, along with Paul, "That I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22).  We will begin our messages on this subject by considering the question:  What is it to win a soul?

While my version read:

I purpose, dear brethren, if God shall enable me, to give you a short course of lectures under the general head of "THE SOUL-WINNER." Soulwinning is the chief business of the Christian minister; indeed, it should be the main pursuit of every true believer. We should each say with Simon Peter, "I go a fishing," and with Paul our aim should be, "That I might by all means save some."
We shall commence our discourses upon this subject by considering the question— WHAT IS IT TO WIN A SOUL?

When we examined the WH edition we noted the brief “publisher’s note” in the book’s front matter which read, “This new edition from Whitaker House has been edited for the modern reader.  Words, expressions, and sentence structure have been updated for clarity and readability.”

The line that struck me by its difference was the one in WH that reads, “Soulwinning is the chief business of the Christian…,” versus the original which reads, “Soulwinning is the chief business of the Christian Minister….”  The original reflects Spurgeon’s high view of office and the preaching duty of the Minister, though the continuation of the line clearly shows that Spurgeon also saw evangelism as a duty for all believers.  The WH edition reflects a more modern, egalitarian, Brethren, “every member minister,” type approach.

The caution here is that when one gets such a reprint he should always check the front matter to determine whether he is reading the original in an unabridged form or in an abridged and modernized form.  I am not against abridgements.  I have, after all, done one myself.  Still, it is usually a good idea to compare the original with the abridgement to track theological influences in the interpretation.

JTR

The Vision (7/12/12): Prayer Support

“For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father” (Ephesians 2:18)

When I was editing John Owen’s Gospel Church Government last year, one of the passages that really struck me concerned prayer as part of the fellowship that churches and individual Christians enjoy.  Owen makes the following point:

They have a blessed fellowship in prayer continually.  This fellowship is more evident in that the prayers of all are for all.  There is not a single particular church or a single member of any of them that does not have the prayer support of all the churches in the world and all the members of them every day.  Though this fellowship is invisible to the eyes of flesh, it is glorious to the eye of faith.  It is a part of the glory of Christ the mediator in heaven.  This fellowship in prayer gives to all churches a communion far more glorious than any outward rite or plan of men’s devising (p. 101).

Upon reading this passage, I particularly remember being deeply humbled and encouraged as I considered the fact that though the prayers of the saints and the intercession of Christ, I had “the prayer support of all the churches in the world and all the members of them every day.”  The Lord knows our needs.  An army of his saints are constantly praying for the concerns of his people and for the expansion of his kingdom.  We have prayer support.    

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Classic Book Note: Martin Kähler's "The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ"

Note: I am continuing my summer reading survey of works from 19th century historical-critical Biblical studies.  Here are some notes from Martin Kähler's 1896 classic:

Book Note

Martin Kähler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, trans. by Carl E. Braaten (Fortress Press, 1964 [original Der sogennante historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus, 1896]):  153 pp.

Kähler writes to oppose 19^th century attempts to reconstruct the life of Jesus based on the Gospels.  He begins, “I regard the entire Life-of-Jesus movement as a blind alley” (p. 46).  The title of the book distinguishes between the “historical” (historische) Jesus and the “historic” (geschichtliche) biblical Christ.  Braaten discusses and compares translation of these important terms on p. 21:

                                                  historische (historie)             geschichtliche (geschichte)

C. Braaten/R. Fuller               “historical”                              “historic”

J. Macquarrie                         “objective history”                  “existential history”

H. R. Niebuhr                         “outer history”                        “inner history”

For Kähler, the Gospels do not provide an adequate “historical” picture of Jesus, but they do provide an adequate “historic” picture.  He contends that “we have no sources for a biography of Jesus of Nazareth which measures up to the standards of contemporary historical science” (p. 48).  He rejects, in particular, attempts to present psychological studies of Jesus’ inner life or of development in his thought from the Gospels, stating, “The New Testament presentations were not written for the purpose of describing how Jesus developed” (p. 51). Indeed, he notes, “The inner development of a sinless person is as inconceivable to us as life in the Sandwich Islands is to a Laplander” (p. 53)!  Thus, he concludes, “Without a doubt the Gospels are the complete opposite of the embellishing, rationalizing, and psychologizing rhetoric of the recent biographies of Jesus” (p. 93).  Along these lines, Kähler also adds his famous aphorism that one could well call the Gospels “passion narratives with extended introductions” (p. 80, no. 11).

