I have been hesitant to enter into the debate between Norm Geisler and Mike Licona over inerrancy. Partly because I am embarrassed about the whole thing and that this situation grieves me. However, since this controversy was actually brought up one of our local small town newspapers (by an atheist using it as evidence for the problems with Christianity and the Bible), I think I should say something. Still, I am glad that I have waited because what I say now will be different than what I would have said at the beginning.
I need to make a few things clear. I really appreciate the ministry and scholarship of Norm Geisler. He has done so much work in so many areas related to apologetics that we will be in his debt for a very long time. He has earned some patience and grace from us. Secondly, I really like the work of Mike Licona. Although much newer on the scene, if he is representative of the new generation of apologists, we are in good shape. I appreciate the Christian spirit that infuses his apologetics. Thirdly, although the passage from Matthew 27:52-53 is confusing (and something I have not preached on, nor plan to), I would probably land on Geisler’s side by saying it is describing something that actually happened and not just providing an apocalyptic image. Finally, I have been disappointed in Geisler’s attack on Licona, especially focusing on him when other highly respected scholars, such as William Lane Craig and N.T. Wright, have expressed the same concerns about this passage. Craig and Wright are beyond reach, but Licona is new enough in his career that he is vulnerable.
If I had written this post a few weeks ago, I would have railed against Geisler (based on his attacks, not his interpretation). But I am not going to do that. I can see beyond the rhetoric and see Geisler’s deep commitment to inerrancy and wisdom in seeing that this is the first line of attack when it comes to bringing down Christianity. As someone closer in age to Licona, I can see his point as well. When it comes to the younger generation, it is hard to focus apologetics on defending the literal interpretation of the entire Bible, when what we really need is to demonstrate the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts. It is more important that a seeker come to believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead in history, than to understand what the risen saints did in Matthew’s Gospels. I can appreciate both sides.
I think that there is a place for disagreement on issues such as this. As evangelicals, we have worked hard to demonstrate that we value scholarship. Questions have to be allowed, and of course replies are necessary as well. What is difficult is how personal this controversy has gotten. It is no longer a scholarly disagreement. Not only that, evangelicals are beginning to divide over the issue, running to the banner of inerrancy under Geisler and the banner of flexibility under Licona. I believe that on a spiritual level, this whole issue has the potential to be extremely destructive. It certainly is a bad witness to skeptics who are looking for any reason to dismiss evangelical scholarship. If I could address Geisler and Licona, this is what I would say:
Dear Norm,
Thanks so much for what you have done over the years and what you continue to do. You have inspired, informed and instructed countless apologists and Christian scholars. You have created an incredible legacy. Thank you, for your commitment to inerrancy. Your love of the Bible naturally leads you to respond strongly to anything you perceive as an attack. You have presented your case of why you disagree with Licona’s interpretation is wrong. Thanks for doing that and being true to who you are. But please let it go. Move on to the other work that needs to be done. You don’t have to agree with Licona, but have some grace toward him and others who feel the same way. They may be wrong but they are also doing important work for the kingdom. Let us pray for one another that God will use each of us and that he would work out the differences between us.
Dear Mike,
Thanks for your desire to inspire a new generation of apologists. Your scholarship is incredible and you do it in a Christian spirit. I have found your work very valuable and relevant to the needs of today. Thanks for being honest about your interpretation, knowing that there could be consequences. You did the right thing. I am sure you feel attacked and I am sorry for how personal things have gotten. Please be encouraged by the amount of support you have received. You need to realize that there is a segment of evangelicals that will never be able to adjust their doctrine of inerrancy to embrace your interpretation. You have clarified your position, but if you have not convinced them now, you never will. Please have some grace toward them. We need strong inerrantists such as Geisler, not so we can completely agree with them, but to have them as a corrective to protect us from the temptations to take a soft view of the Bible. I am sure you feel a need to defend yourself from the perceived attacks. I would too. But it is time to move on. The evangelical world is big enough for your view and Geisler’s view. Disagree with one another, learn from one another and pray for one another.
good piece! but aren’t you attempting a precarious balance act that just can’t hold? i mean, those views are in so sharp a contrast no possible concession can be made. i agree with Geisler because Licona’s view ultimately challenges inerrancy!
Just thought the above line was a bit of an oxmoron.. “He has earned some …. grace from us. ;)
Werner
Michael, I am suggesting that neither should concede. Just state your differences and then move on to do the working of the kingdom. Attempting to reconcile their opinions and get one another to agree is a huge distraction to what we need to be doing.
Werner, obviously I did not mean it in a theological sense, but in the common sense of being patient with a person even if you disagree with them.
