Isaiah 55:9 - What does it Mean?

Recently, a visitor to this blog asked about the theme verse displayed in the blog header:

Isaiah 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.

The questioner specifically asked what I think this verse means.

Disclaimer and Clarification

Before answering this question, I should note that it matters very little what I think this verse means. God's Word is, at the most basic level, a communication of what He thinks. The verse does, after all, address the subject of His "thoughts." The meaning given by the Holy Spirit to Isaiah 55:9 is much more significant, and vastly more important, than anything I think. And, as He, the Spirit of Revelation, has given us the mind of Christ, we can know with a great degree of certainty what the verse actually, and objectively, signifies.

Too often, theological reflection has been downgraded to the level of opinion and conjecture. The speculations of favored theologians and scholars are discussed, and then someone's feelings about their mesmerizing extra-Biblical theories are recorded with grand intellectual flourishes. This futile endeavor leaves us wise in our own eyes and pathetically self-satisfied. However, when we approach the sacred text of the Bible, we are not dealing with human philosophy. We are not working with a man-made construction. We are considering the word of the prophets "more fully confirmed," to which we will do well to "pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place . . . knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (II Peter 1:19-21, ESV). This is the WORD OF GOD, and it renders our worldly and man-centered thinking totally bankrupt. It reveals our depravity, shatters our self-conceit, demolishes our pride. It is God's MESSAGE, hidden from the wise and lofty, and powerfully manifested to the simple-hearted -- for those with ears to hear.

So, I'd like to begin by redirecting the question. Rather than discussing what I think this verse means, I will instead attempt to answer, at least in part (yet accurately), the following questions:

• What meaning has the Holy Spirit poured into Isaiah 55:9? 
• What meaning will He help us to draw out by careful study?

May God guide us in the study of His Truth.

Contexts and Outline

Now that we have begun to think of the verse in its wide context as a part of the inerrant and infallible, God-breathed text of Scripture, we may begin to narrow in further and view it in a variety of additional contexts:

• Bible Context: Old Testament - the verse appears several hundred years prior to the birth of the incarnate Christ, the establishment of the New Covenant and the inception of the Church.
• Genre Context: Prophecy - the verse is the utterance of a prophet, speaking for God in the "first person" voice. It fulfills a dual prophetic role of calling God's covenant people to repentance and foretelling the glories of God's future Kingdom.
• Book/Historical Context: Isaiah - the verse appears within the prophecies of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, who prophesied over a period exceeding 50 years, during which Israel was characterized by corruption, apostasy and political turmoil. In Isaiah's lifetime, the Northern Kingdom was destroyed, and he saw multiple threats rise against the Southern kingdom of Judah while dwelling in its capital city of Jerusalem. 
• Book Section Context: Isaiah 40-66 - the verse appears in a section characterized by prophecies of hope and restoration.
• Chapter Context: Isaiah 55 - the verse appears in the center of a chapter which may be outlined as follows:

1. Call to Draw Near to God (55:1-3)
• Invitation to the Thirsty
• Invitation to the Impoverished
• Contrast of False and True Satisfaction
• A New Covenant Promised
• Made by God
• Faithfulness and Mercy
• Everlasting
2. Declaration of Israel's Role (55:4-5)
• As Witness
• As Leader and Commander
• As Caller 
• As God's Glorified People
• Target Audience: The Gentiles! (The "People" and "a Nation" not known)
3. Instructions for Those Seeking God (55:6-7)
• Seek the LORD
• Call on Him
• Forsake your own Ways and Thoughts
• Return to the LORD
• Results: Compassion and Abundant Pardon
4. Description of God's Thoughts and Ways (55:8-9)
• Not Your Thoughts
• Not Your Ways
• Higher than Your Thoughts and Ways
• As the Heavens are Above the Earth
5. Illustration of God's Thoughts and Ways (55:10-11)
• God's Word is Given as Rain and Snow from Heaven
• God's Word Infallibly Produces its Intended Effect on the Earth
• Water
• Sprout
• Seed
• Bread
6. Promise of Israel's Future Hope (55:12-13)
• Joy
• Peace
• Nature Celebrating
• A Name for the Lord
• An Everlasting Sign

Summary of the Passage

We may conclude, from the above discussion of contexts and the outline of the passage, that the broad theme of the chapter is Israel's restoration and the call of the Gentiles. The passage makes clear that Israel is to be used as God's witness so that the Gentiles may partake in the blessings of David, the New Covenant of God's mercy and truth, the compassion and the forgiveness of God.

This divine purpose, though mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament, would have been foreign to the thinking of most ancient Hebrews. In fact, it was even shocking to the early New Testament church, as demonstrated by Peter's initial hesitation and later surprise when preaching to the household of Cornelius, in seeing the Spirit poured out on the Gentiles. Paul's unique, unexpected, and God-initiated mission to preach the Gospel of grace to the nations also illustrates this chapter's message with some clarity.

The consistent theme in the passage is this: God calls sinners to Himself and will receive them with overflowing mercy, whether they are ethnically Jewish or Gentile.

The Lord forthrightly explains the reason that underlies this astonishing mercy: His thoughts and His ways, which are categorically opposite to ours, and radically exalted above ours, tend toward displays of extravagant mercy.