Kähler wants to walk the line between both traditional (pre-critical) and modern (historical-critical) understandings of the Scripture.  He calls the choice between the two “an Either/Or.”  This means, “Either we retreat to the standpoint of the seventeenth century … affirming the inerrancy of the external features of the Bible as it was taken over at the Reformation, and rejecting any kind of historical study of the sacred text.  Or we deny that there is any essential difference between the biblical writings and other books….” (p. 110).  Both approaches, he claims, are misguided.  The purpose of the Gospels is not to provide “for a scientifically reconstructed biography of Jesus” but their purpose “is to awaken faith in Jesus through a clear proclamation of his saving activity” (p. 127).

In his critique of modern theology, Kähler offers this observation:  “The assertion of the absolutely unlimited inerrancy of everything found in our vernacular Bibles has caused a progressive uneasiness ever since the investigation of the traditions of Judaism hit its full stride” (p. 115).  In a footnote for the word “everything” in the previously quoted sentence, Kähler notes how this “uneasiness” in “everything” has included the undermining of the traditional text found in Luther’s Bible which he notes has met more opposition in Germany than in England (!):

This word has been chosen advisedly.  The situation is such that a devoted reader of the Bible has usually felt himself entitled to rely literally upon all the statements made in the headings and subheadings in Luther’s translation of the Bible.  How reluctantly a person resigns himself to the elimination of the pericope of the adulteress and of the end of Mark’s Gospel.  How enraged people become when doubt is cast upon the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, etc.  This attitude has been partly to blame for the difficulties encountered in connection with the revising of Luther’s translation.  In England, devotedness to the letter of Scripture produces zeal for a continual improvement of the translation; among us Germans it has produced a certain resentment of any such attempts; and in still others it has inspired the naïve confidence of being able to give Bible readers a more faithful reproduction of the original text, even though the translator may have a most inadequate knowledge of the biblical languages and often not the vaguest notion of the textual problems.  These mutually exclusive examples show that the starting point, the same in each instance, cannot be the correct one (p. 115, n. 26).

In the end, one might question whether Kähler’s supposed effort to stand above and beyond the fray between traditionalists and modernists is sincere.  In truth, Kähler stands steadfastly with modern theology.  Efforts like his, and that of others in liberal Protestantism, to forfeit the historical reliability of the Gospels while affirming their unique spiritual content did not salvage a high view of the Scriptures or a vibrant Christian faith.  Would that Kähler had, instead, stood with the seventeenth century Reformers in affirming both the “historic” and “historical” Jesus of the Gospels and the “historic” and “historical” Christ of faith, with no contradiction between the two.  His critique of the “Life-of-Jesus” movement, however, is usefully on target and anticipated the devastating critique of this movement in Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus.  Though his remedy is inadequate, Kähler also rightly anticipated the way in which the application of the historical-critical method was undermining Christian faith in Germany and beyond.

Jeffrey T. Riddle, Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Charlottesville, Virginia

Responding to challenges to the historicity of Luke 2

Image:  A drawing taken from the Lapis Tiburtinus, which may well affirm the historicity of Luke 2:2's disputed reference to Cyrenius [Quirinius] as governor of Syria at the time of Jesus' birth.

Note:  I preached Sunday on The birth of Jesus from Luke 2:1-7.  In part of the message I addressed several challenges to the historical reliability [inerrancy] of Luke’s account, particularly in vv. 1-3.  Here are three excerpts from my notes from:  the introduction, the exposition of vv. 1-3, and the application:

The thing that is most striking about these verses is how Luke grounds the birth of Jesus in history.  The birth of Jesus is a historical fact.  It is not a myth.  It is not a fairy tale.  It does not require some “leap of faith.”  You may deny the claims Christ made of himself and you may deny the claims that his followers make of him, but you cannot deny that this man was born in Bethlehem and that he really lived and walked upon this earth.

Because the Bible as God’s divine revelation of himself has come under attack, the historical details of Luke’s account have likewise come under attack.  We will speak some of that today—perhaps more than we ordinarily do on such matters—because it is such a peculiarly important point specific to this passage.  I think in the end we will be able to conclude as the great Biblical historian A. T. Robertson did, after studying the challenges offered to our text, that, in the end, “Luke is shown to be the careful and accurate historian that he professed to be” (Luke the Historian, p. 129).

______

The final note in Luke 2:1 is that Caesar Augustus decreed “that all the world [this would mean the entire Roman world] should be taxed [the verb is apographo, to be registered or enrolled]. ”  This is the first fact of the story that some non-believing scholars have challenged.  The challenge is this, they say, we have no extra-biblical account of such a decree being issued by Caesar Augustus at this time.

