Posted on 08/14/2006 11:19:14 AM PDT by Gamecock
Sola Scriptura is a latin phrase which was coined by the Reformed Church during the 1500's. It means 'scripture solely' or, 'scripture alone.' By these words the faithful Christians of this era were standing up for the Biblical principle that the Holy Scriptures were God's inspired Word, and as such were the sole infallible rule of faith. By definition the Word of God had to be the ultimate authority for the Church, and not (as some had supposed) the Roman catholic church, it's pope, and magisterium. Since the position of the Roman church was mutually exclusive to that of those faithful Christians who protested it (and thus were labled, protestants), both obviously could not be correct. If the faithful Christian Church was going to stand on God's Word as the ultimate or supreme authority, then there would have to be a 'reforming' of that Church. A restoring of faith in the laws of God which the Church had fallen away from. Much like when a criminal reforms himself to now obey the laws which were always there, but which he had previously neglected. Likewise, these faithful Christians understood that they had erred and must return to the former obedience and reliance upon God's law. A good analogy is in the Old Testament when the Priest Hilkiah brought the law of God (that had been previously neglected) to the faithful King Josiah and He, reading God's law, understood this principle of being reformed from breaking the law.
2nd Kings 22:10-13
Likewise these faithful Reformers read God's law and understood that their fathers had not harkened unto the Words of the Book. Thus, on October 31, 1517, for all intents and purposes the Reformation began when a German Monk by the name of Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Roman Catholic Church door in Wittenberg Germany. The faithful would no longer forsake the laws of God's book in favor of tradition, and would return to the Biblical precepts of not leaning unto their own understanding or that of their Church leaders, but upon the Scriptures alone (Sola Scriptura) as their ultimate authority.
Actually, calling it 'Sola Scriptura' might be contrued as a bit of a misnomer, because it is not a doctrine which teaches that we believe that there are not other authorities, nor that they have no value or place. Rather, it means that all other authorities must be subordinate to the Word of God. Thus the phrase 'Sola scriptura' implies several things. First, that the scriptures are a direct revelation from God, and as such are His authoritative Word. It is also a term which illustrates that the scriptures are all that is necessary for Christian faith and practice today. Not only that the scriptures are sufficient, but that they also are the ultimate and final court of appeal on all doctrinal matters. Because however good and faithful Church fathers may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, pastors, teachers, popes, and councils, are still fallible. The only infallible 'source' for truth is God. And besides God Himself, only His Holy Words (the Scriptures alone) are infallible.
The Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura ultimately pointed to a most basic concern of the faithful Church of that day, which was expressed in their cry of Soli Deo Gloria, or, 'to God alone be the Glory.' This expresses the true Christian perspective that God should receive all the Glory, and that this is done by man keeping His Word as their supreme authority. The infallible head of the Church is Christ, and not a fallible man. And so the Authority of the Church must likewise be His infallible Word, and not the words of men. No matter how faithful they might appear, they are still the word of men and thus subordinate to God's word. What is called Sola Scriptura both was, and is, essential to true Christianity. For it is the difference between God's traditions and ordinances, and man's traditions and ordinances.
What some call the oral traditions of the Church are subject to change, development, degeneration, and deviation. There is absolutely no guarantee given by God or by Scripture (His Word) that such an oral tradition would be either preserved, or needed. Indeed, 2nd Timothy chapter 3 strongly implies such was not needed.
2nd Timothy 3:16-17
The Old Testament 'scriptures' thoroughly furnished man of that day unto all good works, and Christ continually referenced it to prove truths. Jesus and others read and quoted Scripture (never any oral traditions, except to condemn them). That's not an insignificant fact. Likewise, when Satan tested Jesus, the Lord made reference to 'the authority of scripture' to prove the devil wrong.
Matthew 4:3-4
What proceeds out of the mouth of God is His Holy, and this is 'written in the Bible.' That is what Jesus says man lives by, and it is what we are to live by. The Word of God, and not the words of men. No matter how faithful Christians may appear, their word is subordinate to God's Word. Jesus could have answered Satan any way that He wanted, for He is God and an original and perfect answer He could have spoken afresh at any moment. But instead, Christ pointed to what was already written in the scriptures as the reply to the adversary. i.e., that was the perfect answer! What God had inspired to be written, not the oral tradition of the day, but what had proceedeth from God's mouth and had been written in His Holy book. And this deferral to what was written in the scriptures is a lesson for all faithful Christians in what authority we should seek to prove Biblical truths. And Jesus did this not only in answering un-biblical assertions, but also when presented with scripture that was taken out of context. Jesus again defers 'to other scriptures' which qualifies the scripture in question. For example:
Matthew 4:5-11
In other words, Jesus replies to scripture taken out of context with an additional scripture which clarifies it (not denies it). In doing this, He makes sure we see the meaning of that first scripture was that, 'Yes, God will watch over us, but that doesn't mean that we can test/tempt the Lord God.' This is just another pertinent example God illustrating the authority of Scripture, even in the face of those who present other scriptures taken out of context. The Perfect answer by Christ to combat erroneous understanding of scripture, was for Him to quote 'additional Scripture' which shed more light on it's true meaning. i.e., scripture was 'still authoritative' over whatever scripture that anyone would attempt to misuse or misapply.
