What does God think about the Bible? Does that seem to be an out-of-place question? There is much debate among modern-day theologians about the authority and authenticity of Scripture. Inerrancy is another word that is frequently used. Billy Graham made this statement about the subject in his book Storm Warning:
- In numerous churches the Bible is treated as a
collection of fairy tales and fables written by half-educated
men of an ancient time. While it offers challenging spiritual
myths and wholesome encouragement, some "modern" churches
seem to feel that no one should go to the Bible expecting to find
absolute truth.
Such teaching is an abomination before God. Nothing could be more destructive to true faith and peace on earth. In the face of such a growing storm, the world desperately needs moorings, and God has given us that anchor in His Word, the Bible (pp. 78-79).
As we listen to so many different voices critically dissect these
ancient writings, does it not make sense to consider what Christ
Himself had to say on the subject?
Over the centuries, the Church has maintained an exalted view
of Scripture, believing it to be the very word of God. However,
when men's hearts are examined, and trapped, by the bright convicting
searchlight of Scripture, some invent ways to discredit its authority.
Some of these are quite creative and clever, and given that "the
heart is more deceitful than all else" (Jeremiah 17:9), these
degradations of God's word are presented apparently with
utmost sincerity. This treatise is written for the Christian who
desires to know the truth but is confused or disturbed by the
persuasive arguments of some modern day theologians.
That many are confused is not surprising. There are multitudes
of mind-stretching and intellectually challenging arguments on
the subject. Pondering these will likely cause one to ask questions
about the authority of Scripture.
Some cast doubt on the authority of Scripture
by claiming that significant portions of the Old Testament Scriptures
are the combined efforts of many different editors who over the
centuries added their own perspectives and themes to the evolving
texts. This theory, known as the "Documentary Hypothesis"
was originated in modern times because, for a while, some "learned"
scholars had concluded that no written form of a language existed
at the time of Moses. As they hypothesized how the Mosaic writings
might then have come into being, they conjectured, based on no
currently standing historical or archaeological evidence, that
multiple editors constructed these writings from the folklore
and partial manuscripts handed down in later generations. These
hypothesized and anonymous editors go by the names of J (for the
Jehovah perspective), E (for the Elohim perspective), etc. Since
the initial fabrication of this hypothesis, its premise has been
proved false by the discovery of the "black stele" on
which the detailed laws of Hammurabi were written at least three
centuries prior to the time of Moses. However, instead of recanting
this "Documentary Hypothesis," those minds that imagined
it were unwilling to do so; so it continues to be taught
today. Only now the case for the existence and contribution of
these multiple editors is based primarily on the diversity of
style and theme in Scripture. My personal response to those who
advocate this theory of multiple editors is that, aside from ignoring
history as well as the strict ritual religiously used by the ancient
Jews to copy and preserve Scripture in its original form, they
have apparently failed to recognize that the diversity in creation
itself points to a God who delights in diversity. His own being
is presented to us in three persons. If God is diverse in His
own being, and if the diversity of the Creator is obviously reflected
in his creation prolific with diversity, then why should one not
expect to find diversity in a set of writings that themselves
claim to be the thoughts and words of this single God of diversity?
But my response to the proponents of this or other discrediting
theories is only one man's opinion. For those who seek to know
the truth, it can be quite confusing and debilitating to hear
men debating among themselves about these theories. Would it not
be far more valuable to hear the words of Jesus Christ on this
subject?
But how can we be reasonably sure that we have the sayings of
Jesus Christ accurately recorded and available to us? Those who
advocate the "Documentary Hypothesis" of multiple editors
modifying Scripture down through the ages (the earliest portions
of the Old Testament were probably written in the 15th century
B.C.) tend to restrict this hypothesis to the Old Testament writings.
The reason for this is the overwhelming evidence
that the Greek manuscripts we have available to us today are so
close to the original New Testament writings, that no significant
grounds for debate as to its authenticity as a primary document
remain. (It was written by eyewitnesses or their secretaries,
completed probably prior to 80 A.D., and the great multitude of
existing New Testament manuscripts allow us to reconstruct the
original Greek documents. Additionally, there are many first and
second century secular writers who attest to the existence, authorships,
and authenticity of account of the New Testament writings.) Furthermore,
the "Documentary Hypothesis" claim is required by literary
history to restrict itself to the fact that all significant modifications
to Old Testament Scriptures must have been made prior to the first
century since it can be demonstrated by extant documents of that
time that the present day versions of the Massoretic Old Testament
texts are accurate copies of the first century version of Old
Testament Scripture (with the exception that vowels have since
been inserted to assist with pronunciation, not significantly changing
any words or meaning).(Endnote #1)
Because the Old Testament Scriptures at the time of Christ are
nearly identical to the present day version and because there
is no significant scholarly debate as to the authenticity of the
modern Greek version of the Gospels as accurate copies of the
primary documents (with the exception that Matthew may have been
originally written in Aramaic and translated into Greek very soon
after its writing), then it makes a great deal of sense to examine
what Jesus Christ had to say about how we ought to view Old Testament
Scripture as recorded in these Gospel writings. Since the average
reader of this treatise will not speak Greek, Scripture quotes
used herein come from the New American Standard Version, except
in a few cases when the Greek itself was deemed necessary which
is quoted from The Greek New Testament edited by Kurt Aland, et
al.
There is a second motivation for writing this treatise. For some
who seek the truth, there is an unsatisfying shallowness to simply
parroting the traditional claim that Scripture is inerrant without
understanding the justification for that claim. Scripture itself
instructs Christians to be "ready to make a defense to everyone
who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you"
(I Peter 3:15). In preparing an answer, I think one will receive
a deeper blessing that comes from better appreciating the richness
and depth and the fuller implications of the authority of Scripture.
I think that many Christians would benefit from being encouraged
to deepen their view of the authority of Scripture and, in doing
so, would be encouraged by a deeper understanding of God and His
purpose for us. This would also help them properly respond to
those who would challenge their faith. It is for this purpose
of building up and equipping the Saints to be prepared to give
a reason for the hope that is in us that this treatise is written.