Exegetical Considerations

When God speaks of His "thoughts" in this passage, He uses the Hebrew term machashabah, which refers to counsel, plan or purpose (sometimes carrying the connotation of "invention"). When He speaks of His "ways," He uses the Hebrew word derek, which is a path or a road (figuratively, a course of life or one's moral character -- what we might call a "lifestyle" or a "walk of life" in today's vernacular). God is therefore describing something much deeper and more significant than a mere passing thought or intellectual pursuit. He is describing His very WILL, and His PERSONAL HABITS. And when He speaks of these things, thus revealing HIMSELF, He declares vehemently that His ways are not ours! In doing so, He uses the absolute negation (Heb. lo). Additionally, in verses 8 and 9, the repetition of the words "thoughts" (4 times) and "ways" (4 times) emphatically magnifies the message: "I am not like you! I am different! I am infinitely higher!" And yet, by forsaking his own ways and thoughts, and seeking after the Lord, even the unrighteous person (in point of fact, only the unrighteous person) can discover and enjoy these higher ways and thoughts.

The Meaning of Isaiah 55:9

The ancient Hebrew mind could perhaps think of no greater distance and no greater difference than that existing between heaven and earth. In this verse, the prophet shows us that God in His wise and holy counsels is far above us. His eternal plans do not originate within our familiar sphere, but enter it from without and from above. They are beyond our reach. They transcend us! His actions, characteristics, counsels and purposes are thus apt to surprise us when they break through. Yet they are ultimately intended to nourish us, to initiate growth, to produce fruitfulness in us, and to feed others. That is what mercy does. When the revelation of His ways is received within, it satisfies our need and give us life. It furnishes peace and instills joy. It gives us something to give.

Isaiah 55:9 teaches us that God's thinking is incomparable and incomprehensible, yet penetrating and available. It shows us the fine balance of a mysterious, and yet perspicuous, Word from our gracious Creator -- a Word sent to restore His fallen creation by the strange working of an unearthly power. And that power is called mercy.

May you, dear reader, be flooded with His grace today!

A Response to Those Who Deny the Historicity of Adam

It’s clear that the Biblical writers not only held, but also purposefully wrote into the Scriptures, a non-negotiable belief in a literal individual named Adam who was the head of the human race (federally and physically). Any attempt to deny this is a direct assault on the Gospel, which includes the belief that all mankind is under a curse resulting from the disobedience of that literal individual named Adam. It is also an insult to the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the words of the apostles and prophets. Did He lead them to write things untrue? Non-factual? Errant? God forbid we should even entertain such a thought.

I’m sure I don’t believe EVERYTHING that Luke and Paul believed (in fact it’s not even possible that they believed exactly the same things). But when it comes to the matters about which the Holy Spirit of God (an inerrant witness!) led them to write, I can only bow my intellect before HIS perfect and pure wisdom. There they certainly agreed, and there I must agree. The sophistry of Peter Enns and his many disciples is a path leading directly away from the cross. I would urge any of those walking on it to repent and turn back to the God who breathed out His infallible Words through fallible men. Just as Jesus was fully God and fully man yet sinless, Scripture itself is fully divine and fully human yet inerrant. To deny this is blasphemy.

Any gospel divorced from historical accuracy is not the Biblical Gospel. The idea that one can “believe” in Scripture without believing in the historical reliability of Scripture is a postmodern fantasy that will drift away like paper and fire when the next big philosophical shift hits Western society (will it be post-postmodernism or neo-postmodernism? Or a move back to some form of modernism?). Either way, whoever has bought a ticket on the train of humanity’s best philosophy is going to get a bumpy ride when REALITY comes to light. Because REALITY comports with the Word of God. All men are like grass . . . but the Word of the Lord endures forever.

Therefore, let us reject modernism and postmodernism and whatever comes next, along with all human philosophy. Why? Because God has graciously told us that the very first and very best mere-human-being He made fell into sin – mind, body and soul. We are the sad progeny of that individual, following pitiably in his accursed footsteps (and thought patterns). This is why we are called to trust the testimony of God in all respects and to test everything by it. Ironically, the denial of Adam’s existence is just a furtherance of the disaster he started.

HT: to Jeff at ScriptureZealot.com for inspiring this polemic.

Historical Adam Discussion on Reformed Forum

Rick Phillips

The link below leads to an excellent discussion of the historical reliability of Genesis and a response to the compromises some Evangelicals are making with regard to the historicity of Adam. Rick Phillips does a great job of explaining why it is important to hold to Biblical inerrancy and stand firm against a cultural conformity to the passing fancies of scientism. Great stuff!


http://reformedforum.org/ctc212/


Click here for a direct download of the audio.

Contradiction, Paradox and Mystery

I ran across this interesting video on YouTube. These guys do a good job of discussing issues close to the heart of THEOparadox. Don't you agree?

DISCLAIMER: with a little further research, I discovered the main speaker here is Alex Locay, and the questioner is Eric Purtic. Both are instructors at the Ravi Zacharias School of Apologetics, which is associated with Calvary Chapel in Ft. Lauderdale. The two have produced lots of apologetics videos, some of which are very good. However, given the prevailing anti-Calvinist stance of Calvary Chapel (not to mention Ravi Zacharias' commitment to the free will doctrine), some of the videos should be taken with large grains of salt. Use caution. No apologist is great on every topic, but Locay and Purtic provide well informed arguments on some of the important ones.