The first thing we need to understand here are the limits of our knowledge of ancient history.  Records were not kept in the way that modern records are kept, and many of the records that were kept have been lost forever.  We know of many ancient books by various ancient authors, for example, only by their titles, the works themselves being completely lost.  We have many gaps in our understanding of Roman history.  I just started reading a book by the historian Adrian Goldsworthy on the fall of Rome (How Rome Fell [Yale University Press, 2009]).  In one of the opening chapters, Goldsworthy notes:  “There is a good deal that we simply cannot know about the history of the Roman Empire in the third and later centuries [the time period his book is focused upon].  To a greater or lesser extent this is true of most periods of ancient history” (p. 25). 

We might add that though we might not have extra-biblical references to this specific “census”, we do, however, have accounts of Roman Emperors conducting registrations like the one mentioned.  The Romans typically did this for one of two purposes:  (1) to have a list of men who could be drafted into military service; and (2) to have a list of people to tax.  Given that the Jews were exempt from military service in the Roman army, the purpose of this registration was most likely, as our translation indicates, for the purpose of taxing.

Finally, we might add that we do, in fact, have a reliable record of this registration that proves it did happen.  That is the record of the Gospel of Luke.

In v. 2 there is another very specific historical tag mentioned by Luke:  “(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius [alternate spelling:  Quirinius] was governor of Syria.)”  Now most of us believers read this verse, and we just accept it as truth, because it is in the Gospel.  But this is a verse that the skeptics of the Scriptures love, because they claim that it provides an example of what they see as a historical error.  From sources outside the Bible, like Josephus, we know that there was a Roman leader named Publius Sulpicus Quirinius who served as the Roman governor or Syria from 6-9 A. D. and that a census was performed under his administration in 6 A. D.  Here is the perceived problem:  The birth of Jesus is presented as occurring in Luke at least ten years before this time.  Why do I say that?  Because according to Luke 1:5 the birth of John and the birth of Jesus took place during the rule of “Herod, the king of Judea.”  This would be Herod the Great, who Matthew also tells us massacred the innocents, in his mad attempt to snuff out the life of Jesus (see Matt 2).  Here is the historical rub.  We know from extra-biblical sources that Herod died in 4 B. C.  This means that Jesus was most likely born c. 6 B. C.  BTW, the Bible nowhere tells us precisely the date of Christ’s birth.

How do we reconcile this seeming inconsistency (Jesus born c. 6 B. C., Quirinius governor of Syria c. 6 A. D.)?  Here we need to remember that any inconsistency we think we see in Scripture is only an apparent inconsistency.  Our inability to understand or reconcile facts is due to our limitations and not the Scriptures.  Faithful men have, in fact, found various solutions to this problem.  I think the most likely of these is the possibility that Quirinius served two terms in leadership in the Roman province of Syria.  The second was from 6-9 AD, but the first of these was earlier at the time of the birth of Jesus.  Some historians, in fact, argue that Quirinius shared the governing duties of Syria with a man named Vallus at the time of Christ’s birth.  Here’s the really interesting thing:  In the year 1764 they uncovered a marble slab in a place called Tibur (it is referred to as the Lapis Tiburtinus, or “stone of Tibur”) in which there is an inscription mentioning a Roman who served twice (Latin iterum) as legate in Syria.  Various Christian scholars have convincingly argued that this reference is to Quirinius, thereby verifying the historical accuracy of Luke 2:2.

Let’s move on to v. 3 where Luke adds, “And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.”  This is yet another place in Luke’s account where some scholars have cried foul.  They point out that we have no evidence that the Romans ever required this kind of registration in one’s ancestral home.  I have even read modern scholars, like Bart Ehrman, who claim that it is illogical to think that people would be able to trace their ancestral homeland after gaps of hundreds if not thousands of years.  That might be true of modern people, but we must remember that first century Hebrews were not modern people.  Paul, for example, was proud of the fact that he was from the tribe of Benjamin (see Phil 3). And we can rest assured that both Joseph and, I believe, Mary also, knew they were from the house of David.  As with our last example, here is another place where historical discovery has served to support the reliability of Scripture.  In the year 1910 the respected scholar Adolph Deissmann published an edict he uncovered in Egypt that came from Maximus, the Roman governor of Egypt, in the year 104 A D in which he required an enrollment of the population at the ancestral homes, just the type that Luke records.

Here is how A. T. Robertson sums things up:

Every statement made by Luke in 2:1-7 was once challenged.  Every one is now shown to be correct (Harmony of the Gospels, p. 265).

For all these years the record in Luke 2:1-7 has stood all by itself, the butt of ridicule by historians and theologians.  Now the rubbish heaps of Egypt and the stones of Asia Minor cry aloud in support of the narrative.  The enemies of Luke are put to rout (Luke the Historian, p. 129).