There are a plethora of good intellectual arguments to support
the authority of Scripture. Although not the subject of this treatise,
it is useful to mention just a few of them. The authority of Scripture
can be addressed from many vantage points. For one, archaeology
provides an impressive and growing set of evidences for the consistent
accuracy of Scripture. Impressive arguments can be made for the
authority of Scripture because of the miraculous logical consistency
of theme and lack of contradiction despite the fact that Scripture
has had many authors in many centuries, each with diverse backgrounds.
Certainly the record of the Biblical prophesies and their fulfillment
is at least astonishing and presents a compelling argument that
their authorship is credited to someone with the power to see
and know the future unlike man. Having been educated to the doctorate
level in modern sciences, I think it is impressive that after
much study of the Scriptures, I am unaware of any single scientific
inaccuracy in these ancient writings. All of these vantage points
when considered together form an impressive and overwhelmingly
convincing argument for the authority and authenticity of Scripture
as the Word of God. But I have come to believe that all these
collectively do not form the strongest argument for the authority
of Scripture. Nor do they form the most complete case to rebuff
those who say that not all Scripture is the Word of God, but only
that it "contains" (in some parts, presumably to be
determined by the reader because he is smarter than Scripture
and qualified as its judge) the Word of God.
The strongest and clearest argument for the authority and authenticity
of Scripture can be made by examining the convictions that Christ
himself held of Scripture. This treatise intends to examine what
Christ, God in the flesh, said concerning the authority of Scripture.
His words are powerful and provide an impressive and very strong,
perhaps the strongest, argument for the inerrancy, but beyond
that, the historically defining authority of Scripture.
In the Gospel writings, Jesus Christ was succinct and startlingly
pointed about the authority of Scripture. I hope and pray that
my discussions herein of His words on the subject will help you
better understand some of the riches of what God himself, in human
form, has said, and what I believe God would have us understand,
about the authority of Scripture. It has been for me a very settling
discovery. I hope you will find it the same.
The sayings of Jesus Christ cannot be fully appreciated
without understanding Jesus's identity. This Man who spoke these
things recorded in New Testament writings spoke from a position
of authority that is far above any other. Three attributes of
Jesus Christ are particularly pertinent to a discussion about
the meaning and significance of His comments on Scripture: (1)
Jesus was and is the Almighty God; (2) Jesus has always existed
and was the means by which all things in heaven and earth were
created; and (3) Jesus, in particular, is the Word (Logos) of
God--in a very real sense, Scripture in the flesh. When one understands
who Jesus was and is, His comments about Scripture become strikingly
penetrating.
The Old Testament practices regarding names were different than
ours today. In our society, if you want to call someone Sam because
you like the sound of the name, you do it--even if you don't know
the meaning of the name or intend that the meaning is in some
way significant about the child. This was not the practice of
Old Testament times. We see a consistent practice throughout the
Old Testament writings from the beginning to the end of them (about
a thousand year span) in which names were given because of their
meaning. It was clearly understood by Isaiah's readers prior to
the time of Christ that this child to be born would be named "Eternal
Father" and "Mighty God" because those were rightful
titles for that child to bear. They no doubt struggled with how
this could be true, but nonetheless, they were clear about Isaiah's
intent in the communication. Isaiah's communication was clear:
The Messiah would be the Mighty God, He would be the Eternal Father,
He would be a human child.
Certainly Jesus Christ, as He is portrayed in New Testament writings,
was fully human--a man in every sense of the word. I would not
say just as human as any one of us, but I see a man who is more
human than any of the rest of us. He was born a helpless child
needing care from his imperfect human mother; He wept; He grew
tired; He was deeply moved with emotion; He was quintessentially
compassionate to those who suffered; He suffered greatly; He bled;
He got hungry; He submitted to His earthly parents even when their
understanding of the situation was more limited than His; He was
concerned for the underdog; and at times He was surprised, even
astonished. Even though He was fully human as He walked on earth,
Jesus was fully God. In fact, Colossians 1:19 records for us that
all the fullness (of Deity) dwelt in Him. In John 1:1, taken together
with John 1:14, we see this again: "In the beginning was
the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. ... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we
beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father,
full of grace and truth." With these words, John tells us
that Jesus was God and the creator (agent of creation) in that
"All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing
came into being that has come into being" (John 1:3). Again
Colossians repeats this theme saying, "For by Him [Jesus,
God's Son] all things were created, both in the heavens and on
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or
rulers or authorities--all things have been created by Him and
for Him" (Col 1:16). Jesus is God the Creator.
These three interwoven attributes (that Jesus is God, that Jesus
is the Word (Logos) of God, and that Jesus is the creator) all
tie together in Genesis chapter one where we read that "God
said, 'Let there be ...'" and creation was spoken (through
the Logos) into existence, made from nothing. We see this same
power at work through Jesus in the New Testament. He spoke and
a dead man's decayed body came back to Life (John 11:44). With
our current understanding of human physiology, we now know something
of the complexity of what was going on here that those bystanders
of Jesus's day probably did not appreciate. Within minutes of
death, most of the cells of the body explode because the sodium
pump, the cellular mechanism that keeps the cell's wall intact,
ceases to function. When this happens, the cell's contents begin
to dissipate throughout the fluid around them. In short, the structure
of the body at the cellular level is destroyed. A trillion complex
micro universes (the cells of the body) begin to disintegrate
rapidly. Only a force equal to that which could speak a universe,
with all of its unfathomable complexities, into existence would
be able instantly and simultaneously to recreate and repair the
billions of destroyed cells within Lazarus's body and bring him
back to life.
