“Well, There Goes the Trinity!”

“A Wolf Amongst the Sheep”

“Wouldn’t You Like to be a Heretic, too?”

Okay, I’ll stop and stick with the one I did choose.  Last night was the first night I participated in the adult study entitled, “The Truth Project” and I am convinced it was providential.  The topic was the trustworthiness and authority of the word of God and the challenge from the nay-sayer was, “What word of God?”

“Were you listening closely?” refers to one point in the discussion (which BTW stayed relatively calm considering the affront) wherein the nay-sayer (NS) contradicted himself.  Memory fails me as to the specifics but it was something like this.  The NS spoke against the autority of the OT based upon the seeming “rejection” of Jesus in the New.  This is evident when Jesus says, “You have heard it said…but I say to you.”  With these words Jesus surpasses and supercedes OT canon giving precedence to the New. 

Recognising the danger of denying the reliability of God’s word, Rev. Cross challenged the NS.  Rev. Cross replied that Jesus did not come to abolish the law (which is what the NS was ultimately endorsing) but to fulfill it (Matt 5).  The NS emphatically chimed, “Exactly!!”

No, not exactly.  This would mean that the NS and Cross were in agreement.  They weren’t.  Were you listening closely?  Clearly Cross’ “fulfillment” and the NS’ are not the same.  For Cross (and us, too) Jesus’ fulfilling the law means that he does not set it aside or remove its place in our lives but that he “fully fills” up with meaning what the law was intended to do.  Yes, there are certain applications of the law which we are no longer required to practise (e.g. sacrifices and legislative) but these are not abrogated.  Rather, they are caught up in the scheme of Jesus’ work and redemption and are thereby morphed into NT law.  Sacrifice and legislation are still a part of our vocabulary.  Hebrews tells us to offer our bodies as living sacrifices as true worship.  Our legislation is no longer as an individual nation (i.e. Israel’s judicial and penal laws: death to heretics) but as a “kingdom of priests” who exhibit the law of love and mercy rather than judgement per se (James 2). 

So, where does this leave us?  Let us consider the challenge put forth last night.  The NS challenged our conservative attribution to the word of God these two adjectives: inerrancy and infallibility.  He insisted, “The Bible nowhere claims this for itself.  The Bible does not claim to be without error and we cannot make “God-breathed”(2 Tim 3) to mean this.” 

Now, this kind of attack is not new.  Nor is it a good argument.  Can you think of any other doctrine we affirm whose label is not found in the Bible?  If we must only believe in words that are exclusively derived from the Bible then we lose at least one vital doctrine.  Do you see?

The two words rejected by the NS are inerrant and infallible.  To what do they refer?  Let us put it this way.  Inerrancy refers to the actual content of the scriptures.  The very words as well as the ideas.  We will say that inerrancy means that everything in the Bible is what God wanted to be there.  There is nothing missing.  There are no other epistles or texts out there somewhere which ought to have or could have been included.  Everything that is in the Bible has been providentially placed and preserved there by God. 

Infallibility logically follows this. 

“So what if the Bible has all the books it is supposed to have? 

So what if the Bible has all the stories it is supposed to have?” 

 Do you sense the necessity?  So what if the Bible records this or that event or person or sentence if one cannot rest assured that it is true.  Infallibility, then, affirms that everything the Bible records or teaches is true.  To review.

Inerrancy= everything that is in the Bible is what God intended

Infallibility= everything that God intended to be in the Bible is true.

Even though the Bible does not use these words for itself, we derive the use of these words from what the Bible does say.  And we will begin with 2 Tim 3:

All scripture is the very breath of God and is profitable….

Your word is truth

The word of God is trustworthy

The law of God is sure

The statutes of God are pure

We could go on but you get the gist.  We use these terms b/c the Bible speaks this way about itself. 

What follows is a extra credit if you want to continue. 