Calvin on the Sufficiency of Scripture

"But let us know, as faith can be grounded nowhere else than in the Word of the Lord, so we must only stand to the testimony thereof in all controversies."

-from Calvin's Commentary on Acts 17:2

John MacArthur on the Paradox of Salvation

The following THEOparadoxical thoughts are excerpted from John MacArthur's article, "Is Your Salvation Secure?"

"Contemporary Christianity has a shallow view of salvation. Many people don't understand the security of the believer. God, in eternity past, chose us to believe in the truth (2 Thess. 2:13 ). Now we have to show a response. I don't fully understand how those two come together. Some people think that the people who go to hell go there because God rejected them. But the Bible says that people go to hell because they reject the gospel (John 3:18 ). That may not make sense to us, but it shouldn't matter. God is smarter than us. Would you want a God who is our equal? I wouldn't!

The paradox regarding God's choice and man's responsibility isn't the only paradox in Scripture. For example, who wrote the book of Romans? Paul did, but so did God. Did they take turns writing verses? On the one hand, every word is pure and from the mind of God. Yet, every word also came from Paul's heart and his vocabulary. How could Romans have been fully written by both God and Paul? We know it was, but we can't explain it fully.

Is Jesus God or man? He was both. Christ was not a blend of God and man. He was 100 percent Himself. He was fully God and fully man. We can't figure that out.

How about this: Who lives your Christian life? Paul said, "I discipline my body and make it my slave" (1 Cor. 9:27 ). He also said, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me" (Gal. 2:20 ). Which is the right answer? Both you and Christ live your life.

Most major doctrines in the Bible have an aspect that we cannot fully explain. When we try to bring God down to our level, there is still much we won't understand. We simply can't resolve everything in our minds. So the reason anyone goes to hell is because he rejected Christ and is completely responsible. But when a person comes to Christ, it's because he was chosen in Him before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)."

(Source)

Has the Doctrine of Inerrancy Outlived Its Usefulness? PART 3

Short answer:

Robert Jimenez has posted the third and final portion of his series about Biblical inerrancy. Here are links to his three articles, and my responses to them.
Jimenez 1
Ashton 1
Jimenez 2
Ashton 2
Jimenez 3
Note: While this is primarily a response to Robert Jimenez, it also serves as a response to Roger Olson's astounding claim that "inerrancy doesn't matter."


The final post in Jimenez' series consists of three main elements:
1. An appeal to authority in which several prominent theologians are cited
2. An attempt to disprove inerrancy by pointing out several "clear mistakes in the Bible" 
3. An assertion that the term "inerrancy" is not helpful. 
At the same time, Jimenez insists that he views Scripture as "truthful," "trustworthy" and "inspired."
Before I go any further, I want to note that I have nothing personal against Robert Jimenez, and this is not an ad hominem attack. I have never met him, do not know him personally, and have no real insight into his motivations or his heart. I am responding to what I believe are dangerous and wrongheaded arguments, which he has boldly advanced in a public forum. As far as I can tell, Jimenez is a studious believer who serves God faithfully, and for that I am thankful. I earnestly hope, by God's grace, that my arguments will give non-inerrantists like Jimenez sufficient reason to turn back from their views and embrace a much higher view of Scripture.


Appeal to Authority


Jimenez quotes Evangelical heavyweights Donald Bloesch, Clark Pinnock, Roger Olson and Howard Marshall in support of his thesis. We have little to say in response to such an appeal, other than this: Evangelical faith universally affirms that Scripture is a higher authority than its critics. If Evangelical scholars want to bash inconsistent holes in their own foundation, they can. But not with any backing from the Bible, and certainly not with any shred of consent from those who place their full trust in it. It is ironic that an attack on Biblical inerrancy is made using an appeal to mere human authority (i.e. opinion). I can hear my Mom saying, "If all of your Evangelical theologian friends jumped off a cliff, would you follow them?"


Original Manuscripts


Jimenez takes issue with the inerrantist belief specifying the original manuscripts alone as faultless, saying:
"I think that it takes a huge leap of faith to assume that the Original Autographs were perfect, and it is a pretty remarkable hypothesis considering the fact that the manuscripts we have are extremely reliable and no reason to think they differ from the Original Autographs."
The original manuscripts were the direct result of divine inspiration. How is it unwarranted or difficult to believe that God produced them flawlessly? We are talking about "God," with a capital G, the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. If God Himself inspired the original text, how is it a "leap" to believe He prevented the writers from making factual errors? He did, after all, create the writers in the first place. Is He not omnipotent enough to produce a faultless document through human agents? Not wise enough? Not perfect enough? How, exactly, is God incapable of this? And why should I not believe He produced a flawless result? Jiminez offers no compelling reasons. By framing the discussion in terms of a "leap of faith," he rightly points to the core issue driving the rejection of inerrancy: unbelief. We just doubt it, so it can't be so.
In spite of the considerably studious character he displays, Jimenez seems to have missed the whole point of the doctrine of inerrancy, and all of the major reasons for affirming it. Had he studied more classical and conservative sources (rather than the very confused Dr. Peter Enns CORRECTION: Brother Jimenez has informed me that he has not read Peter Enns' book), he might have discovered why we have every reason to think the available manuscripts are slightly different from the originals. We have textual variants that must be accounted for. Where did they come from? Which variant is more likely to match the original? The goal of textual criticism is to painstakingly work back toward an inerrant original, to discover its actual contents as best we can.