Stephen. Just to be clear. You know I’m with Mike on this even if I don’t agree with the interpretation, but I’m not sure I like seeing that Mike is the said of flexibility while Geisler is that of Inerrancy.
We hold to Inerrancy over here. I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but I just wanted to clarify.
I hear you. If you read some of Geisler’s other works, such as his If God, Why Evil, and others, he stands for flexibility. At the same time, Licona believes in inerrancy. The danger I see is what we find in 1 Corinthians when people align themselves with a person and what they perceive them to stand for.
As a missions scholar, I think inerrancy makes no strategic sense. It’s like blowing up a big balloon and asking the other side to pop it. It’s like drawing a line in the sand and asking the enemy to cross it. The whole issue focuses attention on the weakest and strangest verses in the Bible, and puts the Christian church on the defensive. But really, atheists should be on the defensive, trying to uphold their own “line in the sand” against miracles.
Where in the Book of Acts does any evangelist try to prove that the OT is inerrant? That’s not their interest, at all. Paul doesn’t even mention the OT, when he preaches to pagans.
Jesus clearly rested his case for the resurrection on the present tense of a tiny verb “to be” when disputing with the Sadduccees. He presupposed that the Scriptures he was leaning on were inerrant.
Werner. Did Paul do the same with the pagans in Acts 17 when he quoted their writings?
I don’t wish to argue. I simply wanted to point out that inerrancy is assumed in the Scriptures. You may be right that debating with pagans over inerrancy is not strategically wise.
But Werner, this is how your argument goes.
What Jesus quoted to the Sadducees, he considered Inerrant.
Jesus quoted the Bible.
Therefore, Jesus considered the Bible to be Inerrant.
Now what if we took it over to Paul.
What Paul quoted, he considered Inerrant.
Paul quoted the Bible (Numerous times in epistles).
Therefore, Paul considered the Bible to be Inerrant.
But what happens in Acts 17 on Mars Hill?
What Paul quoted, he considered Inerrant.
Paul quoted pagan philosophers.
Therefore, Paul considered pagan philosophers to be Inerrant.
I’m not saying your conclusion that Jesus considered the Bible to be Inerrant is false. I’m just saying your argument doesn’t show it because it produces a problem in Acts 17.
“What Paul quoted, he considered Inerrant.
Paul quoted pagan philosophers.
Therefore, Paul considered pagan philosophers to be Inerrant.”
This is getting silly.
It’s not silly. The argument works for the first two but not the third. Therefore, you need another argument to show that Jesus viewed the OT as Inerrant, which I believe he did.
I agree with much of what you said in this blog post. I would only make one clarification. I think that there is a distinction between ‘critique’ and ‘attack’. No one has attacked Licona, including Geisler and Mohler. When a person puts a view into print, and notable scholars critique that view it is not an attack. People write critiques all of the time on various positions. If there were any personal attacks against the individual that is one thing, but Geisler has merely critiqued the view and told the people to shape up. One can disagree with the critique, but it is childish and a red herring to the issue to think that it was an ‘attack.’
Any consequences from holding the view should not be attributed to Geisler or Mohler also. Frankly, when you voluntarily submit yourself to a certain understanding of inerrancy, and then deviate away from it, you will face the consequences of such a decision. So, when you are under the SBC, Southern Evangelical Seminary, and Liberty University; all of which hold to an ICBI understanding of inerrancy, and they all independently investigate your claims and find that you are beyond that standard, it is to be expected that they ask for your resignation. This happens in many other academic disciplines and in the business world. If you cannot live up to their standard they will ask you to move on. That’s life, so just move on and everyone can get beyond this whole issue.
No. This is an attack. Geisler did more than just critique. He actively sought for the removal of Mike’s position of leadership and is actively sending out a petition against him. Mike has been on the defensive from the very beginning. Noteworthy also is Geisler has not gone after William Lane Craig even though Craig has publicly stated in debate he holds a similar view.
That’s just not true. Those associated are just taking this way too personally. People are critiqued for their views all the time. Whether it be in politics, theology, the business world, etc. Geisler’s critiques were against Licona’s view, and if someone holds a view contrary to the institutions and organizations where they work, they pay the price for such a move. That’s how it works for a theology department, business world, medical field, etc. That’s not an attack it’s accountability unto a standard.
Institutions and organizations have standards, and to voluntarily submit yourself to those standards and then to deviate away from them is to put yourself in a position of discipline. Obviously those organizations thought this was the case with Licona. The SBC and other institutions such as SES and Liberty have doctrinal standards with a strong view of inerrancy. If Licona has changed from those institutional standards, he should be honest with them and the churches, and then know that he will face the consequences. That’s life and how it works. If I’m a Presbyterian minister and I give up an understanding of an Elder run church or infant baptism, I will be appropriately dealt with because I: 1) Voluntarily submitted myself to their standards; 2) I voluntarily and honestly moved away from those standards.