Now, to address the more sophiticated arguments from last night.  The NS denied the ‘reliability of the Bible’ as espoused by RC Sproul and the video series, “The Truth Project.”  He affirmed his allegiance to the view of scripture put forth by the 19th C German scholar Julius Wellhausen.  In brief JW concluded that the content of the Pentateuch are so disparate they could not be written by Moses.  To solve this problem he concluded that the final editor (perhaps Ezra) used varying and conflicting sources to compile the early Biblical history.  There are four main sources one can detect that were used.  They are

Following Wellhausen, scholars speak of four major sources for the Torah.

J, Jahwist source

Main article: Jahwist

The oldest source, concerned with narratives, making up half of Genesis and the first half of Exodus, plus fragments of Numbers. J describes a human-like God, called Yahweh (or rather YHWH) throughout, and has a special interest in the territory of the Kingdom of Judah and individuals connected with its history. J has an extremely eloquent style. Originally composed c 950 BC.^[2]

E, Elohist source

Main article: Elohist

E parallels J, often duplicating the narratives. Makes up a third of Genesis and the first half of Exodus, plus fragments of Numbers. E describes a human-like God initially called Elohim, and Yahweh subsequent to the incident of the burning bush, at which Elohim reveals himself as Yahweh. E focuses on the Kingdom of Israel and on the Shiloh priesthood, has a moderately eloquent style. Originally composed c 850 BC.^[2]

D, Deuteronomist source

Main article: Deuteronomist

D takes the form of a series of sermons about the Law, and consists of most of Deuteronomy. Its distinctive term for God is YHWH Elohainu, translated in English as “The Lord our God.” Originally composed c 650-621 BCE.^[2]

P, Priestly source

Main article: Priestly source

Preoccupied with the centrality of the priesthood, and with lists (especially genealogies), dates, numbers and laws. P describes a distant and unmerciful God, referred to as Elohim. P partly duplicates J and E, but alters details to stress the importance of the priesthood. P consists of about a fifth of Genesis, substantial portions of Exodus and Numbers, and almost all of Leviticus. P has a low level of literary style. Composed c 550-400 BC.

I must stop here for time.  Suffice it to say that the view espoused above is itself far from unified.  That is, even those who hold to this position are not in full agreement as to which sources go where and whether this one or that one is this source or that one.

If you would like to read more just Google it and voila!!

1)  Logic: in this area the boys learn to reason.  Many times, they will say, but it’s so messy.  And we will respond, “Yes, you are right. And who made the mess?”

“We did.”

“That’s right.  Now who must clean this up?”

“We must.”

“That’s right.  Now, let’s do a good job so we won’t have to do it over and so we won’t have to do it again so soon.”

OR

“But it’s so messy.”

“Yes.  Now you know how hard it is to keep our home clean.  Now you know how hard your mom and I  have to work to keep it clean.  But more importantly, now you know how important it is to put your clothes and toys and books and trash and games away, right away, all the way, and with a cheerful heart[listing these things makes a more impressive (oppressive?) an example].

2) Love:  this is our family’s mantra, <em>OTHERS FIRST.</em>  When we clean up we are loving our mother who takes care of us during the day and prepares to care for dad when he comes home from a long, hard day’s work.  It also cares for each other when we put away others’ mess or trash .  When we do this for each other in every instance we are saying to one another, “You are more important than I and I am doing this b/c I love you.”

3) Liberation:  Here is the most important “L” in the list for the boys.  Freedom.  Herein lies their true motivation for their work.  When the work is done, play can ensue.  However, if it is not done well (refer to #1) it will be done again and again until it is done well.  So to do the job well the first time is to ensure that liberation (not only to play, but to rest in doing a thing well ) of the hear, soul, mind, and strength happens.

Here at postdeclarolux we take seriously the preaching of God’s word.

Q) What is this site about?

A) It’s about the responsible hearing and receiving of the word of God preached.

WLC 160 What is required of those that hear the word preached?
A. It is required of those that hear the word preached, that they
attend upon it with diligence, preparation, and prayer;
examine what they hear by the scriptures;
receive the truth with faith, love,
meekness, and readiness of mind, as the word of God;
meditate, and confer of it;
hide it in their hearts,
and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives.

Q) What does the name mean?

A) It’s Latin for “after the declaration, light.”

Q) What can I do here?