As remarkable a miracle as it is that Jesus would command the
simultaneous recreation and reconstruction of billions of small
complex universes known as Lazarus's body cells to bring Lazarus
back to life, consider the miracle when Jesus gives sight to a
man born blind (John 9). In order to accomplish this feat, not
only did Jesus demonstrate creation from nothing, but He also
demonstrated that He was the master of time. Sight is dependent
not only on the mechanical operation of the eyes and the brain,
but also on the perception mechanisms that are developed over
time in the cerebral cortex of the brain. When a child is born,
although his eyes and brain work mechanically, he cannot really
see so as to actually perceive, but instead the images being played
on his striate (visual) cortex must be associated, in many complex
ways, with other stimuli over time so as to "train"
the cortical perception mechanisms to actually "see"
(perceive) any meaning in those images. This training involves
the chronologically sequential establishment of many hierarchies
of perception. This sequential establishment requires at least
many months, if not years, of associative cortical development
in a developing child. Thus for a man who was born blind to be
able suddenly to see as an adult, not only must the mechanics
of sight be created from nothing, but the cortical structure must
be created in such a way so as to simulate a long period of experience
in the use and development of that sight. Otherwise, the man born
blind would not have any cognitive perception of the visual images
moving on his retina. This miracle may be the greatest of all
the miracles because it requires the creation of a long time of
experience to be developed and placed instantaneously in the cortical
structure of the man's brain. This displays a power of mastery
even over time--a power reserved only for the eternal God and
Creator.
The recognition of the importance of Jesus's ability to perform
these miracles is that God, even in view of His enormous and displayed
power over creation and time, considers himself unalterably bound
by the words contained in Scripture. (This statement will be justified
later.) This realization will bring us to an appreciation of Scripture
that is considerably higher than that held by the average evangelical
today. In this we will see that Scripture is a great deal more
than simply inerrant; it is alive and powerful so as to be the
ultimate authority, even to the point of binding the actions of
the one who has control over creation and time. In later chapters
we will see that Jesus held this view.
Some people find it surprising that Jesus is exalted by God the
Father to the highest status. Often we see Jesus praying to the
Father and making statements such as "the Son [Jesus] can
do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father
doing" (John 5:19). But let us not overlook the fact that
the Father also makes such statements about the Son. In Hebrews
we read: "But of the Son He [the Father] says, 'Thy throne,
O God, is forever and ever" (Hebrews 1:8). Here we see that
the Father refers to the Son as His (the Father's) God.
In Philippians (2:11) we read that "every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord (kurios) to the glory of God the Father."
The Greek word "kurios" is defined (Endnote #2) as "he to whom
a person or thing belongs, about which he has the power of deciding;
master, lord." The "kurios" in Philippians is Jesus
Christ whose domain is explicitly stated as extending over "those
who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth," in
other words, the whole universe. The Father acknowledges that
the rightful Lord (Kurios) of the universe is Jesus Christ the
Son because again here the Father says, "Thou [the Son],
Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth,
and the heavens are the works of Thy hands" (Hebrews 1:10).
Here the Father acknowledges that the Son is the Creator of the
earth and the heavens.
This theme of the deity of Jesus the Christ is not new to the
New Testament writings. The Old Testament writings declare this
in many places in many ways. One such occurrence is in the ninth
chapter of Isaiah. Many messianic prophesies occur in Isaiah.
In the following verses, Isaiah makes some astounding claims about
a human child yet to be born:
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to
us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name
will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father,
Prince of Peace.(Isaiah 9:6)
While Jesus walked on this earth, he understood quite clearly
who He was and told the Jewish religious leaders so plainly that
He was the God of the Old Testament (John 8:58), that they had
no trouble understanding His claim. The way He did this was characteristically
brilliant and unambiguous. For us to understand the full impact
and clarity of what he was saying to them and to hear it the way
the Jews heard it, we have to review a few things first. Remember
in the third chapter of Exodus, God speaks to Moses from the burning
bush. He calls Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. When
Moses asks God what His name is, God, from the burning bush, answers
by saying, "'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, 'Thus you shall
say to the sons of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you."'
And God, furthermore, said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to the
sons of Israel, "The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, has sent me to
you." This is My name forever, and this is my memorial-name
to all generations'" (Exodus 3:14,15). This statement was
the genesis of the Hebrew tetragrammaton "YHWH" (the
consonant portion of "I AM THAT I AM"). This name for
God was revered by the Jews as so sacred a name that they would not
speak it casually for fear of violating the third of the ten commandments
to not take the name of the Lord in vain.
In the eighth chapter of John, Jesus makes the statement that
"Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
The Jews therefore said to Jesus, "You are not yet fifty
years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Then Jesus says the
most explosive words: "Truly, truly, I say to you, before
Abraham was born, I am" (John 8:56,58). The grammar here
does not work in Greek just as it does not work in English. But Jesus
did not make a grammatical error. It is clear by the grammar,
the specific choice of words, and the context that He was claiming
this most sacred name of God as His own name. He clearly said
to the Jews, in a way they would be sure to understand, the modern
rough equivalent to "You know who that was who spoke to Moses
in the burning bush and told him that He was the Lord, the God
of Abraham? That was Me! I am the God of the Old Testament!"
The Jews did understand this meaning and immediately picked up
stones and tried to stone Him to death, the penalty for blasphemy.
As we delve into the study of Jesus's view of Scripture, let us
keep in mind that this was not an occasionally fallible man expressing
his best, but limited, understanding of Scripture (as would at
best be the case with any of the rest of us), but these words
are from Jesus, the living Word (Logos) of God who unerringly
speaks truth with the deepest profundity and highest authority.
This mouth that spoke the universe and time into existence is
the same voice that has spoken some amazing things about Scripture;
let us remember the source as we read them.
- "...and not one of them perished but the son
of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled" (John
17:12b).
"... to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken) ..."(John 10:35).