_________________________________________________

SIDE NOTE: Under the mistaken impression that I was attempting to broadly define the term "Textual Criticism," one blogger took exception to the last sentence (see here). What follows is my response to his continued insistence that this was a "made up definition." - even after my clarifications to the contrary.

You’ve made something out of nothing. I offered no definition. I simply stated the goal, the motivation, the reason for consulting/applying/studying textual criticism, from an inerrantist’s point of view, in the hermeneutical process. Consider my statement from this context: it was made in response to Robert Jimenez’ claim that “the manuscripts we have are extremely reliable and no reason to think they differ from the Original Autographs.” I pointed to textual variants as proof that we have “every reason” to believe the current manuscripts differ from the originals. I further noted that we engage in textual criticism (or apply the results of textual criticism, if we must be that precise) in an effort to get back toward the content of the original, as far as that is possible. I also noted that the conviction of inerrancy has a huge bearing on how we handle the application of textual criticism. For example, if we believe in an inerrant original, and we have, say, a synoptic situation where there are 700 charioteers killed in one passage and 7 thousand in the parallel account, we are going to reason that the Holy Spirit inspired the correct number in the originals but a scribal error was introduced at the transmission stage. If we don’t believe in inerrancy, we have an open field to come up with all sorts of fanciful theories, perhaps saying that one author was more pro-Davidic and inflated the numbers on purpose, or that he was anti-Davidic and purposely lowered the count (stranger theories have been made, just look at the absurd JEDP Documentary Hyposthesis). Apart from the conviction of inerrancy, we may use the science of textual criticism (which, again, I have nowhere defined) in ways that seem sensible but treat Scripture as less than genuinely divine in origin (just look at what the German “higher” critics did in the early 20th century, and the effect it had on the mainline churches). Read the FULL context of my words, and you will see that I qualify this later in the paragraph (beyond the short section you quoted in your comment), by saying that inerrancy “is the solid rock on which conservative textual criticism is built, and Biblically faithful exegesis depends on it.” Conservative being the key word. By way of illustration, imagine you overhear a fisherman say, “The reason a guy has a boat is to get where the fish are biting.” You go home, look up 7 definitions of the word “boat” and publish an article in the local newspaper, challenging the fisherman’s “definition.” Only one problem: he wasn’t giving a definition, he was giving a reason. Specifically, a fisherman’s reason. A conservative inerrantist’s engagement in textual criticism most certainly has the goal of discovering the content of the inerrant original. To quibble with the word “inerrant” in this stated goal is pointless and only begs the question. It IS his driving presupposition, whether or not he ever states it. I am contrasting this with the goal of the “higher” critic who doesn’t believe in inerrancy. He has a different goal. Going back to the boat illustration, he might want a boat so he can kill the fish, go diving, enjoy a pleasure cruise, or perhaps ram into the fisherman’s boat just for fun. In any case, the “higher” critic’s rejection of inerrancy produces a completely different hermeneutical result. This was my only point, and I must say again very clearly that I DID NOT OFFER ANY KIND OF DEFINITION. Context, context, context.

In case you're wondering, he still wasn't convinced and continued to insist that I was somehow incorrect. I guess we'll have to let the historians decide.

_________________________________________________

How does one launch a public challenge against inerrancy without understanding these basic facts about hermeneutics and Biblical transmission? If we assume the originals contained errors, we can easily lose our way amid the sea of potential reconciliations, and we are free to make the text say whatever we want through theories of emendation and cultural accommodation. Apart from inerrancy, we have no True North. Thus we unwittingly follow in the footsteps of liberal scholars who have built their house of cards on the sand swept foundation of assumed Biblical errors. The conviction of inerrancy is the solid rock on which conservative textual criticism is built, and Biblically faithful exegesis depends on it.
There seems to be a lack of knowledge among some of today's Evangelicals concerning basic textual issues and simple ways to resolve run-of-the-mill Bible difficulties. Some are apparently ignorant of the fact that truckloads of ink has been spilled in addressing these questions. For example, the supposed "discrepancies" and "contradictions" in the Gospels and other parallel accounts (e.g. Samuel-Kings/Chronicles) have been well documented and effectively answered by a whole host of scholars and commentators. The universal conclusion of Bible-believing scholarship has been that these synoptic discrepancies typically boil down to misinterpretation by the reader, copyist's errors or emendations, and historical misunderstandings. But all of this is ignored so that the precious doctrine of Biblical errancy can be maintained.
The non-inerrantist makes the mistake of uncritically accepting the arguments of skepticism, rather than tracing and identifying the root of the apparent contradictions, and explaining the texts in a way that backs up the claim that the Bible is a divinely inspired and entirely reliable document. Evangelical errantists want to enjoy the fruit of a truthful and reliable Bible, but they don't want to lay the necessary foundation. Their belief in the "truthfulness" and "reliability" of the Bible can ultimately be no stronger than their conviction regarding the inerrancy of the originals.