How do you deal with the fact that 3 separate organizations (one of which, after a little searching of your blog reveals, is your seminary) have all interviewed and dismissed him because of his view? If it were not true they would not removed him. I work in large political corporations, I know that these types of allegations occur all the time, and no wise organization removes a top employee for unsubstantiated or false allegations. They could be legally punished for false punitive matters, and I’m sure those 3 large organizations are wise enough to not make such a move.
As an individual that works in public policy and ethics at the state and federal level, I will tell you that individuals send out petitions all the time and it is no big deal. Either you agree with it or you do not. Move on and get over it. Sadly, individuals in the church have no clue how to deal with public debate and displays. This is always evident in every public debate with Christians who struggle more than most to clearly articulate their view and not become sour faced when critiqued. When you print something it is up to public review and some of those reviews with be critiques. That’s life. So, review it, deal with it, and move on.
Furthermore, as has been clear since the beginning, the reason Geisler has not critiqued the others is because: 1) Craig’s position was not widely known; 2) He was tipped off by a specific set of individuals about Licona’s view (aka., he knew what to look for); 3) He has spoken against Craig, Blomberg, etc. by talking about the other scholars in his latest article.
@John: That’s just not true. Those associated are just taking this way too personally. People are critiqued for their views all the time. Whether it be in politics, theology, the business world, etc. Geisler’s critiques were against Licona’s view, and if someone holds a view contrary to the institutions and organizations where they work, they pay the price for such a move.
Reply: First off, critiques go on all the time, but not black listing someone and hunting down their job. Note that also this was the case “IF” Mike was doing this. This has not been shown. Geisler immediately began gunning for Mike’s position and being judge, jury, and executioner, before any discussion took place.
John: That’s how it works for a theology department, business world, medical field, etc. That’s not an attack it’s accountability unto a standard.
Reply: If this was just a critique. It was not. Mike had even told Geisler he could not deal with things at the time as he had two debates in South Africa to prepare for. Geisler went ahead anyway.
John: Institutions and organizations have standards, and to voluntarily submit yourself to those standards and then to deviate away from them is to put yourself in a position of discipline. Obviously those organizations thought this was the case with Licona. The SBC and other institutions such as SES and Liberty have doctrinal standards with a strong view of inerrancy. If Licona has changed from those institutional standards, he should be honest with them and the churches, and then know that he will face the consequences. That’s life and how it works.
Reply: IF Mike had done that. He has not. He has repeatedly defended Inerrancy and shown he is not in violation of it. The NT scholars do not think he is. What NT scholars on Geisler’s side say Mike is violating it? (Note: Geisler is NOT a NT scholar)
John: If I’m a Presbyterian minister and I give up an understanding of an Elder run church or infant baptism, I will be appropriately dealt with because I: 1) Voluntarily submitted myself to their standards; 2) I voluntarily and honestly moved away from those standards.
Reply: Notice that “If.” Geisler went on and played “Judge, jury, and executioner.”
John: How do you deal with the fact that 3 separate organizations (one of which, after a little searching of your blog reveals, is your seminary) have all interviewed and dismissed him because of his view?
Reply: First off, I want to know what these organizations are. To begin with, SES is not a shock since so many of them were taught by Geisler and have his hermeneutical method. If you think Liberty is one, Mike is still teaching online at Liberty. I have not seen anything formal from the SBC. If you want to throw in VES, well that’s Geisler’s seminary so no shock there.
How do you deal with so many that have not I could ask and how do you deal with so many NT scholars that say Mike is not violating Inerrancy?
John: If it were not true they would not removed him.
Reply: Ah. So please do tell me what they know that the NT scholars don’t know and what the signers on Mike’s statement know. You simply have a bandwagon fallacy going on here.
John: I work in large political corporations, I know that these types of allegations occur all the time, and no wise organization removes a top employee for unsubstantiated or false allegations. They could be legally punished for false punitive matters, and I’m sure those 3 large organizations are wise enough to not make such a move.
Reply: I still want to know what they are and that they did so is not proof that Mike is in violation of Inerrancy. You need an argument instead of “X says so.”
John: As an individual that works in public policy and ethics at the state and federal level, I will tell you that individuals send out petitions all the time and it is no big deal. Either you agree with it or you do not. Move on and get over it.
Reply: And send them out to who? It’s unclear who Geisler has sent this to necessarily and why only those people should be heard. Note that Paul Copan has said he was shown a copy of the petition. Why did he not get one? Max Andrews at his blog has also pointed out the way certain ICBI statements were altered in the petition. Note if Geisler is sending this out through his organization to people who already follow his teaching, well geez, I wonder which side they’ll come down on.