Judas Iscariot was a favored companion of Jesus's. He was given
special honor. For example, Judas was given charge over the money
bag (he was the treasurer of the twelve disciples). Judas was
given the place of honor at the last supper. He was served bread
by Jesus at the last supper, a gesture customarily extended to
the guest of honor. In Psalm 41:9, we read the following words,
identified by Jesus in John 13:18 as being spoken prophetically
by the Holy Spirit, of the anguish Jesus would experience at the
betrayal of his close friend Judas:
- Even my close friend, in whom I trusted,
Who ate my bread,
Has lifted up his heel against me.
Judas was beloved of the Lord. Judas was favored and trusted by
Jesus.
In John 13:18, Jesus identifies this passage from Psalm 41:9 as
referring to Judas's betrayal of Jesus. Jesus tells his disciples
that the reason Judas betrayed Him was so "that the Scripture
may be fulfilled." Later when Jesus was in prayer, He spoke
these words to the Father: "While I was with them, I was
keeping them in Thy name which Thou hast given Me; and I guarded
them, and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that
the Scripture might be fulfilled" (John 17:12). The question
asks and answers itself from these verses: "Why was Judas
not kept by Jesus in the name of God as the other disciples were?"
The answer is given in the passage here: so "that Scripture
might be fulfilled." Scripture, Psalm 109, prophesied that
Judas would betray Jesus and be lost (see Acts 1:15 - 22).
In spite of the fact that Judas was loved and honored among men
by Jesus, Jesus considered that He, God in the flesh, was bound
by what was written hundreds of years before in a potentially
obscure Psalm in Scripture. Some mistakenly dismiss the Psalms
as only the folk songs of the ancient Jews; it is obvious that
Jesus considered the authority of the Psalms so binding that they
dictated His very actions. Could Jesus have also saved his good
friend Judas? The question is moot. Jesus would not, could not,
for only one reason--the reason cited by Him--that Scripture must
be fulfilled.
We see this fulfillment of Scripture as a recurrent theme. For
example, although not a quotation by Jesus, John says that the
reason Jesus spoke the words "I am thirsty" while dying
on the cross was "in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled"
(John 19:28).
The question that glares out at us in these passages is: "Why
would God feel so constrained by anything that it would dictate
His actions?" Does that not seem the most absurd, out of
place convolution? It makes no logical sense that God should be
constrained by anything other than His own will. Logically, the
requirement that Scripture be fulfilled must be the explanation
for this phenomenon. Scripture is a statement of God's will and,
since God is not fickle, it therefore states that which God has
already determined. This elevates Scripture to a point that not
only can one say it is always true, but that it also records the
unalterable decisions of God. At least this appears to be the
way Jesus saw it. This decidedly leaves no room for those theologians
who claim that these passages are not God's word, but attempt
to dilute them with explanations such as that they are only man's
attempts to express the best he understands about God, or other
such rationalizations. These alternate explanations disagree with
Jesus's view ... and ought He not know? These alternate explanations
seem to portray Jesus as somewhat misinformed or limited in His
thinking. Does that not highlight the unreasonableness of these
alternate explanations?
The binding authority of Scripture is also conveyed in John 10.
In the middle of a discussion about the exalted status of men
as gods in God's sight, Jesus speaks some remarkable words: "the
Scripture cannot be broken." The text of the conversation
is recorded for us and translated into English in the following
words:
- Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your
Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If He called them gods, to whom the
word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you
say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world,
'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
(John 10:34-36)
There are some magnificent assertions in this passage. Explicitly,
Jesus refers to the quoted passage in Psalm 82 as "the word
of God." Psalm 82 was not called "the word of God"
by some uneducated back-woods preacher who presumably has not
been "enlightened" by the higher thinking of modern
analysis and thought, but this statement was made by the One who
is unerring in what He says because He is Himself the Word (Logos)
of God and speaks with the highest authority and most precise
accuracy in heaven and on earth. Jesus thinks that Scripture is
the word of God, not just the writings of well-intentioned men!
There is more to be gleaned from John 10:35. Do we think that
Jesus would mislead us? If Scripture is not the infallible, authentic,
unadulterated word of God, why doesn't Jesus take this opportunity,
or any other opportunity (none is taken anywhere in the New Testament
writings), to enlighten our thinking to understand these finer
points? Wouldn't it be a hideous crime to allow men to continue
to assume that every word of Scripture can be trusted as the authentic
word of God if it were not so? The mere fact that Jesus refers
to Scripture as the "word of God" without qualification,
would lead any clear thinking person to conclude that no qualification
is necessary. Can we not reasonably conclude from this discourse
of Jesus in John 10:34-36 that all of Scripture IS the "word
of God"? Do we not think that Jesus would have taken the
opportunity to correct our thinking about interpreting Scripture
so strictly if some correction were necessary? Instead, Jesus
powerfully reinforced this strict, high interpretation of Scripture:
He said, "the Scripture cannot be broken."
Jesus could have used less definite language if He had meant something
less definite. Why did He not use the words "should not be
broken" or even "must not be broken" or something
else a little less definite? To use the words in Greek "ou
dunatai", meaning literally "not able to be" or
"cannot be", lucidly communicates and reinforces the
fact that the accuracy and authority of the Scriptures was accepted
by Jesus as perfect and directly from God without qualification.
The realization that Jesus held such a high view of the precision
and accuracy of the Scripture should give correction and comfort
to those who have been mislead by rationalizations that would
argue otherwise.
"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away
than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail." (Luke
16:17)
To what extent does this very exalted view of Scripture apply? Is it possible
to say that only selected portions of Scripture are the true Word
of God? Is all of Scripture the original unaltered communication
from God? In the previous chapter we examined Jesus's words "the
Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). We saw how, by
implication, Jesus refers to all of Scripture. This would be enough
to convince us that Jesus's view of Scripture as the unalterable
Word of God was inclusive of all of Scripture, but He has said
other more explicit things that add weight to this implication.