Matthew 4:8
Again, Jesus presents scripture, God's Word, to counter Satan's ideas and visions of glory. He says, 'It is Written!' In other words, Jesus says God's Word declares thus and thus. He never says, the Priests say, or our leaders say, or oral tradition says. Jesus, our example, says, 'it is written.' This is a representative sample or model of the posture we are to take in order to try or test the Spirits to see whether they be of God. We compare their words to God's Word, countering their tradition with the authority of God's Word. The same can be said about any debate of the doctrines of the Church. The correct principle in faithful Hermeneutics is to always defer to sound and ordered exegesis of scripture, and not to traditions or the heads of the Church. This is precisely as Jesus demonstrated in His debates with the religious leaders of His day. He appealed to the Scriptures, not to these congregational leaders, traditions, or any ecclesiastical body. The authority He appealed to, was scripture.
Matthew 21:42
There are some Roman catholic church apologists that declare this doctrine was not even heard of until 'the reformation' of the 16th century. This of course is an inaccurate and self serving claim, which can be proven false quite easily (even apart from scripture). Read this quote from the 5th century, 1100 years before the Reformation and see if you can guess who wrote it:
This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
Do you know who authored this affirmation of the principle of Sola Scriptura, the doctrine of ultimate or paramount authority of the scriptures? The author is saint Augustine of Hippo. It's a quote taken directly from his book 'City of God' (book 11, Chapter 3). This unambiguous declaration by Augustine is about as definitive a statement for Sola Scriptura as any Protestant declaration I've read. So this argument, by Biblical and historical proofs, fails miserably. The Word of God both is, and was the Supreme authority of the Church. The phrase Sola scriptura is a latin term, but obviously that doesn't mean that what it delineates was not Church doctrine from the beginning. The faithful fathers, Christ Himself, and the Apostles, all deferred to authority of scripture.
Can the scriptures contradict what some allege is 'oral apostolic tradition,' and yet that tradition still be of God? The answer of course is a resounding, No! God is not the author of confusion. The undeniable fact is, two infallible God-breathed sources cannot contradict each other. Else, at least one of them is not infallible. That is a fact. Yet God's Word and Roman catholic church traditions constantly contradict each other. This should alert any faithful student of scripture that one is neither infallible, nor of God. And these are just a few of the myriad of examples..
- The Word of God teaches that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23; Ezekiel 18:4,20), and that all sin is purged and we were purified in Christ, by the cross. Roman catholic traditions teach that sin can be purged later, in a place called Purgatory (place of purifying). This is Heresy!
- The Word of God teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1) but Roman tradition says they are different offices.
- The Scriptures of God teaches that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:28, 10:10), while Roman catholic tradition corrects this, claiming that the Priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at mass.
- The Word of God teaches that we should not use vain repetitions in prayers (Matthew 6:7) thinking that we will be heard for our much speaking, while the Roman catholic traditions teach repeating Hail Mary in prayer as penitence 'as if' God indeed will hear us for our much repetition.
- The Word of God teach that all have sinned except Jesus (Romans 3:10-12, Hebrews 4:15), while Roman catholic traditions claim that's not true, as Mary was also sinless.
- The Holy scriptures teaches that all Christians are Saints and Priests (Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9), but Roman Catholic tradition has made Saints and Priests special cases and offices within the Christian community, dealt out by their Church leadership.
- The Word of God says that we are not to bow down to statues (Exodus 20:4-5), but the Roman catholic tradition makes no such claim, nor rebukes Christians for this practice.
- The Word of God says that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but Roman catholic tradition claims Mary is co-mediator with Christ.
- The Word of God says that Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the Church rests, the foundation stone, and the Head of the Church (Luke 6:48, 1st Peter 2:7-8, Matthew 16:18), But Roman catholic tradition claims that the foundation Rock of the Church is Pope Peter, and that the pontiff is the head of the Church, an aberration which in effect makes God's Church, a two headed Church, with multiple authorities and starting foundation.
- The Word of God says that all Christians can and should know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13), but Roman catholic tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life.
The Reformers understood clearly that the words of our Saviour Jesus Christ to the Pharisees, applied equally to those of their day:
"..thus you have made the commandment of God of non effect by your traditions!" -Matthew 15:6
Comparing these traditions with God's Word, sadly we also understand that this practice of unrighteousness continues today. You simply cannot have tradition and scripture contradicting each other, while claiming both are the infallible teachings of God. It is blatant confusion. Any oral traditions passed down in the church is subject to the written Word of God, as it has always been. As it was for the Scribes and Pharisees. To deny this is tortuous of scripture and of authority.