John: Sadly, individuals in the church have no clue how to deal with public debate and displays. This is always evident in every public debate with Christians who struggle more than most to clearly articulate their view and not become sour faced when critiqued.
Reply: Kind of like every time I argue with someone who follows Geisler. All they can do is point me to what Geisler said. Well it’s already been dealt with, notably by my ministry partner at tektonticker.blogspot.com.
John: When you print something it is up to public review and some of those reviews with be critiques. That’s life. So, review it, deal with it, and move on.
Reply: Critiques are fine. What Geisler is doing is not fine.
John: Furthermore, as has been clear since the beginning, the reason Geisler has not critiqued the others is because: 1) Craig’s position was not widely known;
Reply: Baloney. Just shortly after all of this started, Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam posted the link to the Craig debate on Geisler’s facebook with the specific clip of where Craig said this and asked if Geisler was going to go after him. Geisler knows about it now. Why isn’t he going after Craig?
John: 2) He was tipped off by a specific set of individuals about Licona’s view (aka., he knew what to look for);
Reply: How is this known and even if it is, so what? He’s been tipped off about Craig’s view and is doing nothing. Why does Licona get raked through the coals but Craig gets a free pass?
John: 3) He has spoken against Craig, Blomberg, etc. by talking about the other scholars in his latest article.
Reply: And why isn’t he calling their institutions where they teach at and pushing for their resignation? Why is he not writing open letters to them? Why is he not pushing for them to recant?
If he’s going to be consistent, he has to do that across the board.
I’m going to take the advice of someone with you and just not respond. They said you are too close to the situation and that your responses just get very ugly. You have so rabbit trailed that blog (and every other blog on the internet) with your method of response and the billion topics you bring up.
My spiritual advice for you is to take a break from all of this. It’s not your job to put out every fire. Remember, you may critique Geisler for going about it in a poor way, but it is also just as much a disservice to consume yourself with every blog. It’s not healthy, and your tone (which in every blog I’ve seen mirrors that which you critique) is not charitable.
You might want to look to Beckwith’s type of response. It’s not a million things and it’s charitable.
@John. The problem, John, is that your argument would make sense if in fact Licona’s position requires a denial of inerrancy. But that is precisely the question in dispute, and thus to appeal to one side of the discussion when the issue is whether in fact that side is the correct one is to beg the question.
Norm Geisler has a right to make his case, but it is sub-Christian for him to not subject his prosecution to the rigors of scholarly debate at an appropriate venue. It is clear that well-meaning, far-more accomplished, and just as informed Evangelicals, equally committed to inerrancy, dispute his understanding of the issues. That should give a fair-minded person pause, suggesting that this sort of dispute should not occur with fundamentalist fatwas followed by recriminations against those who have the temerity to resist them. These disputes should be resolved soberly and charitably at a setting in which the parties may be able to make their cases before an assembly of their peers. But this is precisely not the avenue taken by Norm and his allies. This is why many younger Evangelicals find this entire episode to be so appalling, embarrassing and disgraceful.
When one feels it necessary–as Norm did in one of his “open” letters–to “prove” that Licona was fired from rather than quit his post at SES, one has reached a new low. A gentleman lets this sort of thing go, because he wants to practice charity and give his subject the benefit of the doubt. After all, if all one cares about is theological correction, then there’s no need at all to publicly issue a pronouncement on a contractual relationship about which one is not a party and could not possibly know with any degree of certainly the machinations of the confidential deliberations.
Well, first of all, you still have not addressed why these institutions have let Mike go. It does not beg the question it simple recognizes that organizations don’t make hiring and firing decisions without evidence. Geisler is not at SES nor at the SBC. He has no voting rights. He may have influence, but he did not actually fire those individuals. Second, its not just Geisler who is taking a stance against him. Let’s just add three more: JI Packer, Mohler, and Blocher. Two of which Licona appealed to and after some simple research was done, were completely overturned. So there is a case of Licona altering the evidence. Not once, but twice!
Now, could this have been done in a better way? Sure. I am not going to dispute that. But, I also think that Mike could have stopped all of these little bloggers, who just use ad hominem after another. And then they justify it with a “fight fire with fire” mentality. Also, making YouTube videos in hotel parking lots and lobby’s. That is just more of the same.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like your main issue is the way he went about it?
As for the denial, what most people forget is that Norm forewarned about this years ago, and even used the resurrection of the saints in Matt. 27 as the next point-case-and-example for ETS. After this it was sent to a vote and there is a historical case and example of ETS voting that a denial of the resurrection saints is a denial of inerrancy. Here is the quote from the ETS article. So, ETS is now in a position to claim that they unfairly ruled on Gundry (remember Craig and Habermas voted Gundry out), or that they are now making an exception to the rule.