"O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all
that the prophets have spoken. Was it not necessary for the Christ
to suffer these things and enter into His glory?" And beginning
with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained the things
concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. (Luke 24:25-27)
Furthermore, it was the practice of the Jewish religion of the
day to exalt all of Scripture as given by God. There were, by
tradition, elaborate and extremely strict rules as to how Scripture
was to be copied (this was prior to the printing press) that ensured
the precise copy of each letter in the original. Among other strict
detailed practices of those who copied the Scriptures, each letter
was counted in the original and in the copy to ensure not even
a single letter was omitted or inserted. This attention to each
letter was indicative of the view that each letter had sacred
value. If this were an inaccurate view of Scripture, Jesus had
many opportunities, and one might argue even the obligation, to
correct this thinking. He did not. Instead, Jesus reinforced the
fact that even every letter is sacred with these words recorded
in Matthew:
For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass
away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the
Law until all is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18)
On another occasion,
Jesus said, "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass
away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail"
(Luke 16:17).
Let us keep in mind that Jesus considered it His
mission to show men "the truth, the way, and the life"
that would lead them to the Father (John 14:6). In fact, Jesus
apparently considered this mission inseparable from His very identity
(John 12:46). It would be ludicrous to think that Jesus would
not have gone out of His way to correct the thought that all Scripture
is from the mouth of God if it were not true (He did not hesitate to
correct many other errors in the Sermon on the Mount). Otherwise He would
be violating His own stated reason for being by allowing the Jews
to continue to search all of Scripture as though it were from
God and pointed the way to Him. The Jews of the first century
were not wrong in thinking that all Scripture was from God or
Jesus would have corrected this thinking; instead He reinforced
it.
Immediately prior to Jesus's saying in Matthew 5:18, was another
statement of scope. Before we look at this quotation, in order
to properly understand what Jesus was saying, we need first to
look at the organization of the Scriptures during the time Jesus
spoke them. The Hebrew Canon contained the same books as the modern
Protestant Old Testament but the books were organized differently.
They were divided into three named sections: (1) The Law, (2)
The Prophets, and (3) The Writings. The divisions were as follows:
The Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
The Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel (I & II as one book),
Kings (I & II as one book), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The
Twelve (Hosea through Malachi as one book).
The Writings: Psalms,
Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes,
Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah (as one book), and Chronicles (I & II
as one book).
In Matthew 5:17, Jesus makes a statement about the
criticality and centrality of the Law and the Prophets. He says,
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Again this is
significant that Jesus gives the reason for His mission as being
the fulfillment of Scripture. In Jesus view, at least the Law
(a first century figure of speech referring to the Mosaic writings:
Genesis through Deuteronomy) and the Prophets (Joshua through
Malachi as listed above) were so authoritative as to be sufficient
justification to require God to humble Himself to take on human
form and be sacrificed on the cross for our sins to accomplish
our salvation (Endnote #3). Here again we see that the Scripture is so authoritative
that it binds God Himself.
In Luke 11:51 (also recorded in Matthew 23:35), Jesus indicates
that the scope of legitimate Scripture
extends beyond the Law and the Prophets. As we have seen above,
the Hebrew Canon began with the book of Genesis and ended with
the book of Chronicles. In Luke 11, Jesus is accusing the Pharisees
and other experts of the Law of approving of the martyrdom of
the prophets. He says:
"I will send them prophets and apostles,
and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute,
in order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation
of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the
blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between
the altar and the house of God" (Luke 11:49-51).
Not only
do we have here a statement from Jesus verifying the authenticity
and historical accuracy of early chapters of Genesis, but we also
have a statement that seems to indicate that Jesus recognized
the authenticity of the entire Hebrew Canon. Abel was the
first recorded martyr in the first book of the Hebrew Canon (Genesis
chapter four) and Zechariah was the last recorded martyr in the
last book of the Hebrew Canon (II Chronicles 24). Is this not
the equivalent of a sweeping validation from Jesus of the authenticity
of the Hebrew Canon from the first to the last?
In The Revelation
to John, chapter 22:7, Jesus says, "Blessed is he who heeds
the words of the prophecy of this book." The "this book"
referred to in this statement is The Revelation to John. By this
pronouncement, Jesus plainly indicates that the Scriptures extend
beyond the writings of the Old Testament. The quotations of Jesus,
who is the Word (Logos) of God, are obviously the word of God
since Jesus is God. A strong case can be made to show that the
Gospel writings are of the same authenticity as the Scriptures
of the Old Testament. Among other arguments that can be made for
this are the words of Jesus Himself when He says:
"These
things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. But the Helper,
the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will
teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I
said to you." (John 14:25,26)
Here Jesus is saying that the
Disciples will have supernatural recall of the words Jesus spoke,
thus enabling them to write the Gospels with the inerrant precision
required to qualify as Holy Scripture. (Endnote #4)
"What therefore God has joined together, let no man
separate." (Mark 10:9)
A common criticism of the Scriptures
is that, as I have heard one religious leader say, "Anyone
with half a brain can see that the Bible obviously contains fables,
myths, and fictional folk stories." If it were true that
portions of Scripture were not historical fact when the context
clearly suggests that they are, but rather are only add-ins by
folk writers (like the works of many other ancients such as Homer)
or other later-than-the-original-editors, then we would have a
situation in which the case for the inerrant, historically defining
authority of Scripture would be undermined. Some of the accounts
most commonly labeled as fables are (1) the Genesis account of
creation, (2) Noah's ark and flood, (3) Jonah being swallowed
by the big fish, and (4) the authorship of the book of Daniel
by Daniel during the Babylonian and early Medio/Persian empires.
Although convincing extra-biblical evidence supports the authenticity
of each of these (Endnote #5), this treatise is concerned with what Jesus has
to say about such things.
More than any other person, Jesus Christ
was and is a realist. The Man who said, "I am the ... truth"
(John 14:6), has nothing to be gained by dealing in fables and
a great deal to lose by presenting fables as fact. We have several
examples of Jesus correcting erroneous religious teaching when
he found it. But what did He have to say about the authenticity
of the Genesis account of creation, or the Noachian flood, or
Jonah's big fish, or Daniel's writing of the book of Daniel?
