25424 Aldine-Westfield, Spring, TX. 77373

God’s will for our congregation Various friends, relatives and co-workers

Our nation, military and leaders The spread of the good news

SCHOLARS AND CRITICS

“Of making many books, there is no end, and much study wearies the body” (Ecclesiastes 12:12).

I appreciate the work of Biblical scholars, the fruits of their labors appearing in books, of which there is no end. Their studies benefit us all in one way or another. Sometimes they can become bogged down in minute issues and at other times, they appear in agreement as a general consensus on various topics. Keep in mind that these people are human just like you and me, and have their biases and limitations; they are not infallible. I am no scholar but I also have the ability to think of some things that are different than the majority opinion. It is always nice when a scholar agrees with me; or at least we are thinking in the same direction. I do not always agree with those I do respect and tend to ignore some points of view for the bigger picture.

Critics are important if they come with a balance opinion and study. It is one thing to disagree with a scholar, it is a completely different idea to label them something they are not because one disagrees with them. The use of terms such as “liberal” (1) and false teacher just do not help in any discussions and causes a bias that is difficult to overcome. It causes people to look at some scholar or author in a slanted light, always questioning his faith, message, and reasons for saying what he is saying.

We’re going to look at some things that might be challenging to some of you. I thought about this not wanting to upset people unnecessarily. We have enough problems without creating more for no reason. On the other hand, if our faith is so fragile, as some critics seem to think, then we have problems that what I say below isn’t going to affect anyone.

I have read several things over the past few months that I want us to think about. This is not an attack on our faith but on some possible presuppositions we have in areas that we need to consider. This has been prompted by the publication of a one volume commentary, the first in the Stone-Campbell Movement (2), published by ACU Press, called The Transforming Word. There have been a couple of reviews of the commentary, emphasizing some disagreement as to why the editors would include material that might disturb some. Again, we can be our own worse enemies when we unnecessarily stir up people, but I still think that many want something deeper than is often offered from classes and sermons. There was one critic who has not seen the commentary who nevertheless criticized it as being done by a bunch of liberals. This type of criticism is in my mind dangerous and destructive.

What are some ideas that bother the critics? Three center on the authorship, chronology, and dating of books and stories in scripture. Some of these ideas have been part of some liberal theologies that have led to the denial of important aspects of scripture, but that doesn’t mean that those conservatives scholars who hold to these views are headed into liberalism. The foundations are different in each theology and the presumptions in each lead in different directions.

Let’s take a look at the authorship of some books of scripture. Surprisingly, a number of books do not tell us who the author of the book was. For instance, while we attribute the first five books of the Bible to Moses, they do not say Moses wrote this. Both Jewish and Christian traditions have maintain Moses did for centuries. Jesus and Paul stated that Moses was the author, so that should satisfy us. Now we understand that God was involved in the transmission of scripture but we just do not know how. How did Moses know about the stories in Genesis? Was it written down in another source or was it orally transmitted over the years? We see this in the book of Proverbs. In chapter 25, it is Hezekiah’s men who write down some of the proverbs of Solomon, some two hundred years after Solomon. Many of the Psalms were written by David, but many were not; the authors are unknown. We are not told who wrote Job. Was it Job himself or was it an observer to the discussions? Ecclesiastes was written by the Teacher in Jerusalem. Many think it was Solomon; I do. The commentator in the ACU commentary thinks it was written in the time of the Persians because some Persian words are found in it. Could it have been orally handed down and then written down then, the scribe changing a few words to be understood by the Persian controlled culture? We just do not know.

When we get to the New Testament we find that the gospels do not tell us who the authors are. A rich church tradition has maintain that the four were written by who it says it was written by. We can reason from Acts that Doctor Luke wrote both the Gospel and Acts. Ben Witherington, a conservative Bible scholar, thinks that John was written by someone other than the apostle. I hold to the traditional view but I continue to enjoy Witherington’s work. He is not a liberal and should not be labeled as such because he sees a different author to the gospel. Even some of Paul’s letters are called into question as authored by Paul, even by conservatives. That’s okay, I don’t agree but I can live with it. While there are probably a number of reasons for this, one that comes to mind is that some letters use words not used in the other letters. As we grow and mature, we add to our vocabulary. Sometimes we stop using some terms and use other ones, some go in and out of use over the years, returning as something “new.” Today, postmodern is a rather new word as are the words emergent and emerging, referring to some who are attempting to communicate the gospel to the postmodern generation. Some critics label this as some type of liberalism not realizing that neither postmodernism nor emergent are settled ideas. Go back several decades to such words as “new age.” So many things were labeled “new age” that it became virtually a useless term. We could say that about “liberalism” as well.