They have the right to overrule and to make exceptions. They are not making a claim to infallibility. But, it does seem very ironic that a super-majority voted on the same passage years ago and now, even those like Craig and Habermas, are now changing their vote.
Here is Norm’s section.
Now what applies to Jewett seems to apply also to Gundry. Although Gundry does not apply his allegorical (midrashic) interpretation to any major doctrine, the midrash methodology seems to be applicable nonetheless. For example, why should one consider the report of the bodily resurrection of the saints after Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 27) allegorical and yet insist that Jesus’ resurrection, which was the basis for it (cf. 1 Cor. 15:23), was literal? By what logic can we insist that the same author in the same book reporting the same kind of event in the same language can mean spiritual resurrection in one case and literal bodily resurrection in another case? Does not Gundry’s method lead (by logical extension) to a denial of major doctrines of Scripture? And if it does, then there seems to be no more reason for including Gundry in ETS than to include Origen, Rogers or Jewett. They all do (or could) affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, and yet all have a method that actually negates or undermines inerrancy in some significant way.
Even if one could build safeguards into the midrash method whereby all major doctrines are preserved from allegorization, there is another lethal problem with Gundry’s view. The ETS statement on inerrancy entails the belief that everything reported in the gospels is true (“the Bible in its entirety”). But Gundry believes that some things reported in Matthew did not occur (e.g., the story of the wise men [chap. 2], the report of the resurrection of the saints [chap. 27], etc.). It follows therefore that Gundry does not really believe everything reported in the gospels is true, despite his claim to the contrary. And this is a de facto denial of inerrancy.
@John: Well, first of all, you still have not addressed why these institutions have let Mike go. It does not beg the question it simple recognizes that organizations don’t make hiring and firing decisions without evidence. Geisler is not at SES nor at the SBC. He has no voting rights. He may have influence, but he did not actually fire those individuals.
Reply: The SBC did not fire Mike first off. He had a position at NAMB and he voluntarily stepped down. As for SES, SES has the same view of Inerrancy as Geisler does due to his influence so it’s not a shock that it happened. The question is “Is that view of Inerrancy the right one?”
John: Second, its not just Geisler who is taking a stance against him. Let’s just add three more: JI Packer, Mohler, and Blocher. Two of which Licona appealed to and after some simple research was done, were completely overturned. So there is a case of Licona altering the evidence. Not once, but twice!
Reply: Does not follow. Licona played a tip of Packer talking and recommending Blocher’s book and what is in Blocher’s book. Has he been proven wrong about what is in Blocher’s book? Has he been proven wrong that Packer recommended Blocher? Furthermore, Mohler, Packer, and Blocher are not NT scholars who are qualified to judge Mike’s work anyway.
John: Now, could this have been done in a better way? Sure. I am not going to dispute that. But, I also think that Mike could have stopped all of these little bloggers, who just use ad hominem after another.
Reply: Sorry. Mike hasn’t perfected his Jedi mind control so that he can stop everyone in the world from blogging. If you have a problem with people blogging in support of Mike, perhaps you should do something like go after the bloggers that are blogging in support of Geisler.
Do you also think Mike should have controlled the atheist blogs and Muslim blogs that are quite enjoying this seeing that a serious scholar like Mike is not allowed to be objective? Geisler let the genie out of the bottle and once he does, he has to face the ramifications of people being allowed to respond as they see fit. That’s the nature of the internet.
John: And then they justify it with a “fight fire with fire” mentality. Also, making YouTube videos in hotel parking lots and lobby’s. That is just more of the same.
Reply: The YouTube videos were made at EPS and getting statements from the scholars. Once again, Geisler can do what he wants, but it seems for Mike it must be “You cannot speak! Only Geisler is allowed to speak!”
The man has Geisler going after his reputation. Are you telling me he’s forbidden from defending himself? By who?
Norm: Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like your main issue is the way he went about it?
Reply: The way he went about it is wrong. His stance is wrong. The fate of evangelicalism in the West if Geisler has his way is wrong. The proper venue to settle this is scholarly debate. Geisler did not go that route. He went to the public instead and as soon as he made his first post, people were passing it around as if it was gospel.
What’s his method of arguing? Telling Mike he needs to recant. Yes. That word recant. Is this the Inquisition or something?
John: As for the denial, what most people forget is that Norm forewarned about this years ago, and even used the resurrection of the saints in Matt. 27 as the next point-case-and-example for ETS. After this it was sent to a vote and there is a historical case and example of ETS voting that a denial of the resurrection saints is a denial of inerrancy. Here is the quote from the ETS article. So, ETS is now in a position to claim that they unfairly ruled on Gundry (remember Craig and Habermas voted Gundry out), or that they are now making an exception to the rule.