Jesus
underscores the authenticity of the Genesis account when He refers
to the "beginning" of creation and that it was at that
time that a man and a woman were created and joined together by
God in marriage. During this discussion, He even quotes from the
first and second chapters of Genesis, thereby acknowledging its
authenticity. In Jesus's words:
But from the beginning of creation,
God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave
his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; consequently
they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has
joined together, let no man separate. (Mark 10:6-9)
Here two observations
can be made. First, by quoting from the creation account in Genesis,
Jesus is acknowledging its authority and truth. Second, by using
the words "What God has joined together..." He recognizes
God to be the author of these Genesis writings. (Endnote #6)
Of the authenticity
of Noah's flood, Jesus speaks of it as factual history.
In Matthew 24 (also Luke 17:26-27), Jesus links the certainty
of his second coming to the certainty of Noah's flood. In His
words:
For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the
days of Noah. For as in those days which were before the flood
they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in
marriage, until the day that Noah entered the Ark, and they did
not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so
shall the coming of the Son of Man be. (Matthew 24:37-39)
If Jesus
were not completely convinced of the historical accuracy of Noah's
flood, He would hardly have used it as the proof text for the
certainty of His second coming!
Of the swallowing of Jonah by
a big fish (or whale or sea monster) (Endnote #7), Jesus says, "For just
as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea
monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights
in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Again, Jesus
is trying to convey the reality of a coming event (His death and
resurrection) by appealing to the reality of a past event (Jonah
being swallowed by the sea monster). The credibility of His prophecy
about His resurrection would be destroyed if the account of Jonah
were not true.
Some might argue that Jesus was relying on a literary
mechanism such as a metaphor and therefore, it is not logically
necessary for the Jonah event to be historical fact, only that
the concept existed. This argument would ignore the fact that
this was the Man of Truth speaking; that Jesus was by demonstrated
pattern predisposed to exposing religious myth; and that Jesus
had demonstrated at other times the validity of literal interpretation
of the prophets' words. For Jesus to have changed His modus operandi
and begun appealing to prophecy simply as metaphorical myth would
contradict His past practices and undermine His own teaching.
If Jesus thought this story of Jonah were not true, why would
He not have taken this opportunity to correct the wrong thinking
of His day instead of reinforcing its factual occurrence by linking
it to a certain coming factual event? Aside from all this, the
context of this saying in Matthew 12:40, the logic being used,
the people he was talking to and their beliefs, and the flow of
the focus of theme, all require the conclusion that Jesus was
convinced of the historical fact of Jonah being swallowed and
then regurgitated three days later by the sea monster. It does
not seem to me to be honest or good scholarship to attempt to
construe any other interpretation.
Some skeptical modern critics
have said that the book of Daniel was written nearly 400 years
after Daniel's death. This is because even a cursory reading of
the prophecies of Daniel and of the secular history that took
place during the four and a half centuries following the reign
of Nebuchadnezzar reveal an extraordinarily detailed and startlingly
accurate prophecy of those events. The book of Daniel, perhaps
more than any other book in the Old Testament, clearly demonstrates
this supernatural characteristic of Scripture. Either only the
supernatural or the later writing of Daniel could account reasonably
for this. If it were the supernatural, then that would unequivocally
demonstrate that at least parts of Scripture are authentically
supernaturally authored (i.e. written by God)(Endnote #8). In the twenty-fourth
chapter of Matthew, Jesus says, "Therefore when you see the
abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the
prophet, ..." (Matthew 24:15). The "abomination of desolation"
is referred to in three places in the book of Daniel (verses 9:27,
11:31, and 12:11). In Matthew 24, Jesus clearly attributes the
authorship to the historical person Daniel.
As we review these
sayings of Jesus about the four events most referred to by the
skeptics as fables, can we not conclude that Jesus believed in
their historical accuracy? It seems obvious. The implication here
is that the entire argument that Scripture contains fables and
myths written by folklore editors is erroneous. Not even the four
most "obvious fables" stand up under the scrutiny of
Jesus, but instead are pronounced by Him to be historical fact.
"But regarding the fact that the dead rise again,
have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the
burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God
of the dead, but the God of the living; you are greatly mistaken."
(Mark 12:26-27).
This passage from Mark is amazing. Jesus is a
very good scholar; remember He claims to be the source of all
truth. Who among us would dare to prove a major theological principle
on the basis of only one word that was written over a millennium
before and copied and recopied many times by many different people
since then? But that is what we see Jesus doing in this passage.
He is stating that adequate justification for the theological
principle of the resurrection of the dead (a hotly debated principle
in the first century among Jewish religious leaders) is a single
word: the word "am" as contained in the passage in Exodus
3:6. To picture the explosiveness of these words of Jesus, remember
that the major theological differentiation between the Pharisees
and the Sadducees was that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection
of the dead in the life to come and the Sadducees did not (Mark
12:18, Acts 23:6-10). The Jewish religious leaders wrote much
about their interpretations of Scripture. I suspect there were
many discourses written by many different Jewish pontificators
over the years that piled up arguments on both sides of this debate.
Jesus dismisses it all in a moment on the basis of a single word
written in Exodus fourteen hundred years before. Does Jesus believe
there is more credibility in a single word of ancient Scripture
than all the writings of the finest minds of His modern times?
Obviously He does.
Note the weight and authority Jesus gives to
the accuracy of the smallest details of Scripture, regardless
of its age. He says Scripture has been preserved with such meticulous
accuracy that one can, with absolute reliability, put ultimate
faith in even a single word. Without studying the ceremony and
methodology for copying Scripture in ancient times, this would
seem ludicrous to us today. But an examination of the extreme
care, ceremony, and precise methodology of the scribes who copied
the Scriptures will reveal that it was copied with such meticulousness
that it is quite reasonable to believe that the Hebrew words were
preserved as originally written in their entirety from the 15th
century B.C. until the first century A.D. At any rate, Jesus obviously
believed, and taught by His example here, that it was reasonable
to rely on the first century copies of Scripture as exact replicas
of the original writings.