Moreover, if there was an ongoing oral tradition (which there is not), it still would require a standard point of reference to check itself against, such as God speaking from the Mountain, or the scriptures. True Christians (under God's direction), realize the danger of Church tradition becoming corrupted by fallible men (as had been the case with the Pharisees, and throughout Biblical history), and so faithfulness requires an infallible scriptural check book. Christians led by the Spirit of God understood the need for a supreme final authoritative checkpoint to which every person must be subject. Thus the importance of maintaining the Apostles' and God's authoritative Word became of very great concern to them, even as it had previously with the scribes maintaining the Old Testament books. If we were to totally ignore the facts of history, that there was no Roman church nor Pope making the claims they now do during the first three or four centuries (as the foremost Church historians overwhelmingly attest), then we might fathom this. And if we were to wrongly assume there was such a Church headed by an infallible pope as the Roman church does, then this would not even begin to explain the importance believers placed on maintaining the texts of the New Testament. For indeed there would have been no need to maintain them at all. One would only need to consult the infallible Pope, who, being under God's guidance would know the truth more certainly and accurately than the Apostle's written word. In 2nd Peter 1:19, where Peter said, 'we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it,' that would be worthless.
But of course, true Christians do realize that doctrine and oral tradition are indeed subject to change, development, degeneration, and deviation, and 'therefore' require a standard point of God breathed reference to check itself against. Scripture supplied and continues to supply this check. By this only we can try (test) the spirits to know whether they be of God or not (1st John 4:1). How would we do this without the authority of scripture? How would have the Priest Hilkiah? Tradition which proclaims what is non-scriptural cannot have absolute authority; It may have the authority of age, antiquity, or large consent, but it does not have ultimate compulsion or necessity. In short, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any church, any tradition, any pope or minister, is equal to Scripture. Therefore, scripture is the final authority which we try the spirits with.
Since the Bible 'is' the Word of God (as even Roman catholics whole heartily agree), then it's only rational, Biblical, and logical to profess that any other authority, cannot either contradict it, be on a par with it, nor be above it. i.e., there is no authority higher than God (what Word supersedes God's?) and no word on a par with it (what word is as good as God's?) Therefore (again logically, Biblically, and rationally speaking), in order for someone's word to be on a par with God's Word, the one speaking it would have to be God, or at the very least equal to God, or have God speak verbally to him in a voice. The Only other alternative is to be 'quoting' God from His Word. Neither the Pope, a Priest, nor anyone else is equal to God to have his word be on a par with God's Word, nor is God speaking to anyone from the smoke on the mountain or the burning Bush today, or creating new oral scriptures. The Bible is Complete, not incomplete. It needs no further additions, and condemns those who dare to add to it.
This of course is the tangled web in which the Roman church finds itself by placing tradition on a par with God's Word. For unless something is God's Word, then it cannot be equal to God's Word. And simply saying God gave it, is not sufficient for anyone to claim tradition is the Word, just as it wouldn't be for the traditions that the Pharisees held and Jesus condemned, saying, it made the Word of God of non effect.
True, God breathed His Word through the apostles that their words became the 'Word of God,' just as He did Old Testament scripture. But unless God is continuing to write his book (the scriptures) through the Roman church, then that giving of the law through those who penned scripture has ended. If it has not ended, then the Pope must rip out the page of Revelation where God says don't add to His word and throw it away. He must then proclaim the Bible incomplete, and write down every infallible Word that he (supposedly) receives of God, and place it on the pages of the Bible uncondemned for it, as it is the Word of God. ..'if' what he claims is true. If tradition was on a par with God's Word, then it would be God's Word. In fact, then there would 'again' be no oral tradition, as it would join the written Word of God 'as' the Word of God. God's Word is something God wants us to hear and obey. This is the tangled web that is woven by this un-biblical dogma of the old Roman church.
More than that, tradition can become corrupt in the congregation of God (even as it certainly had with the Pharisees in Jesus' day -mark 7:9, and in King Josiah's day), and so common sense dictates that it simply cannot and must not be trusted as the ultimate authority as the Word of God is. The words and doctrines of men are often unjustifiable by scripture, and even contradictory to it. Not surprisingly, scripture bears out the truth that any tradition or ordinance must be subordinate to the Word. Jesus made it quite clear that we simply cannot hold to any traditions which are not subordinate to scripture, and that teaching such doctrines are contrary to the gospel of Christ. Consider wisely:
Mark 7:6-8
This was no slap on the wrist, it was the worst of judgments upon them for setting aside the Word of God in order that they could keep their traditions. The exact same error of the Roman church today. The error of the religious leaders was that they had put tradition on a par with the written Word of God. In fact, they had made it superior to Scripture, as the commandments were interpreted 'by their tradition,' which makes scripture subject to it instead of vice versa. Christ rebuked them in the strongest of terms illustrating that the tradition of their congregation was subject to the scriptures, and scripture not to their tradition. Any argument which denies this (considering scriptures such as this one), is indefensible. Jesus would not have condemned them for their traditions if the tradition of God's chosen people was on a par with scripture. It made no biblical sense then, and it makes no biblical sense now.