______

In the end I might take us back to some of the things we worked though in the beginning of the message, namely, the trustworthiness of the historical record in Luke.  I hope we are reminded today that we can trust God’s word.  Well has it been said that the Scriptures are an anvil that has broken many a hammer.  I hope we are reminded today that when we meet any challenge to God’s word or when any apparent discrepancy is raised that we will trust the power of God’s word.  Given enough time and enough knowledge we will find no conflicts of any significance.

The Scriptures are like a life line.  If you were drowning and I were to throw you a line would you want one made of a strong, sturdy rope or metal cable or would you want a line thrown to you made of tissue paper?  In the recent storm I heard of trees falling and even snapping strong cables and power lines.  But nothing can break the power of God’s word.  Read it.  Hear it.  Trust it. Grasp it.  And by laying hold of it, you will find that you are laying hold of Christ.

JTR

The rise of historical critical method in the nineteenth century: "The Bible stood before criticism as defendant before judge."

In his little booklet The Historical Critical Method (1975) in the Fortress “Guides to Biblical Scholarship,” Edgar Krentz sums up his survey of “Historical Method Set Free:  1820-1920” with this insightful paragraph:

It is difficult to overestimate the significance the nineteenth century has for biblical interpretation.  It made historical criticism the approved method of interpretation.  The result was a revolution of viewpoint in evaluating the Bible.  The Scriptures were, so to speak, secularized.  The biblical books became historical documents to be studied and questioned like any other ancient sources.  The Bible was no longer the criterion for the writing of history; rather history had become the criterion for understanding the Bible.  The variety in the Bible was highlighted; its unity had to be discovered and could no longer be presumed.  The history it reported was no longer assumed to be everywhere correct.  The Bible stood before criticism as defendant before judge.  The criticism was largely positivist in orientation, imminentist in its explanations, and incapable of appreciating the category of revelation (p. 30).

This summary could be applied to many areas of Biblical scholarship, including text criticism.  Indeed, it was the rise to dominance of the historical critical method in the nineteenth century that saw the challenge to the traditional Reformation text of Scripture that would lead to its eventual overthrow in the twentieth century among mainstream Protestants and even among most evangelicals.

JTR

Rousseau: Flawed Child-Rearing Expert

I recently finished reading Leo Damrosch’s Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Restless Genius (First Mariner Books, 2005), continuing my quest to understand the Enlightenment and its influence on theology, especially Biblical studies and text.  It goes without saying that Rousseau was a complex person, filled with numerous contradictions.  One of the most disturbing of these contradictions is the fact that this man who would write a celebrated book on education (Emile), celebrating the natural goodness of human beings, and become a sort of “Dr. Spock” of the 18^th century, lived for over 30 years with a common law wife (Therese) with whom he had five children, all of whom were unceremoniously dumped on the doorstep of the orphanage immediately after their birth.  Here is Damrosch’s description:

About a year after their liason began, Therese revealed that she was pregnant, and a child was born at the end of 1746 or early 1747; no record was kept of the date, and even the sex is uncertain.  The infant was immediately consigned to the charitable Hospital des Enfants-Trouves, or foundling home, as were four more infants in subsequent years.  This action seems staggering today, in light of what Rousseau  was and what he became, as well as in light of his own abandonment as a child….  For a long time he successfully kept what he had done secret from everyone except a few friends, but by the time it came out, he had become famous as the author of a book on bringing up children, and he had a lot of explaining to do (p. 191).

Sadly, this anecdote reveals the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of many of the men of the Enlightment era.  Rousseau rejected the Bible’s teaching of original sin and blamed all human evil (“mistakes”) on environmental factors.  His suppression of the truth allowed him to rest at ease with the sinful deeds that flowed from his own sinful heart.

JTR

The Vision (7/5/12): Pliny's Observations on Early Christians

Last week in this column I ran an excerpt from the Roman historian Tacitus with one of the earliest references to Christianity outside of the Bible itself.  Another of these few secular references to the early Christian movement is a note sent from Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia, to the Emperor Trajan c. 112 A. D.  Pliny writes to ask the Emperor’s advice in dealing with the members of “a mad sect” known as “Christians.”  Pliny relays to the Emperor how he has been dealing with Christians:

In the meantime, I have taken this course about those who have been brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians or not.   If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confession, I ordered them to be executed.

Pliny also notes that if any denied that they were Christians under interrogation, called upon the pagan gods, made sacrifices to the image of the Emperor, or cursed Christ, then he let them go, because those who were truly Christians “could not be compelled to do so.”