"Jesus said to them, 'Is this not the reason you
are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures, or the
power of God?'" (Mark 12:24)
Right thinking--that ability
to clearly see necessary insights and reach correct conclusions.
Jesus seems to say that understanding Scripture produces right
thinking in a person. In the previous chapter of this treatise,
we looked at a portion of the passage in the twelfth chapter of
Mark where the Sadducees attempted to trap Jesus in a logical
argument about the resurrection of the dead. They had spent the
equivalent of many dissertations and had done research papers
analyzing the issue of resurrection from death and had come to
the conclusion that it did not exist. What can cause someone who
is intellectually gifted, as no doubt many of the Sadducees were,
to come to the wrong conclusion of a matter after so much study,
analysis, and peer review? That question is certainly raised when
one's entire prolonged study and understanding of a matter is
brushed aside by God in a moment and replaced by a single word
of Scripture. Jesus anticipates this question and directly points
out to them that their mistake is due to the fact that they do
not understand the Scriptures or the power of God. This is a point
worth re-emphasizing: Jesus states that the reason they are mistaken,
that the reason all of their studies, analysis, peer review, and
conclusions, are mistaken, is because they do not understand the
Scriptures or the power of God. How much of the Scriptures would
they need to understand to be able to come to the correct conclusion
of this matter? In this case, it was only one word. As we have
seen, Jesus's epitaph of this matter is that because they missed
that one word, they were "greatly mistaken" (Mark 12:27).
Right thinking: understanding Scripture and the power of God produces
right thinking.
In Matthew 21, Jesus discusses with the Pharisees
their hard-heartedness. He points out to them that their hard-heartedness
about to cause them to lose their inheritance in the kingdom of
God. Jesus brings them to an understanding of this reality when
He says to them:
"Did you never read in the Scriptures,
This is a very grave warning by Jesus. Someone
is about to lose the opportunity to live in the kingdom of God.
What is causing this loss of opportunity? Read carefully this
twenty-first chapter of Matthew. Does it not say the cause of
this lost opportunity is due to the rejection of God on God's
terms? Does it not say that God will not be found on man's terms?
Does it not recognize that the religious leaders are rejecting
God's authority and thereby voluntarily condemning themselves?
Is not Jesus trying to bring them to right thinking by pointing
them back to Scripture? Cannot one conclude that by rejecting
Scripture as the inerrant word of God, one also rejects God's
authority and therefore forfeits the kingdom of God? Be very careful
skeptical reader; what if the case presented here is right thinking?
Which camp will you join? The religious leaders' camp or the camp
of the fishermen who followed Jesus because they didn't have the
intellectual pride to reject Scripture's authority and the one
who authored it?
'The stone the builders rejected,
Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away
from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it."(Matthew 21:42,43)
This became the chief cornerstone;
This came about from the Lord,
And it is marvelous in our eyes'?
"And the tempter came and said to Him ... But He
answered and said, 'It is written ...' ... 'it is written ...'
... Then Jesus said to him, 'Begone, Satan! For it is written
...'" (Matthew 4:3-11)
Jesus's opinion is that Scripture
is not only historically defining as we have seen in chapter 2,
eternal as we have seen in chapter 3, true history as we have
seen in chapter 4, more credible than the finest intellectual
thought of men as we have seen in chapter 5, produces right thinking
and leads to the kingdom of God as we have seen in chapter 6,
but now we also see in the fourth chapter of Matthew that Jesus
believes Scripture is a powerful and effective weapon of spiritual
warfare able to defend us against even the temptations of Satan
himself.
Here in the fourth chapter of Matthew we witness an awesome
battle. The creature comes to tempt his Creator. The clay attempts
to subdue the potter. But the creator has emptied himself, taken
on the form of a humble servant, and voluntarily been made in
the likeness of a man. He has made himself vulnerable and His
creation, Satan, knows it. God does nothing for show--He has no
reason to impress anyone. All that God does and participates in
is reality; there are no pseudo-real, play-acting events for God.
Jesus did not just appear as a man; He was a man. Hebrews 4:15
makes it clear to us that He was indeed tempted; the temptation
was real; the pull and lure to sin that we are all so familiar
with was quite real and deeply felt. Yet, as Hebrews 4:15 assures
us, Jesus was not overcome (He did not sin, He did not give in)
by temptation as we have been. Here is the record of this battle;
Satan is at his most powerful and brilliant and convincing moment
and Jesus is at His weakest; as written in the first eleven verses
of Matthew chapter four:
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into
the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He had fasted
forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. And the tempter
came and said to Him,
"If You are the Son of God, command
that these stones become bread."
But He answered and said,
"It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on
every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God'" [Deuteronomy
8:3].
Then the devil took Him into the holy city; and he had Him
stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If
you are the Son of God throw Yourself down; for it is written,
'He will give His angels charge concerning You'; and 'On their
hands they will bear You up, Lest You strike Your foot against
a stone.'" [Psalm 91:11,12]
Jesus said to him, "On the
other hand, it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God
to the test.'" [Deuteronomy 6:16] Again, the devil took Him
to a very high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the
world, and their glory; and he said to Him, "All these things
will I give You, if You fall down and worship me."
Then Jesus
said to him, "Begone, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall
worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'" [Deuteronomy
6:13-15, 10:20,21] Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels
came and began to minister to Him. (Matthew 4:1-13)
It is not
the purpose of this treatise to expound on the intricacies of
all that was going on here. This can be studied in many other
commentaries. Suffice it to say that these temptations were very
real, were brilliantly constructed, and were very powerful. The
purpose of this discussion is to focus on what Jesus did to defend
Himself against powerful temptation: He quoted Scripture--1400
year old Scripture.