Proverbs 30:5-6
This is a solemn declaration that every word of God is tried and pure and that we are not to add to His words, lest we be found liars. This law of God is an enduring restriction on God's revelation. Holy men of old who spake as they were inspired of God, wrote scripture. Those scriptures are now finished or complete. This is not an ongoing book. As God's people, under God's care, we have the authority of God's Word. No other supreme authorities, or institution, or object, is so circumscribed. Note that in Ecclesiastes, after reflecting on the vanity of life, the Preacher summarizes our basic duty as to, 'fear God and keep His commandments (Eccl. 12:13). We must not add to God's Word by claiming traditions are God's Word. Those who love God keep His Word alone as the authority.
Understanding this, we therefore know that those who reject the scripture today as the only 'infallible' rule of faith and practice, ultimately are subordinating the Word of God to tradition by making congregational tradition and leadership the interpreter of God's Word. It sets the words of men in the Church (no matter how faithful they may be) on a par with God's Word, and this is a dangerous and un-biblical thing to do. Every individual is ultimately responsible for what he believes, not the Church, not his Priest, and not his leader. Each man is judged for his own sin. We are all responsible to study the Bible, not leave that for others to do for us. And indeed Jesus Himself said,
John 12:48
No one practicing the Roman church doctrine of Church authority, will be able to stand before God at the judgment and plead, "..the Pope and the Magisterium, or my Priest told me to believe in this or that." There is no such 'excuse' available to man. We are to listen to God's Word rather than their word, and neglecting this, we will be judged for it. We therefore should carefully consider which authority is really infallible, and which we should follow. God's Word (a given), or our church tradition.
John 10;27
What is the voice of Christ? Is it Church leadership, a Priest, the Magisterium, or is it the Word of God? Certainly this is the crux of the matter. The truth is, it is God's Word alone that should be the final authority in matters of faith, practice, and doctrine of the Church (not the only authority, but the final, supreme and ultimate Authority).
The Lord Jesus Christ, replete with examples, taught us this principle. As when the Pharisees argued with Jesus the points of the law of God concerning the Sabbath. Did Jesus petition tradition to speak concerning it? Did He lean to ecumenical counsels? Did He say check with the High Priest? No, He showed that we are to lean upon the written Word.
Matthew 12:3-5
Matthew 19:4-5
Matthew 22:31-32
Luke 10:26
Matthew 22:29
Matthew 26:24
John 5:39
Most Roman catholics object to Sola Scriptura from two distinct positions. They argue that:
(#1) The New Testament references to oral "tradition" (II Thess. 2:15; II Tim. 2:2; II Cor. 11:2) illustrate the unbiblicalness of this teaching, and that(#2) The Scripture nowhere teaches the doctrine.
Isn't it ironic that in both cases 'they appeal to scripture' (though unjustifiably) as the final proof or authority that their traditions are correct? When it suits their purpose, they can always appeal to scripture (as in the keys of the kingdom, Peter the Rock, translations of words describing Mary's other Children, etc.) as the final say, but when it doesn't suit their purpose, curiously, scripture isn't really the final authority on doctrine.
Nevertheless, the first argument is based upon a simplistic and naive understanding of Sola Scriptura in that it presupposes the doctrine means there was never any oral tradition or teaching done. This of course would be ludicrous, as much of the New Testament was oral tradition or teaching of God before it was written down (see the Study on 'Traditions of men vs. Traditions of God'). I have yet to find anyone except catholics themselves who believes Sola Scriptura means what they purport. So this argument is the proverbial "Straw Man" argument. Things revealed to Peter, and which he was inspired of God to say (oral tradition or ordinances) became the written 'Word of God' as they were penned, just as the Old Testament was. But the Bible is complete today. i.e., there is no New Newer Testament book of Pope John, or Pope this or that, as there is a book of Peter, or John, or jude, etc. Because the Word of God is finished, complete, and not to be added to.
In so far as the second argument is concerned, as I've been demonstrating throughout this document, scripture clearly teaches what has been labled 'Sola Scriptura,' from the beginning of it to the end. But it requires the Holy Spirit of God to discern this, just as any doctrine of scripture does. To simply say scripture doesn't teach it, despite the mountain of scriptures supporting it, is to stick ones head in the proverbial sand. With Jesus proving that what He says is true by directing us to the scriptures, it would seem that the Roman church and Pope would likewise direct all to the scriptures. Instead, they claim an infallible authority 'over' the scripture itself, alleging that only they can interpret it. What arrogance and vanity is this?