Reply: Where is this article? Furthermore, if that is what people thought, well they were wrong. Second, why would the votes of Craig and Habermas be made public knowledge without their approval? Keep in mind also that it has been 25+ years since Gundry and we have new evidence and again, the NT scholarly world is in support of Mike. Which NT scholars support Geisler?
John: They have the right to overrule and to make exceptions. They are not making a claim to infallibility. But, it does seem very ironic that a super-majority voted on the same passage years ago and now, even those like Craig and Habermas, are now changing their vote.
Reply: Correct. They are not infallible, and if Geisler thinks ETS is such a great guide now, why did he quit ETS for not having a strong stance on doctrine? So when he quits, they’re weak. When he wants his way pushed, they’re reliable.
John:Here is Norm’s section.
Now what applies to Jewett seems to apply also to Gundry. Although Gundry does not apply his allegorical (midrashic) interpretation to any major doctrine, the midrash methodology seems to be applicable nonetheless.
Reply: Allegory and Midrash are not identical. Geisler’s off on the wrong foot already.
John: For example, why should one consider the report of the bodily resurrection of the saints after Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 27) allegorical and yet insist that Jesus’ resurrection, which was the basis for it (cf. 1 Cor. 15:23), was literal?
Reply: Oh I don’t know. Maybe we could read a 700 page book or so on the topic that a qualified scholar wrote as to why it is real. All resurrections are not equal. Is the first resurrection in Revelation 20 literal or not? Some Christians disagree. Is Daniel 12 literal or not? Some Christians disagree.
Mike has stated his reasons why he thinks one is apocalyptic and the other is not.
John: By what logic can we insist that the same author in the same book reporting the same kind of event in the same language can mean spiritual resurrection in one case and literal bodily resurrection in another case? Does not Gundry’s method lead (by logical extension) to a denial of major doctrines of Scripture?
Reply: No. It doesn’t. Gundry and Mike both make the case that those at the time would have been able to recognize these as Midrash in Gundry’s case and apocalyptic in Mike’s. The problem is that Geisler is assuming that a 21st century understanding of the text is equal with a 1st century one. They’re not. The first century was a high context society and thus, there would be several clues that this was going on. What Mike is talking about was quite common in the literature at the time.
Finally, Mike is using 1st century material. What does Geisler use to interpret Genesis? 20th century material. Do you think the reader of Genesis 1 in the time of Moses would think Geisler’s interpretation was valid?
John: And if it does, then there seems to be no more reason for including Gundry in ETS than to include Origen, Rogers or Jewett. They all do (or could) affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, and yet all have a method that actually negates or undermines inerrancy in some significant way.
Reply: Begging the question again. I’m open to Mike’s view and I have no problem with Inerrancy and no desire to undermine Scripture. What is undermined is literalism, a literalism that should never have been around in the first place.
John: Even if one could build safeguards into the midrash method whereby all major doctrines are preserved from allegorization, there is another lethal problem with Gundry’s view. The ETS statement on inerrancy entails the belief that everything reported in the gospels is true (“the Bible in its entirety”). But Gundry believes that some things reported in Matthew did not occur (e.g., the story of the wise men [chap. 2], the report of the resurrection of the saints [chap. 27], etc.). It follows therefore that Gundry does not really believe everything reported in the gospels is true, despite his claim to the contrary. And this is a de facto denial of inerrancy.
Reply: No. It’s a denial of literalism. Are the parables of Jesus true? Are the Proverbs true? Geisler assumes the Bible was written like a 20th century document.
Once again, another case of Geisler playing judge, jury, and executioner.
Again:
I’m going to take the advice of someone with you and just not respond. They said you are too close to the situation and that your responses just get very ugly. You have so rabbit trailed that blog (and every other blog on the internet) with your method of response and the billion topics you bring up.
My spiritual advice for you is to take a break from all of this. It’s not your job to put out every fire. Remember, you may critique Geisler for going about it in a poor way, but it is also just as much a disservice to consume yourself with every blog. It’s not healthy, and your tone (which in every blog I’ve seen mirrors that which you critique) is not charitable.
You might want to look to Beckwith’s type of response. It’s not a million things and it’s charitable.
In reading thepassage in question, why is there any confusion? If you love Jesus and God then you believe their words, 1 Cor. 13. The passage is quite clear that this actually took place the moment Jesus died for our sins. There is no need to ‘interpret’ these words, there i sno no need to add special meaning to this action, Matthew is reporting exactly what took place at the crucifixion.