Mistakes, yes . . . but Whose Mistakes?


The examples presented by Jimenez as "clear mistakes" only prove that he has not invested sufficient time in examining the factuality of the Scriptures. I will show that these are not actual errors in the process of inspiration (which would make them divine mistakes), but errors in the process of transmission (which makes them purely human mistakes). This is the point of the doctrine of inerrancy: although minor human mistakes were made in the transmission of the text, no mistakes were ever made in the process of inspiration. Let's study the four examples of Biblical "mistakes" cited by Jimenez.


Example #1
I Corinthians 10:8 Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did,and twenty-three thousand fell in one day.
Numbers 25:9 Those who died by the plague were 24,000.
This could be a simple scribal error. He wrote a 4 rather than a 3. No big deal. But there is another possibility: note that Paul says 23,000 fell in one day. Numbers says 24,000 died from the plague, without any reference to the time frame. It is easy enough to believe that 23,000 died the first day, and 1,000 died later from the lingering effects. Yet another possibility: perhaps 23,000 Israelites died from the plague, while an additional 1,000 Moabites also died, leading to the 24,000 figure in Numbers. Whatever the case, it is expected that these numbers are only estimates with an acknowledged imprecision. Inerrantists accept acknowledged imprecision as a standard and acceptable mode of communication that would be understood as such by the original readers - and should also be understood by us.


Example #2
I Samuel 31:4 Then Saul said to his armor bearer, "Draw your sword and pierce me through with it, otherwise these uncircumcised will come and pierce me through and make sport of me." But his armor bearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. So Saultook his sword and fell on it.
II Samuel 1:10 "So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knewthat he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown which was on his head and the braceletwhich was on his arm, and I have brought them hereto my lord."
The Biblical author tells the real story in Samuel. The account in Chronicles is of an Amalekite re-telling the story from his own perspective. Note the quotation marks. The resolution is obvious: the Amalekite is lying. He thinks he will gain favor with David by claiming to be Saul's killer. Ironically, this lie cost him his life. It is also ironic that his story is now used as an attack on Biblical inerrancy as well. This proves that Satan can use the same lie for different purposes.
Inerrancy affirms that the Amalekite actually said those words, and that his words were false. Errancy would dictate that the Biblical writer may have remembered the words incorrectly. That the Holy Spirit may have inspired him to write something not factually true. How can we trust a Bible that is potentially full of significant, message-altering human errors? This is where the rubber meets the road.


Example #3
II Samuel 10:18 But the Arameans fled before Israel, and David killed700 charioteers of the Arameans and 40,000 horsemen and struck down Shobach the commander of their army, and he died there.
I Chronicles 19:18 The Arameans fled before Israel, and David killed of the Arameans 7,000 charioteers and 40,000 footsoldiers, and put to death Shophach the commanderof the army.
A very easily explained scribal error. He simply forgot to write a zero. Errantists would have us believe God sanctioned this error by allowing it in the original, rather than that a human being made the error later. What, exactly, do they gain with this move? It seems calculated to discredit the inspiration and authority of Scripture.


Example #4
In Jimenez' own words: "We have different accounts of what was said in the Gospels such as Luke reporting that they cried out “Glory in the highest”, while the other Gospels says they cried out “Hosanna in the highest”.  All four Gospels report differently the wording of the inscription above the cross."
This is about as weak as an argument can get. I could recommend about 20 different books capable of correcting the erroneous thinking underlying this claim, but this post is already too long. Notice, again, that Jimenez is standing in lock step with skeptics rather than countering their fallacious claims. Are Apologetics courses no longer taught at Bible Colleges?
Using these 4 examples, Jimenez has committed the great mistake of arriving at a foregone conclusion based on scant evidence. He has made a worse mistake by trusting the claims of errant men over the claims the Bible inerrantly makes about itself.


A Biblical Case for Inerrancy


Jimenez asks:
"What does the bible say about itself?  Does it claim to be inerrant as they would have us believe?  Or does it claim something else about itself?  Where is the proof text that makes these claims?"
Now we're getting somewhere. These are the right questions. Unfortunately, the wrong answers are given. Strikingly, Jimenez offers not a single Scripture verse, while quoting his favorite scholars at length. We will attempt to correct that situation now by answering his questions from Scripture. I'd challenge Jimenez to offer up a verse that affirms "something else" than inerrancy. If he found one, I would ask him how he knows it was not a mere cultural accommodation by the writer.
Let's look at two tiny verses that completely demolish the arguments presented by advocates of Evangelical errancy. These are the pills that can cure us from mistaken views of Scripture.


Psalm 12:6 And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times


The point is made emphatic by the use of two Hebrew words for refining and purifying metal, Tsaraph and Zaqaq. The obvious meaning is that God's Word is "flawless" and does not contain any kind of impurity or falsehood. God's Word is here compared to highly purified silver (7 times!), refined in a clay furnace. The clay does not contaminate the silver, as some errantists would suggest in their "incarnational" model. Their view of inspiration is like rolling molten silver in the dirt. But according to this verse the clay is merely the container in which the silver is smelted. The word picture removes the possibility of human error contaminating the Word.
A Biblical view demands that inspiration took place under the direct involvement and sanction of the Holy Spirit, to such an extent that the Biblical text can be called the Holy Spirit's own Word. See Hebrews 3:7 and 10:15. While the writers themselves were errant, the Words given by the Spirit could not have been. Any lesser view amounts to a denial of "verbal, plenary inspiration."