It would seem to me that given the abundance of examples and illustrations of God, the onus is on the Roman church to 'disprove' the sufficiency of scripture, rather than on the Church to prove it's insufficiency. Because both sides agree scripture 'is' the Word of God, and no other authority is above God. How then is it insufficient? But saying this, the Roman church has a mystery that is a riddle inside an enigma. How is no other authority above God's, while God's Word is subject to church teachings? It makes no sense. How is scripture not sufficient, and yet God declare that there cannot be added anything else to it?
In order to disprove sufficiency of scripture, one would need to show us exactly where oral tradition differs from Scripture. If it doesn't differ, then what is the need of oral tradition, and why does God say scripture thoroughly furnished them unto all good works? And If oral tradition is not found taught in the scriptures (because it presumably differs from), one must then prove that the 'oral revelation' which was not found in scripture, is apostolic and of divine origin. Despite claims of such proof by some, no such proof exists. Therefore, they cannot prove any oral tradition handed down through tradition of a church, is of God. While scripture proves itself, interprets itself, and defines itself, in our comparing it with itself.
The fact is, the reason that the early Churches of the second century were so diligent in collecting and preserving the New Testament writings of Paul, John, Peter, and others in the first place, was to guard against oral teachings which could not be checked for accuracy once the apostles had all died. i.e., it's God himself inspiring them to preserve His Holy Word, as He did with the Old Testament Scriptures before the first advent of Christ. Sola Scriptura does not mean the rejection of every tradition, Sola Scriptura means that any form of tradition must be tested by the higher authority, and that authority can only be God (and thus God's inspired Holy Word, the Bible).
The Roman church error in the dogma of Church traditions lies in creating a dichotomy between two things that cannot be separated, and then using that false dichotomy to deny Sola Scriptura.
1st Corinthians 11:2
There is simply nothing in these passages to support the idea of a separate oral tradition different from what was written. In order to deny Sola Scriptura, we must make the erroneous 'assumption' that what Paul taught in the presence of many witnesses is different from what he wrote to entire Church. Is such an idea founded in reality? Of course not. It is rationalization of oral tradition, not proof of it.
1st Thessalonians. 2:13
There is nothing future about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that 'will be' delivered? Does Paul say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? No, this oral teaching which he refers to has already been delivered to the entire Church at Thessalonica. ..Now, what does oral refer to? We first note that the context of the passage is the Gospel and its work among the Thessalonians. The traditions Paul speaks of are not traditions about Mary, Purgatory, Repetitions of hail Mary, or Papal Infallibility. Instead, the traditions Paul refers to have to do with a single topic. One that is close to his heart. He is encouraging these believers to stand firm--in what? Was it in oral traditions about subjects not found in the New Testament? No, he is exhorting them to stand firm in what he has orally taught them of what is in the gospel. The Old Testament concealed is the New Testament revealed. There is simply nothing in these passages to support the theory of a separate oral tradition different from what was written or what Paul taught. It says what Paul taught whether by word, or our epistle or letter. Likewise note that in passages like 2nd Peter 3:2, Peter stresses the consistency of his teaching with that of the prophets, and of the other apostles. The unity of the Old Testament with the apostolic writings is illustrated in passages such as 1st Peter 1:10-12, and 2nd Peter 1:19-21.
One example of what is known as Sola Scriptura is made plain in the Abrahamic covenant. God again reveals Himself, apart from a divine expositor, and pledges Himself to fulfill His covenant (Gen. 15). When Abram seeks confirmation of God's Glorious Promises, the Lord confirms His divine Word by His divine Word.
Hebrews 6:13
No Pontiff or magisterium or sacred tradition is invoked to verify God's Word. That's an important point not to be missed. The supreme authority is the Lord's 'own testimony' to His Word. No further appeal is possible. He didn't swear by the Priests, He swore by Himself. Nothing else could confirm God's own Word but God Alone. Other than Himself, His Holy Word stands alone as the supreme authority. Truly, what other authority is on a par? ..Higher? ..Better? ..from a better platform? ..more Trustworthy? ..infallible? ..the answer is None! Which is why Jesus always directed those with questions and objections to His teachings in the scriptures. Both ancient theology endorses this, as well as the New Testament Church. As in the past, God's people may discern truth by going directly to the scriptures. As God explained in the parable when confronted with the question of how they would believe.
Luke 16:29
And likewise, Christ did not direct anyone to secondary explications or extra-Biblical Hebrew traditions (though plentiful) as authoritative norms, but He directed them continually to examine the Word of God itself. He alternately declares, 'read the scriptures, it is written, search the scriptures, have ye not read, as saith the scriptures, that the scriptures might be fulfilled, as saith Isaiah, etc., etc." And in the New testament, the exhortation to the authority of scripture continues, (Rom. 15:4; Eph. 6:17; II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:3). Scripture commends those who examine the written revelation of God (as open minded, and more noble -Acts 17:11) and illustrates that Christians have the ability to rightly divide and interpret scripture apart from any (supposed) infallible interpreter whether Church or pontiff (II Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11). Interpretation must come from the Word of God. As a little child humbly, honestly and simplistically asked:
And all God's people said, ...A M E N ! Out of the mouth of babes!