We can only begin to imagine what was at stake
in this battle. Certainly, the order of all creation, the integrity
of God, the Holiness of God, the humility of God, and the Godhood
of God were all at stake here. Had Jesus given in to any of the
three temptations, at least all these would have been lost. I
am convinced that even a collection of all the finest intellects
of all men of all time arrayed in concert against Satan could
not have come up with a more adequate rational argument than those
proposed by Satan in these temptations. Satan is far more brilliant
and powerful than the intellects of men. To adequately defend
Himself, Jesus had to come up with a better defense than logic
can produce. Notice Jesus did not defend Himself by trying to
reason with Satan as to why it was ludicrous that He should give
in to the temptations. Jesus had a more powerful and effective
defense. He quoted Scripture. In the midst of all else that was
going on here, let us not lose track of the fact that when ALL
hung in the balance, Jesus let the outcome be determined by the
veracity of the 1400 year old writings of Moses.
In light of this
foregoing spiritual battle, one must ask: Was Jesus convinced
of the authority, authenticity, and inerrancy of Scripture? Should
His answer to this question not also be our personal answer? Shall
we not pattern our thinking and our defenses after His? If we
want to live the truth and not a lie, we have no choice.
Any Comments you have, either affirming or critical, would be appreciated: Please click here to send me e-mail with your comments & questions to rrouth@ginesys.com .
ENDNOTES:
1. For those who would like to further explore the arguments and historical evidences concerning the authenticity of both Old Testament and New Testament Scripture, Josh McDowell has an excellent introduction to this subject including extensive bibliographies for deeper study in his book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (San Bernardino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972), pp. 17-79.
2. See Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon.
3. In John 5:39, Jesus says, "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of me." And He says in Luke 24:25-27:
" 'O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken. Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things [death on the cross] and enter into His glory?' And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."
Jesus understood the Scriptures required that He die to pay the price for our sins and this was necessary for our salvation. He said, "Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour." He said in Matthew 20:18-19 that He would be crucified and resurrected on the third day. In John chapter 10, Jesus says that He is the door for men to go through to be saved (John 10:9,10) and that He must lay down His life (die) for them so they can be saved (John 10:15). Speaking of His life, Jesus says in John 10:18, "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on my own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."
4. At this point, the skeptical reader might be tempted to argue that circular reasoning is used to justify the statements in this book. Simply stated, one might say that since the arguments of this book are based on the sayings of Jesus, and since the validity of the sayings of Jesus are based on the accuracy with which they are recorded in the New Testament, and since the accuracy is certified by the writings of the New Testament itself, then the logic used to make the case is circular. This claim of circular reasoning would ignore both sound logic and extra-biblical writings of the first century. To elaborate: the writers of the Gospel accounts and other New Testament writings claim to be writing Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (see II Peter 1:20-21, 3:1,2, and 3:15,16, Titus 1:3, and many others). Making this claim would logically require that one of the following four is true: (1) these authors are either deluded, or (2) these authors are purposely propagating a great hoax through collusion, or (3) the New Testament writings were not written by the Apostles as claimed but were fabrications by ghost writers, or (4) these authors are telling the truth and they are writing Scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit. The extra-biblical (secular) writings of the first century, even by some non-Christian historians, plentifully validate the authorship and basic claims and history presented in the Gospels, including the genuineness of the Disciples in believing what they wrote as well as the radical life changes they experienced because of what they believed. These secular accounts of the first century reasonably eliminate numbers (2) & (3) above as possible explanations. If the authors were deluded, then it was a common delusion that occurred to many and brought with it a power that turned the Roman Empire upside down. This rules out the possibility that the authors were deluded. This logically leaves only one choice: the New Testament authors were telling the truth and were indeed writing Scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the potential objection to circular logic is refuted.
5. There are many scientific evidences for the literal validity of the creation account as described in Genesis chapter one. The best single compendium that I am aware of is found in the book by Walter T. Brown, Jr., In the Beginning (Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, 5th ed., 1989). There is an impressive set of evidences to suggest that Noah's Ark still exists frozen in glacial ice on Mt. Ararat. A good bibliography of books chronicling the eye-witness reports, photographs, and other corroborating evidences for this are listed in ibid., pg. 56.
One of the best modern works I know of that effectively substantiates the authenticity of the book of Daniel is Josh McDowell's book Daniel in the Critics' Den (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1979). A list of 88 bibliographical entries appears at the end of McDowell's book.
6. It is noteworthy that just a few verses before this passage in verse 3, Jesus asks by way of introduction to the passages He quotes from Genesis: "What did Moses command you?" How can He say that these verses from Genesis are God's authority and also that these are from Moses? How can we reconcile this apparent double accreditation? Jesus explains this by example in another of His discussions recorded in Mark 12:36 where He says, "David himself said in the Holy Spirit, ..." and then goes on to quote from Psalm 110. Here Jesus recognizes the authorship of David, but only as a medium by which God (the Holy Spirit) writes. So, according to Jesus, the words of Scripture are God's even though the instrument of the writing is a particular man. As I heard someone say once, God could have used a brick or a donkey to write Scripture if he had wanted to, but instead, God extended to man the extreme high privilege of being that instrument.
7. Scripture does not divide animals into the same groups as evolutionists have. For example, mammals (those animals that have cerebral cortex -- the only defining characteristic of a mammal), are classified by evolutionists as all in one group. Scripture does not do this. Bats are classified as birds by Scripture and whales and other large sea creatures are classified by Scripture as fish. For example, see Deuteronomy 14:11,18 where Scripture classifies the bat as a bird.
8. For those who are interested in exploring this discussion further, I recommend Josh McDowell, Daniel in the Critics' Den (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1979).
Any Comments you have, either affirming or critical, would be appreciated: Please click here to send me e-mail with your comments & questions to rrouth@ginesys.com .
Links of possible interest:
The Evidence for God from Science
Agape Europe - International Ministries. Home of the award winning Christian Resource Index