Another author that comes into question is Isaiah. Some scholars think that there is more than one author to Isaiah. I don’t. One argument is that Isaiah could not have seen what he was prophesying about in chapters 40-66, that he could not have known of the Persian king, Cyrus, and the return of Israel to her homeland. Again, I think there is evidence in the New Testament that shows that Isaiah was written by one person. I just ignore those who say something like second Isaiah and attempt to understand what they are saying about the texts being studied. One Abilene Christian University (ACU) professor was criticized for holding this view, somewhat, in his commentary on Isaiah. I went to hear a critic of this brother and he went on and on about this professor’s positions on several ideas. Then the critic said something like this. “We know that there are sixty-six books in the Bible and that there are sixty-six chapters in Isaiah. We know that the first thirty-nine books form the Old Testament and that the first thirty-nine chapters of Isaiah relate to Israel. We know that twenty-seven books form the New Testament and that the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah relate to the Messiah.” I kid you not! He criticized a professor for his scholarship and then had the gall to make such a statement about chapters. The chapters were not added to the Bible until over a thousand years after the first century. At least the professor had a reasonable argument.

Dating books isn’t easy. Some, like the prophets, give us kings to work with and we can put several decades in which they were written. The books of Chronicles were written sometime after the return from the Babylonian captivity, probably in the days of Ezra, maybe in the days of Haggai and Zechariah. the gospels are difficult as well. Most date the gospels in between the late 50s and into the 60s, John being written after the fall of Jerusalem, around 90. Others date all four in the 80s and 90s. There are a few, I being one, who see that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written early, somewhere in the 40s. I think that there was a need to get the story out. Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience while Mark and Luke were writing to a Gentile one. Mark might have seen the need to write one after leaving Paul and Barnabas in Asia Minor, if this was the same Mark. I realize that I am in a minority here but that is okay; I do not make this an issue and neither should you (3).

Finally, there is some chronology in the life of Christ. Some think that Mark was the first gospel and that Matthew and Luke depended on Mark in writing their gospels. This is one point of view and the majority one. But why Mark? Because it is the shortest? Maybe Mark picked and chose from Matthew. Luke knew of a number of writings on the life of Christ, so several were trying to write it down. Luke had a benefactor that aided him in his research, which probably helped. Some argue that since Matthew was written in Greek, it could not be the apostle Matthew. Keep in mind that Matthew was a tax collector, certainly had contacts with the Romans and probably knew Greek to communicate. He could have been fairly well educated, which would have given his Greek a more educated look. But then again, we do not know if someone translated Matthew from Hebrew or Aramaic into Greek because we do not have that information available.

Now I think that the Gospels were written in a chronological order for a reason. Some think that they were not, especially John. Do we have one cleansing of the Temple or two, one at the beginning and one at the end of Jesus’ ministry? Do we have one anointing with oil or two, one in the middle and one at the end of Jesus’ ministry? I go with the two but can live with the one. I might see things differently in further study. The key is to keep studying. Some scholars see problems between Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount (chapters 5-7) and Luke’s Sermon on the Plain (chapter 6). I think that Jesus often repeated Himself and said things in different way. We all do to make our points.

Well I hope that this isn’t too troubling to you; it was not meant to be. When we hear the critics criticize people because of these views, they miss some important issues. The liberal in the theological sense uses the above as criticisms of both scripture and God, of the redemptive efforts through Christ and the resurrection. Their presuppositions are that God hasn’t done all that scripture has said. The conservatives who hold the above positions believe in God’s redemptive activity in scripture and work with those presuppositions. They are trying to strengthen our understanding of scripture. Any criticism of these views should keep these distinctions in mind. The liberal view is subverting scripture but the conservative view is asking tough questions that do not always have easy answers. We should not confuse them.

Let me close with this. Jim McGuiggan has written on Isaiah 7:14, especially in his commentary on the book of Isaiah. He sees that the fulfillment of this text is seen in Isaiah’s day and that Matthew uses it to make his point about the Messiah. I too agree with this position. About thirty years ago, a critic wrote that anyone who did not see Isaiah 7:14 as exclusively a Messianic text was a liberal. One can disagree with a view without labeling someone something he is not. Jim was hurt by the unjust criticism (4). We have made too many things salvation issues that really are not (5). Let’s be careful both when hearing criticism and using it.

George B. Mearns

(1) The word “liberal has two definitions. In theology is means one who denies some activity of God such as the resurrection. The second definition attempts to apply the first definition to people who believe in God’s activity such as the resurrection. The second definition is really stated thus: “You do not agree with me so you are a liberal.”

(2) This movement includes the churches of Christ, the Christian churches, and the Disciples of Christ, and scholars from each have contributed to the commentary.

(3) Interestingly, the two British scholars that I have read on this and who agree on the early dates, one was a liberal and the other a conservative.

(4) Jim can take honest criticism and can debate issues. This was seen by graduate students at the Sunset School of Preaching (now Sunset International Bible Institute). Instructors debated any number of issues yet remained closely committed to scripture and each other.

(5) Todd Deaver has come out with a book Facing Our Failure (self-published, 2008) discussing fellowship and interpretation on issues such as these. He has already been labeled a liberal and false teaching by critics including his own father who is a well known preacher.