For knowing the nature of man, that indeed is a good question. Again, note the manner in which Christ refuted error. It was, 'God said thus, but you say..' (Matt. 15:4-5; 10-11). That was the manner in which He drew a clear, concise contrast between the written Word of God and the traditions of men. Let that be a lesson unto us.
1st Peter 2:21
We can readily understand the frustration of those who are indoctrinated and thus think Christians should listen to the Roman church instead of God, and how it's annoying to them when we won't bow to that church authority. But there is a very clear warning about making man the authority in the Church in 2nd Thessalonians 2. Man must never sit to 'rule' in the Temple of God 'as if' he was God. Only God can rule (have ultimate authority) over the Church. And God's Word is the Bible. And so really, what's to debate?
The fact is, the only way that man is going to stand with the righteous, overcoming in Christ, is if he has 'kept' the Word of God as truth, and the word of man as error. Belief in the Word of God over man's words of tradition is what separates true believers from false ones. It's what separates those who can and will be deceived, from the Elect who can never be deceived into false Gospels. We know what the truth is because we know 'where' the truth is. It's in the Word from God alone, not in the men who lead the Church. The faithful Church is the witness of God's truth. It bears testimony to God's truth, and that's what makes it the Pillar and ground of this truth. Faithfulness to truth (which is God's Word, not man's word) makes us as a tree planted by the rivers of life. God's Word is true. As it is written,
Romans 3:3
The truth is in God's Word, not in the words of Pontiff J., or Pastor Brown, or Church tradition 88, or Tony Warren. The Truth is in God's Word. And if we don't read it in God's Word, then it's not God's Word. In determining which word has the authority, let God be true, and every man a Liar.
Let us therefore remember that scripture declares that if we build upon a foundation that is not the Word of God, and will not hear God's Word, then we build on a foundation which will crumble when the winds blow and the rains come (luke 6:47-49). God likens us then to a foolish man. The wise in Christ will build upon God's Word alone as the supreme authority. Sola Scriptura! A firm foundation on the Word of God, which will never fall.
May the Lord who is Gracious and merciful above all, give us the wisdom and understanding to come to the truth of His most Holy Word.
A m e n !
Copyright ©1998 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! http://members.aol.com/twarren10/
-------------------------*---------------------------
Feel free to copy, duplicate, display or distribute this publication to anyone who would like a copy, as long as the above copyright notice remains intact and there are no changes made to the article. This publication can be distributed only in it's original form, unedited, and without cost.
Created 8/3/98 / Last Modified 3/23/02
I'm just reading, dude:
Mat 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jon 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Even if it wasn't exactly 72 hours, Friday/Sunday isn't enough time.
The Hebrew way of reckoning time is not the same as what we are used to (thus my question about "72 hours" in the Bible).
The phrase "three days and three nights" can mean any portion a period of time that covers a three day period.
When you hear "three days and three nights" don't think "3 pm on Wednesday until 3 pm on Saturday". That's a modern, Western view of time.
First of all, in the Hebrew culture, time doesn't start with zero, it starts with 1. So you have day 1, day 2, and day 3. Any part of day 1 is "one day". Any part of day 1 and day 2 is "two days". And so on.
Look at an example in Scripture:
"So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights." (1 Sam. 30:12)
Now look at the next verse:
"Then David said to him, 'To whom do you belong, and where are you from?' And he said, 'I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick.'"
Note how "three days ago" corresponds to "three days and three nights". If a literal 72 hours period were in view, we would think of this time period as "four days ago", not three.
Jesus uses similar language in Luke 13:32,33:
"And He said to them, "Go, tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.' Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem."
Using the same language as Jesus, it is quite reasonable to speak of the days of His crucifixion as being "today" (Friday), "tomorrow" (Saturday/sabbath), "and the third day" (Sunday).
All these passages and other help us to understand the historical and cultural setting from which these phrases arise.
That's all I got, btw. Quiver empty. I don't care which day Jesus was resurrected. The fact that He was resurrected 3 days and 3 nights after He was crucified is plenty for me.
Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
???
You just can't shoehorn all the stuff that happened into Friday, have the ladies rest on just one Sabbath, and then have a Sunday morning resurrection.
You can't?? According to whose theory?
It doesn't add up and it isn't enough time to fulfill the Jonas prophesy.
Unless you don't understand the prophecy.
Another passage to consider which bears on this issue:
"Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared." (Luke 24:1)
What follows in this chapter is Luke's record of what happened on that resurrection Sunday. As we read on we find:
"He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.' " (v. 6).