Why God did this, we do not know but it was something that God wanted done for the people at that time. To preach on it, believers can say how powerful God is. If unbelievers do not accept this event, that is their choice BUT the believer does NOT alter God’s word to appease someone who does NOT believe.
David. In 2 Samuel 22, we read about the following:
7 “In my distress I called to the Lord;
I called out to my God.
From his temple he heard my voice;
my cry came to his ears.
8 The earth trembled and quaked,
the foundations of the heavens[c] shook;
they trembled because he was angry.
9 Smoke rose from his nostrils;
consuming fire came from his mouth,
burning coals blazed out of it.
10 He parted the heavens and came down;
dark clouds were under his feet.
11 He mounted the cherubim and flew;
he soared[d] on the wings of the wind.
12 He made darkness his canopy around him—
the dark[e] rain clouds of the sky.
13 Out of the brightness of his presence
bolts of lightning blazed forth.
14 The Lord thundered from heaven;
the voice of the Most High resounded.
15 He shot his arrows and scattered the enemy,
with great bolts of lightning he routed them.
Keep in mind there is no need to interpret these words. There is no need to add special meaning to them.
Could you please go through the books of Samuel and tell me where it was that God showed up riding on angels and shooting arrows at bad guys? Surely such a battle would be mentioned!
Clearly you removed the 2 verses so you removed the context. He was not speaking of just one battle but all the ones he fought. That chapter is different from Matthew’s in that what David is describing is his perception alone and he is describing God’s actions in a comparative tone while Matthew is merely and simply reporting what took place and he is not reporting what he saw alone but what everyone saw and heard that took place at that time in Jerusalem.
If you read on in 2 Sam. 22 you will see David making other personal descriptions about God, calls Him a lamp, a shield, etc. are we to take the most literal and popular meanings of those words and say God is both a physical earthly lamp and a shield?
Being literal is not open to cherry picking verses to support one’s misconceptions about another passage of scripture. What is literal about Matthew is literal in a limited sense in the chapter you mentioned. yes, David LITERALLY spoke those words but that doesn’t mean he was being literal in his descriptive narrative. Matthew was being literal in writing and reporting.
David Tee: Clearly you removed the 2 verses so you removed the context.
Reply: No idea what you speak of since I don’t know what two verses you are talking about. I just wanted the whole description. Even if you don’t accept that, I could go to several other passages like Isaiah 13 that Bible scholars say has already happened, but no one would think has literally happened.
David: He was not speaking of just one battle but all the ones he fought. That chapter is different from Matthew’s in that what David is describing is his perception alone and he is describing God’s actions in a comparative tone while Matthew is merely and simply reporting what took place and he is not reporting what he saw alone but what everyone saw and heard that took place at that time in Jerusalem.
Reply: The text does not say everyone saw and heard it. The text says they appeared to many and if they came out of the tombs when Jesus rose, who did anyone see them rise up when Jesus breathed his last? They couldn’t have. This does not mean I am against the literal meaning, but I am against your view that everyone saw them. Strange you want to be literal when the text does not say everyone.
David: If you read on in 2 Sam. 22 you will see David making other personal descriptions about God, calls Him a lamp, a shield, etc. are we to take the most literal and popular meanings of those words and say God is both a physical earthly lamp and a shield?
Reply: No, and that’s because I’m not bound to a literal hermeneutic like you are. What I want instead is a hermeneutic consistent with the time and culture the writer lived in. Jews were not literalists and frequently used apocalyptic imagery. Of course, they could read things in a literal sense, but they were not bound to it. There is no reason to think that when Jesus said Caiaphas would see Him coming on a cloud that Caiaphas would look out his window and see him hanging ten on a cumulus. Incidentally, if you want to take those verses literally, how is it Jesus is sitting and coming and how can Caiaphas see Him since Caiaphas is dead now?
David: Being literal is not open to cherry picking verses to support one’s misconceptions about another passage of scripture.
Reply: Ah, but you are cherry picking as you use the literal hermeneutic I’m sure until you think it should not be used. Consider Matthew 24:34 as another example. Did that generation pass away? If you take the rest before literally, then yes, that generation didn’t. If you don’t, then that generation can still be around. Is there any context from Jewish culture that can tell us which is literal and which isn’t?
David: What is literal about Matthew is literal in a limited sense in the chapter you mentioned.
Reply: A limited sense?
David: yes, David LITERALLY spoke those words but that doesn’t mean he was being literal in his descriptive narrative. Matthew was being literal in writing and reporting.
Reply: So your argument to demonstrate what you believe is to just repeat what you believe? Circular reasoning. I suppose when you read the accounts of Greco-Roman biographers who have similar events happen that you take those literally as well.