II Peter 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.


The Biblical writers were men, yes - and fallen men - but they were men moved by the Holy Spirit and they spoke from God. If words contain error, they are not "from God." Denial of inerrancy is ultimately a denial of God's perfection, or a denial of inspiration. They were moved by the Holy Spirit, not by cultural accommodation. They spoke from God, not from culture.
The requested proof texts have been given. Now, compare Scripture's high view of itself with Jimenez' baffling, backhanded affirmation of a fallible inerrancy:


"I believe in inerrancy with the understanding that “The Bible contains a fallible element in the sense that it reflects the cultural limitations of the writers.  But it is not mistaken in what it purports to teach, namely, god’s will and purpose for the world” Bloesh (sic) EET, p69"


So, the Bible is inerrant only if it is fallible? That's unintelligible, like saying a towel is only dry if there is moisture in it. If the Bible ONLY touched on "God's will and purpose for the world," this would be enough. But as soon as the Bible speaks of historical events, scientific realities, or any other spheres of knowledge, its reliability as a divinely inspired text depends on its correctness in these matters as well. I daresay the real cultural limitation at work here is a postmodern refusal to accept Scripture as the only
flawless
infallible
inerrant
factual
truthful
entirely reliable
absolutely trustworthy
totally and unequivocally faultless 
Word of God. Period.


A Final Illustration


Picture a river. Its source is a mountain spring, perfectly clear and pure. Further downstream, flowing through a city, it gets muddied a bit and slightly polluted - but it is still 99.99 percent pure and completely drinkable. The Bible as we presently know it is not perfectly pure, but pure enough, and with proper effort we can strain out most of the contaminants. Those who reject inerrancy make the untenable claim that the pollution entered the Bible at its very source, in the very process of inspiration. Worse, by making this claim they actually join with skeptics and cast more pollution into the stream rather than straining out the little bit that is truly there. Thus, for them there is no pure source to work back toward, and there is no underlying perfection. This is a grave error, and the consequence - intended or not - is that both the river and it's source are viewed as less trustworthy, less healthy, less authoritative than they truly are. These are life and death issues, for we are called to take this water to the thirsty and save their lives by sharing it with them. These are not trifles.

Who Copied Whom?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? One's answer says a lot about his view of the authority of Scripture.

Scholars have pointed out the fact that creation myths, containing events similar to those in Genesis 1 and 2, were common in Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Some theorize that the content of early Genesis was adapted from these myths. They believe that the Hebrews borrowed content from their neighbors' stories, and then wrote the name of their own God over the account. Many argue from this standpoint as if it were the only possibility.

What a startling and staggering assumption! And what a limited point of view.

Portraying the Biblical author as a plagiarizing copycat rather than an inspired and faithful writer results in a nonsensical deconstruction of the text. There is no reason not to trace the Ancient Near Eastern creation myths back to the real story of creation. The myths were probably modified accounts of what was orally passed down from Adam and Eve to their progeny. Remember, Adam and Eve were eyewitnesses of some of the events, and conversed directly with their Creator. Some cultures adapted this story to suit their own purpose and attributed creation to their own false deities. While pagan cultures modified the account, thereby rendering it truly mythical, the Holy Spirit guided the Biblical author to record the real story just as it actually happened.

The trouble with reverse logic is that it seems to make sense. But the same logic can go in both directions. Chickens come from eggs and eggs come from Chickens. How can we possibly know which came first?

Turning to the Bible - our epistemological authority - there can be no doubt at all that the chicken was made before the egg was laid.

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

John Frame on the Inerrancy of Scripture

Here's an excerpt from Frame's article on inerrancy, written in 2002:

This is not a mere "modern" position. As we have seen, it is the position of Scripture itself. Augustine in the fifth century declared, "None of these (scriptural) authors has erred in any respect of writing." Infallibility⁴ is affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1 and in the Belgic Confession, Article 7.

Shall we speak today of biblical "inerrancy?" The term does, to be sure, produce confusion in some circles. Some theologians have gone far astray from the dictionary meaning of "inerrant." James Orr, for example, defined "inerrant" as "hard and fast literality in minute matters of historical, geographical, and scientific detail."⁵ Well, if "inerrancy" requires literalism, then we should renounce inerrancy; for the Bible is not always to be interpreted literally. Certainly there are important questions of Bible interpretation that one bypasses if he accepts biblical inerrancy in this sense.

But we should remember that Orr's use of the term, and the similar uses of contemporary theologians, are distortions of its meaning. Perhaps those distortions have become so frequent today as to inhibit the usefulness of the term. For the time being, however, I would like to keep the term, and explain to people who question me that I am not using it in Orr's sense, but rather to confess the historic faith of the church.