Recall the Hebrew way of counting, esp. days. And then we read:
"But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened." (v. 21)
Friday, Saturday, Sunday would get the disciples to the "third day". They understood the word Jesus had spoken, and that means they also understood the prophecy of Jonah.
It's all there and it all makes perfect sense.
It's math, not prophesy. And could you please refrain from trying to insult me every post.
Jesus said he was going to be in the heart of the earth for 3 days and 3 nights. Let's say He died early enough of Friday to count friday. Then you have Friday day, Friday night, Saturday Day, Saturday night, and resurrected Sunday morning. Now, even if you count Sunday morning as a day, you're still short one night.
"He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.' " (v. 6).
Using your previous post regarding the way the Hebrews counted the days, this says Jesus was resurrected on Tuesday.
The problem with using this as proof is that the "days ago" is how many days ago he fell sick, and "three days and three nights" is how long ago he didn't eat or drink. The two things are not neccesarily related. You're drawing the conclusion that the two events (not eating, and being sick) must match up. You're assuming that he didn't eat anything or drink on the first day or night that he was sick.
But let's get to the meat of the matter:
Mat 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Compare with:
Jon 1:17 And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights.
Scripturally, Jesus HAD to be in the grave the same amount of time that Jonah was in the fish or else he was not the messiah.
So let's look at it the opposite way...how long was Jonah IN the fish? As far as I can tell, it has always been understood to be literally three days and three nights. Not parts of days and nights to equal 3, but a literal three days and three nights.
However, you are espousing the position that no, Jonah was NOT actually in the fish for three days and three nights, but was in the fish for something less than three days and three nights and that this too, is an idiom. In fact, your position is that this idiom is applied TWICE, once in the new testament and once in the old testament, to designate a time period that IS KNOWN.
Let me repeat this is bold: Your position is that this idiom is applied TWICE, once in the new testament and once in the old testament, to designate a time period that IS KNOWN.
In other words, instead of just putting down the actual number of days and nights that Jonah was in the fish AND Jesus was in the earth, God had to generalize and confuse the issue by inspiring a non-specific idiom to be used. Is that credible?
Now from some preliminary research I've done, the understanding of the story of Jonah is that it's a literal three days and three nights that Jonah was in the fish and that this has been the understanding for milleniums. I've emailed the question to a rabbi to ask if what the traditional jewish understanding was of the time frame that Jonah spent in the fish. I'll share that info when it comes.
Why 72 hours? Because Jesus Christ affirms that a day is 12 hours:
Joh 11:9 Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world.
Since a day is 12 hours, then a night is also 12 hours.
Let me illustrate this another way.
Mat 12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You."
Mat 12:39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
Mat 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
You're saying that Jesus Christ was basing his messiahship on an idiom who's exact time length was unknown AT THE TIME. Or, you're saying that the Pharisee's understood that Jonah was NOT in the fish three days and three nights, but instead was only in there 2 nights and 1 day. How they knew this without Christ being dead in the grave is a mystery indeed.
"Teacher, we want to see a sign from You."
Yeah....that's always been an amazement to me also...his one and only sign proving his Messiah ship.....and some folks think he meant only a day and a half. Three days and three nights does not line up with their tradition. But....most other scripture does not line up with their tradition either. Why should I express surprise?
Blessed Sabbath to you Douglas.
Mat 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Compare with:
Jon 1:17 And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights.
Scripturally, Jesus HAD to be in the grave the same amount of time that Jonah was in the fish or else he was not the messiah.
Perhaps, but Mat 12:40 doesn't say Jesus. It says "son of man" (idiom for a human being). And it doesn't say grave, it says "heart of the earth". Resurrection timing theories aside, the traditional assumption that he spoke of himself in the grave may be correct, but considering church track record on interpretation, I'd rather mark this one as "subject to further clarification." It's not like there is another NT passage that describes Jesus by name as spending three days and three mights in the grave, so I am leery of making that leap. The closest NT reference to three days and three nights (besides Jonah) is in Revelation 11, where the two prophets lie dead in the street for three days and a half. Then they rise and are beheld by their enemies.
So unless, for example, the earth is alive with a literal beating heart, the phrase "heart of the earth" is metaphorical. Could be a grave, but a city that is spiritually equated to Sodom and Egypt is a city with a corrupt heart, and considering that...
Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
... the heart of a wicked earth would be as Sodom and Egypt. Or say, Babylon.
Besides, there are two prophets addressed as ben adam: Ezekiel, and also Daniel. I am not claiming that the prophets of Revelation 11 are literal and are Ezekiel and Daniel (e.g. the prophets could represent the two houses/sticks of Israel, and/or the Law and the Prophets, and/or the Torah rollers - etz chaim), only that a closer inspection of Mat 12:40 does lead in an alternate direction. If the followers of Jesus insist that he (Jesus) was the sign of the prophet Jonah, then they inadvertantly identify themselves with an evil and adulterous generation.
Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Yet over at Revelation 11, who observed the dead prophets in the street and sent presents to each other, happy those prophets had finally stopped harassing them?
Revelation 11:8-12
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
2588 kardia {kar-dee'-ah}
prolonged from a primary kar (Latin, cor, "heart"); TDNT - 3:605,415; n f
AV - heart 159, broken hearted + 4937 1; 160
1) the heart
1a) that organ in the animal body which is the centre of the
circulation of the blood, and hence was regarded as the seat
of physical life
1b) denotes the centre of all physical and spiritual life
2a) the vigour and sense of physical life
2b) the centre and seat of spiritual life
2b1) the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the
thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections,
purposes, endeavours
2b2) of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the
intelligence
2b3) of the will and character
2b4) of the soul so far as it is affected and stirred in a
bad way or good, or of the soul as the seat of the
sensibilities, affections, emotions, desires,
appetites, passions
1c) of the middle or central or inmost part of anything, even
though inanimate
I suspect this study will go over as "well" as it always does. :-/
Matthew 27:63 Other people referring to the three day period.
Mark 8:31 Jesus referring to himself as the "Son of Man".
Mark 9:31 Again he refers to himself as the "Son of Man".
John 2:19-21 Here he refers to his own body.
Who do you really believe he meant by the "Son of Man" designation?
Matthew 27:63 Other people referring to the three day period.
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
Sure you want to quote these guys? :-/ At least your next quote (Mark 8:31) is direct, but then again, in that particular verse, he 1) does not have to be referring to himself (I am NOT saying that he isn't referring to himself, only that it's not demanded by the text), and 2) the "after three days" gets caught up in the the timeline battles, as three days and three nights may be a longer timeframe than something occurring "after three days".
As far as your next quote (Mark 9:31):
Mark 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
Mark 9:32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
If this "son of man" (idiom for human being) is always the same person in the NT (Jesus), then there are problems reconciling "the third day", "after three days", "three days and three nights", "in three days" et al. All I am saying is, why make the assumption that "son of man" must always equate with Jesus? After all, Ezekiel for one is addressed as "son of man" ninety odd times. Yet not every "son of man" in the Hebrew Bible a reference to Ezekiel.
Who do you really believe he meant by the "Son of Man" designation?
It looks like you are of the [mistaken] impression that I believe Jesus did NOT refer to himself as the "son of man". Here's an example of when he did just that:
Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
If I insisted/assumed that every time he spoke of the son of man, he was speaking of himself, I would have problems with verses mentioning the death and resurrection timeline. I don't believe the Bible is contradictory, only that man's understanding can be lacking, leading to confusion. Slow and steady wins the race. Because "son of man" means a human, if a verse/context doesn't make absolutely clear the individual, I just won't assume something that's not there. Other passages will eventually shed light, but not if they also require certain assumptions.
I guess this is not connecting with you.
Thank you....no apology necessary.
I see right away, part of our problem. Your internet definition for the Greek word epiphosko, is different then the one I find on Blue Letter Bible
Luke 23:54 The same word "Epiphosko" meaning to draw on is only used in scripture one other time. And that other time is here.
It is my contention that the translators had a bias....to try and show a Sunday morning resurrection. If the word "EPIPHOSKO" means "to draw on" (begin) in Luke why does it mean "the dawn of the first day of the week" here?
Matthew 28:1 in the Greek say nothing about early morning. It simply says This.
To reiterate an earlier post....in both cases when this word is used it means a new day is about to begin. In Luke it is the First High Sabbath of Unleavened Bread. In Matthew it is the first day of the week. Both instances would be about sundown.
The way I recall Jewish understanding of days is not in total number of hours (24 hours=1 day, 48 hours=2 days, etc.). Rather it equates more to how a plumber bills you (any part of the hour gets charged for an hour...any part of a day gets billed as a day)
There is indeed a Hebrew idiom that counts part of one day as a whole day......unless both days and nights are mentioned....and then the meaning is literal.
It sounds like you are saying that Mark is not truely part of the inspired Word of God. That logic sounds similar to some Catholic logic, plus if some of Mark is wrong, then how can you trust any of it?
I am not saying that at all. What the Apostle John was cautioning folks about was that Mark sometimes did not have the events in proper sequence.
Read it again.....[Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions. Our notice of these circumstances may not be without its use. It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias already given, other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition. The residence of the Apostle Philip with his daughters in Hierapolis has been mentioned above. We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord. The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth. He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John. For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]
Thanks. I was beginning to think I was not being clear enough. These last few posts about "math" make it clear it's just stubbornness on their part, esp. since they have not dealt with any of the texts.
We could ask out friends, did it have to be precisely 72 hours, or could Jesus have risen after 71 hrs and 59 min? Or 72 hrs and 1 min? These questions point out how absurd their arguments would be to the Hebrew mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.