The verses I was referring to were the first 2 opening the chapter.
I think you are making too much out of the word ‘everyone’. The passage clearly states–’many people saw them’ and those people would inevitablly tell others about it. In other words, it was no big secret.
In other words, you want the Bible to read like you want it not the way God wrote and meant it. God’s word are not bound by secular/human culture or the earthly era in which each book was written. They are words meant for all times and for all people. Binding them to an earthly historic time period means one wants to ignore passages when it does not fit their sensibilities or the way they want to live their lives.
There are always tough passages of scripture which require honest study and investigation. Not a surface glance over and assumption coupled by personal interpretation. You would have to produce some good evidence that his words were talking about the 1st century people. You love to take passages out of context to make your point.
Yes, David literally wrote/spoke those words/felt that way but the contents are not always literal–God is not an earthly lamp or shield.
No circular reasoning has taken place on my part. I would suggest that your failure comes from not understanding the proper applicationof the word ‘literal’.
Dee Tee: The verses I was referring to were the first 2 opening the chapter.
Reply: And since I did not know, then your claim about what is obvious is not so obvious. Maybe some other things you think are also obvious aren’t.
Dee Tee: I think you are making too much out of the word ‘everyone’. The passage clearly states–’many people saw them’ and those people would inevitablly tell others about it. In other words, it was no big secret.
Reply: The same would have been said at the death of Roman emperors. Many people saw the things that took place. No big secret. Yet you change the rules when you come to the Bible. Also, it’s strange you tell me I should read things literally and when I read your text literally, you make a deal out of it.
Dee Tee: In other words, you want the Bible to read like you want it not the way God wrote and meant it.
Reply: This assumes that you are not the one doing that. No. Here’s how I expect the Bible to read. I expect the NT to read like a first century Mediterranean document in the culture of Second Temple Judaism. You seem to expect it to read like a 20th century newspaper.
Dee Tee: God’s word are not bound by secular/human culture or the earthly era in which each book was written. They are words meant for all times and for all people. Binding them to an earthly historic time period means one wants to ignore passages when it does not fit their sensibilities or the way they want to live their lives.
Reply: Oh good grief. You might as well say God’s Word should have contained nuclear physics. Why bind it to the first century after all? Yes. They are meant for all times and all people and all such people have to work to understand them. You can’t lift the Bible out of its era, time, and culture and expect to understand it. You want to see how the Jews took such passages? You need to study what they did in Second Temple Judaism.
Dee Tee: There are always tough passages of scripture which require honest study and investigation. Not a surface glance over and assumption coupled by personal interpretation. You would have to produce some good evidence that his words were talking about the 1st century people. You love to take passages out of context to make your point.
Reply: Your assumption is that I did that. The point of 2 Samuel is that you can read that all you want and you will never find a battle of David’s with even miraculous intervention, yet he describes it as the saving of God. This is common for Jewish thinking. I notice you have no reply to Isaiah 13. Do you not realize Bible Scholars see that as the destruction of Babylon, which is then described in end-of-the-world terminology?
As for Matthew 24:34 and that being first century here is the evidence. He says “This generation will not pass.” Every other time in Matthew the words “this generation” refer to the present generation. He does not say “The generation that sees these things will not pass away until they see these things.” That would be a bit ridiculous. He does not say “That generation will not pass away.” Meanwhile, we have plenty of examples in the OT of apocalyptic passages describing the destruction of political powers.
Furthermore, when Jesus is right there, his apostles have no idea about a return of Christ for a very good reason. Christ is sitting right there and they don’t expect him to leave any time soon. They expect him to bring in the Kingdom so they ask when he will. His answer hinges around the destruction of that temple. Not the destruction of some third temple. The disciples would have no idea about that.
Once again, for those who push literalism, it’s literal when it suits them but every other time, everything must be literal. The Bible is a much richer book than that written in a high-context culture.
Dee Tee: Yes, David literally wrote/spoke those words/felt that way but the contents are not always literal–God is not an earthly lamp or shield.
Reply: Of course he isn’t, but the reality is the text doesn’t tell you that. You get that from a good metaphysics that tells you that God is not physical and God knows all. Hence, you also bring in outside information, which is natural in a high-context society. David assumes you know that that is the case and he doesn’t have to explain it.
Dee Tee: No circular reasoning has taken place on my part. I would suggest that your failure comes from not understanding the proper applicationof the word ‘literal’.
Reply: So your reply to say you have not done circular reasoning is to say you have not done circular reasoning. Wow. Even your denial of circular reasoning is circular. As for literal, perhaps that should be clarified. As N.T. Wright has pointed out, we often use the word “literal” when in fact we don’t mean literal. I prefer to take the words biblically.