Pliny muses that, all in all, the Christians do seem a bit harmless.  With all his investigation, the best he could discover about them was the following:

That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal….

Nevertheless, Pliny admits that his crackdown against this “extravagant superstition” has been successful.  The pagan temples “which were almost forsaken” are now filled again with worshippers.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Godet text note on Luke 1:78

In his discussion of Luke 1:78 Godet makes an interesting observation on the tense of the verb episkeptomai, “to visit,” in this verse.  In the traditional text, the reading is in the aorist as epeskepsato (thus, “hath visited” in the AV), but in the modern critical text the reading is in the future as episkepsetai (thus, “shall visit” in the NASB).

The modern critical reading (which Godet refers to as the “Alexandrian”) is supported by the twin heavyweights of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the traditional by the vast majority of other witnesses.

Godet observes:

The future episkepsetai, will visit, in some Alex., is evidently a correction suggested by the consideration that Christ was not born at the time Zacharias was speaking.  Yet even such instances as these do not disturb the faith of critics in the authority of the Alexandrine MSS.! (p. 72).

His point is that it is the reading represented by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus would here give evidence of a harmonizing tendency.  A scribe would have wanted to make the verb a future tense in anticipation of the coming birth and life of Jesus.  The traditional text, in the past tense, would, therefore, be the more difficult reading, since it speaks of a visitation that is already an assured fact.  Under the standard canons of modern critical study, this would make the traditional reading the preferred one.  Godet’s final comment pokes at “the faith of critics” in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, exposing the bias of modern text critics to favor these manuscripts  despite the critical canons formulated by them which supposedly lead to the overthrow of the traditional text.

Why don’t modern NT exegetes make observations like this one?

JTR

The Vision (6/28/12): Tacitus and Independence Day

In the recent course I’ve been teaching on New Testament and Early Christianity, I did a survey of the handful of extra-biblical historical references to Christianity in the first few centuries of the Christian movement.  One comes from around the year 115 A. D. in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus (in his Annals, xv.44).  In describing the reign of the Emperor Nero he includes a reference to how this cruel and profane man blamed and persecuted Christians for a fire in Rome c. 64 A. D.:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

 

This brief reference is important on many levels.  First, it provides a historical reference to Jesus (“Chrestus”) outside of (and consistent with) the Gospels, including his death under Pontius Pilate while Tiberius was Emperor.  This is useful information to rebut the occasional quack who comes along and claims that Jesus was only a mythical figure and not a historical reality.  Second, it tells us how some pagans saw Christianity as “a most mischievous superstition” and as “haters of mankind.”  It also reminds us that many of our spiritual forebears were willing to place their lives on the line for their faith.  When Hebrews 11 describes the believing martyrs it calls them those “of whom the world was not worthy” (v. 38).

Next week we will celebrate the Independence Day of our nation.  We can thank the Lord that for more than two centuries this nation has provided a safe haven of religious liberty for many.  May the Lord be pleased to extend our freedom, despite the church’s and our nation’s many faults and struggles, even as he prepares us to be willing to lose all for him, when we are called upon to do so.   

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

"The greater happiness is, the calmer it is."

Some expanded notes from last Sunday’s sermon on Luke 1:39-56:

Among the words recorded here are those sometimes referred to as the Magnificat or “Song of Mary” (vv. 46-55).  But note that the text simply records that she “said” these words.  These are her spoken words.

Note also the contrast to Elisabeth’s exuberant words, spoken “with a loud voice” (v. 42).  The old commentators picked up on this distinction:

Godet notes that while Elisabeth’s words are “full of excitement” what he calls “Mary’s hymn” “breathes a sentiment of deep inward repose,” adding, “The greater happiness is, the calmer it is” (Commentary on St. Luke, p. 62).

Calvin makes a similar observation on the text, noting that Mary “teaches us, too, more than a loud clamorous voice is needed to proclaim God’s praises.”  He continues:  “Often people with no real feeling for God appear white-hot in their fervour.  In the papal church there is four-part singing, and the sound of the organ accompanies men’s voices.  God, we might think, must be greatly pleased with those who bawl his praises!  But does it really edify?”  He concludes that Mary “reveals we cannot truly praise God unless our hearts are first warmed by his kindness; only then can our soul praise and reverence him” (Songs of the Nativity, pp. 25-26).

I’ve noted before Terry Johnson’s comments about worship when he says there is one kind of happiness that one might express with wild cheering at a ball game, but there is another kind of happiness one best expresses with quiet reverence, as at a wedding or a graduation ceremony.  And Biblical worship is of the latter variety.  Mary’s words are happy words and calm words.  Indeed, “The greater happiness is, the calmer it is.”

JTR