We do have a problem here: Other things being equal, I would prefer to drop all extra-scriptural terms including "infallible" and "inerrant" and simply speak, as Scripture does, of God's Word being true. That's all we mean, after all, when we say Scripture is inerrant. But modern theologians won't let me do that. They redefine "truth" so that it refers to some big theological notion⁶ , and they will not permit me to use it as meaning "correctness" or "accuracy" or "reliability." So I try the word "infallible," a historical expression that, as I indicated in a footnote above, is actually a stronger term than "inerrancy." But again, modern theologians⁷ insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than "inerrancy."

Now what is our alternative? Even "accuracy" and "reliability" have been distorted by theological pre-emption. "Correctness" seems too trivial to express what we want to say. So, although the term is overly technical and subject to some misunderstanding, I intend to keep the word "inerrant" as a description of God's Word, and I hope that my readers will do the same. The idea, of course, is more important than the word. If I can find better language that expresses the biblical doctrine to modern hearers, I will be happy to use that and drop "inerrancy." But at this moment, "inerrancy" has no adequate replacement. To drop the term in the present situation, then, can involve compromising the doctrine, and that we dare not do. God will not accept or tolerate negative human judgments concerning his holy Word. So I conclude: yes, the Bible is inerrant.

It is interesting to note Frame's frustration over the many distortions of the term, resulting from over-literal views (such as that of James Orr) on the one hand, and from minimizations of the of term's meaning on the other. The Chicago Statement seems to strike the right balance, and I am surprised Frame doesn't mention it. However, I concur with Frame's desire to affirm the Truth of Scripture as presented by Scripture.

The Evolution of Doubt - BioLogos and the Denial of Inerrancy

I paid a visit to the BioLogos Foundation's website and read through some articles. BioLogos is a group committed to the preaching of evolution as compatible with Christian Scripture and orthodoxy.

In the following comments, I detected the "scared cat" phenomenon which we examined in a recent post. The words are from Darrel Falk, President of BioLogos.

The BioLogos Foundation exists in order that the Church, especially the Evangelical Church, can come to peace with the scientific data which shows unequivocally that the universe is very old and that all of life, including humankind, has been created through a gradual process that has been taking place over the past few billion years. BioLogos exists to show that this fact (and it is a fact), need not, indeed must not, affect our relationship with God, which comes about through Jesus Christ, and is experienced by the power of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling presence. (Emphasis added)

Source

These are what we might describe as "errant presuppositions."

First, "scientific data" is just that: data. To be classified as scientific, a piece of datum has to be observable, repeatable and objective in nature. Evolutionary theory can't be proven, repeated or observed, but is constructed from an interpretation of the available data. The real "fact" is, all of the scientific data lends itself better to a Biblically consistent creation model than to an evolutionary view. Evangelicals can be perfectly at peace with this data, because it beautifully reflects the Truth and fact claims of the Bible. There is no conflict between science and the Bible until one erroneously accepts evolutionary theory as fact. At that point, one is more or less forced to ditch inerrancy.

Why go down the evolution road in the first place? It is unprovable as science, unbiblical as theology, and lacks any viability as a model of origins. Far from scientifically provable or even defensible, evolutionism amounts to little more than a bad guess at history, and one so unnatural as to require supernatural intervention to render it even remotely plausible. Like creation, theistic evolution is a supernatural theory. But unlike creation, it asks us to believe in the wrong miracle. It's approximately equivalent to arguing that Jesus didn't actually die and resurrect, but instead exercised His divine power to make His followers think He did. That would indeed be a miracle, but like theistic evolution it would be the wrong miracle because it is not the Biblical one. Like theistic evolution, it would violently wrench the clear meaning of the text and require a denial of inerrancy. How is it that people who claim to believe in things as intellectually difficult as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ seem to lack the guts to stand up to evolutionary pseudo-science?

Second, the sheer arrogance and folly of any claim to know factually and unquestioningly, apart from divine revelation (or in this case contrary to divine revelation), events that took place in the distant prehistoric past, should be evident to all thinking persons. A callous denigration of Biblical authority is so clearly manifested in the official statements of BioLogos that all Bible believers should unanimously arise to vote down the perpetrators by calling their unbelief exactly what it is: an unorthodox denial of essential Biblical doctrine. Instead, BioLogos has become a haven for scholars like Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns - men who claim to be conservative but hold that the Bible leads us astray in some of its statements. Many who call themselves Evangelical flock there to "discuss" their denial of the Truth.

Here is a curios irony. Scholars who reject inerrancy tell us the Biblical writers absorbed false assumptions from their culture and allowed them to get into the text of Scripture (clearly denying he Holy Spirit's role as the inspiring purifier of their words). Yet these scholars themselves have absorbed evolutionary assumptions from their own culture and allowed those assumptions to distort their views of Scripture (thus elevating their own thinking as superior to the Word). So they are doing the very thing they accuse the Biblical writers of, and they are raising their own reasoning above the clear teaching of God-breathed revelation.

Since God emphatically affirms the inspiration of the Bible, and He makes no such guarantee regarding the works of contemporary Evangelical authors (but actually predicts a great deception with woolly wolves), we have good reason to set our full confidence on the facts as presented in a totally truthful Bible. Rather than rejecting inerrancy, let us summarily reject the fallacies of BioLogos and its scholars.

Al Mohler on the Inerrancy Battle

Great article here:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/08/16/the-inerrancy-of-scripture-the-fifty-years-war-and-counting/?)