A) You can read the posts and add your two cents about the application of the sermon to your heart.

Elder Zubrod preached this morning from Luke’s text:

Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. And there was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector and was rich. And he was seeking to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small of stature. So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was about to pass that way.

And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.”

So he hurried and came down and received him joyfully.

And when they saw it, they all grumbled, “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.”

And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.”

And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

One of the things that stands out to me from the sermon this morning is the importance of a disciplined study of the Bible. Elder Zubrod pointed out the importance of some of the terms Luke uses including Luke’s motive for including the story itself. Some of the terms to consider are these.

1) Jericho: here is a place still under the curse of Joshua (and God) wherein there is no hope of redemption (does this come into play later with Zaccheus’ standing as a renegade Jew?). It is always interesting to consider the naming of characters. Zaccheus’ name means “holy or pure.”

2) Seeking & seeing: here are some basic entries for meanings of these terms:

a) seek: evzh,tei verb indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–>

[LN] zhte,w (a) try to find (b) seek information (c) desire (d) demand (e) try (f) try to obtain (g) attempt to find (1) zhte,w th.n yuch,n want to kill

b) see: ivdei/n verb infinitive aorist active

[UBS: dictionary] o`ra,w trans. see, observe, notice (pass. appear); perceive, understand, recognize; experience; visit, come to see (He 13.23); intrans. make sure, see to, take care ( o[ra mh, do not do that)

[LN] o`ra,w (a) see (b) pay attention to (c) understand (d) visit
(e) experience (f) learn about (g) cause to happen

Is there any significance to these terms for what Zaccheus was doing? Was he seriously looking for Jesus; was he curious but not committal?

It seems that the text implies nothing more and nothing less than he was interested in this man, Jesus. However, the verb “seeking” is in the imperfect and this may imply that Zaccheus was “continually seeking to see.” Little did he know that the man Jesus was interested in him.

3) received him joyfully: here let us consider the Greek verb and its use.

Here is the sentence,

So he hurried and came down and received him joyfully.

A) speu,saj verb participle aorist active nominative masculine singular

[LN] speu,dw (a) do quickly (b) cause to happen soon (c) be eager

B) kate,bh verb indicative aorist active 3rd person singular

[LN] katabai,nw move down

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> C) u`pede,xato verb indicative aorist middle 3rd person singular

[LN] u`pode,comai welcome

If we notice the kind of verb these are, we notice all are an aorist. An aorist is a strong verb giving the idea of certainty but without the concern of the process. It tends to look at events as a whole. So that all of these verb taken together give us the idea that Zaccheus did not hesitate to respond to Jesus’ words.

The next part is telling. You know what a tell is, right? In the poker world a tell is how an opponent reacts to either the cards in his hand or (if you’re in to “hold ‘em) on the table. A good player notes how his opponent “tells” whether his hand is strong or weak. Well, these folk had a tell. We know how they felt about Jesus visiting a turncoat. Jesus is with a crowd and Luke tells us “they grumbled.”

[ Huh! There's that word again. I think it's turned up in my last 3 posts (note to self, "Am I a grumbler?).] I have tells. People can see when I am not amused. And the reason I am not amused is b/c “I would never….” I did it today. The sabbath is a touchy issue and I continually struggle with its balance in my heart. Anyway, these people missed what Zaccheus got. They missed being found by the one who comes to seek and save the lost.

Elder Zubrod noted the significance of Jericho and made comments on Luke’s choice of this “Sunday School chestnut.” But let’s take it a step further. Note how the text ends.

And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Here we are in Luke 19 but that’s not where the story begins. Can we travel back a few pages to chapters 15, 18 and the parable following this pericope ( look it up) ?

That’s all the work I’ll do for you. Well, mebbe I’ll give you some clues (15: lost; 18: rich; and 19:11ff: stewardship). The story is truly part of the greater whole. What are we to come away with? The one things that sticks out in my mind from the sermon is the change that came over Zaccheus and his immediate response as the divine took up residence in his new house.

May we always be reforming our hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit and seeking to see Jesus pass our way.

How ’bout you? How did you benefit from the declare
today?