It's interesting to see Dr. Mohler identify a connection between the acceptance of evolution and the denial of inerrancy. That does seem to be driving some scholars' rejection of the doctrine. Additionally, he notes the claims of Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks, and he promises to write more on inerrancy in the coming weeks.

Here is an excerpt from Dr. Mohler's article:

We now confront open calls to accept and affirm that there are indeed errors in the Bible. It is demanded that we accept the fact that the human authors of the Bible often erred because of their limited knowledge and erroneous assumptions about reality. We must, it is argued, abandon the claim that the Bible is a consistent whole. Rather, we are told to accept the claims that the human authors of Scripture were just plain wrong in some texts — even in texts that define God and his ways. We are told that some texts are just “down-right sinister or evil.”

And, note clearly, we are told that we must do this in order to save evangelicalism from an intellectual disaster.

Of course, accepting this demand amounts to a theological disaster of incalculable magnitude. Rarely has this been more apparent and undeniable. The rejection of the Bible’s inerrancy will please the evangelical revisionists, but it will rob the church of its secure knowledge that the Bible is indeed true, trustworthy and fully authoritative.

Has the Doctrine of Inerrancy Outlived Its Usefulness? PART 2

In a recent post, I offered a response to the first installment in Robert Jimenez's series on the doctrine of inerrancy. Jimenez has now posted part 2 of the series.

This installment simply attempts to define the doctrine, and Jimenez has defined it well. To accomplish this, he cites the following quotations:

"If God cannot err, and the original text was breathed out by God, then it follows that the original text of the Bible is without error." ~Norman Geisler

"Inspiration is the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit, who through the different personalities and literary styles of the chosen human authors invested the very words of the original books of Holy Scripture, alone and in their entirety, as the very Word of God without error in all that they teach or imply (including history and science), and the Bible is thereby the infallible rule and final authority for faith and practice of all believers." ~Norman Geisler

“There is one human characteristic the Bible does not have: errors.” ~Norman Geisler

“inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact” ~Wayne Grudem

I commented as follows:

From all I’ve seen, I think you offer a good survey of the inerrantist position here. More could be said, or course, about the qualifications regarding genre, authorial intent, phenomenological language, acknowledged imprecision, etc. but you have correctly stated the core concept in my opinion. It’s always helpful to define terms.

Another commenter gave a lengthy treatise describing his rejection of the doctrine. In it, he stated the following:

I think we have to determine the difference between the words fact and truth. I would say Scripture is fully true, but might not be error-free in its fact presentations.

The greatest example, of which even inerrantists (is that a word) would agree, is the idea that parables are not fact. They teach truth, no doubt. But they are not factual stories. It is a fact that Jesus told parables. But the parables, in themselves, are not fact. But they are truth.

And I think this is where modern Christians get mixed up. So we must note such a difference when we read in 2 Samuel 7:16 the report of Nathan’s prophecy to David – And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever. And then read what 1 Chronicles 17:14 reports – but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.

From a factual standpoint, one or both could be wrong. But the truth is communicated in both accounts . . .

This reasoning is absurd. First, regarding the parables, inerrancy is not the least bit threatened by an acknowledgement that parables are fictional stories. Inerrancy recognizes the use of literary genres within the Bible, and in fact demands that we interpret them accordingly. It calls us to interpret parables as parables and doesn't demand more from the text than Jesus Himself meant to put into it.


The commenter goes on to cross hermeneutical lines and apply parable logic to historical narratives. But the genre-specific rules of interpretation cannot be transferred in this way. We have to treat historical narrative as historical narrative. Dealing with parallel accounts of a historical event can be challenging, but not so challenging that we have to pretend the actual history is false or irrelevant. In the two texts, God Himself is quoted as speaking "for real," at a specific time and place in history, to a specific person, about specific events, through the prophet Nathan (who was a real historical person). It's not a parable, and it can't be treated like a parable. The two accounts may appear to contradict, but neither account can be "wrong" in any way. It is likely that Nathan the prophet uttered both statements, but each writer, guided by the Holy Spirit, included the particular statement that was most suitable to his purpose (this is a common phenomenon in Scripture - and such omissions are not errors). It is certain that the apparent contradiction between the two accounts was intentionally placed there by the Holy Spirit - the Breather of Scripture - in order to get our attention. In a very real sense, which the Holy Spirit surely wants us to recognize, the throne of Solomon is a continuation of the throne of David. The house and kingdom of David are ultimately the house an d kingdom of God, through which He will send His own Son. Problem solved, inerrancy held intact. This is a classic example of a textual paradox, which is neither contradictory nor erroneous.


Not only does the commenter's approach dismantle precious Biblical Truth and erode the authority of Scripture by its erroneous assertions, it also misses the beautiful and edifying POINT of the texts it butchers. May God keep us from fallaciously rationalizing away inerrancy in this manner. We can recognize that there are Bible difficulties without conceding that there are Bible errors. Instead of affirming errors, we should seek explanations that are consistent with the character of the Book.

Jimenez's next post in the series will attempt to trace the historical origins of the doctrine of inerrancy. While I do not expect to agree with his ultimate conclusions, and I will probably argue against them vigorously, I hope to enjoy a good education along the way.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Sola Scriptura!
Sola Gratia!