Supposed contradiction in Matt 28 and Luke 24

In the resurrection accounts of Matthew and Luke there are several things that could be disturbing to the one who does not approach the account with the pre-understanding that there are no discrepancies that cannot be explained.  The suggestion of three things to follow when “hashing” these things out by Gleason Archer begins with being fully persuaded in my own mind.  In regards I am fully persuaded that God’s word is without error and the resurrection account is literal and accurate.  That said, there is differences in Matthew and Luke with regard to the resurrection of Christ that need to be explained.

The first supposed difference in (Matt. 28:1) which says “now after the Sabbath” and (Luke 24:1) “but on the first day of the week”.  A brief understanding of the audiences helps with this.  Matthew presents Christ as King who offers a legitimate Kingdom to the Jews and his audience is mainly Jews.  Luke on the other hand presents Christ as Son of Man (the differences can be seen in the genealogies where Matthew goes to Abraham Luke goes back to Adam).  Luke writes to the Greeks.  By Jewish reckoning the day ended at sunset on Saturday and the new day began at the same time.  Saturday then by our reckoning was actually the beginning of Sunday on their calendar.  Matthew records the earthquake and Luke leaves this out.  Matthew also says that an angel rolled the stone away and Luke simply states the fact that the stone had been rolled away.  There is no discrepancy here, Matthew is simply giving more information.  Matthew mentions the guards and Luke doesn’t mention them.  This may have significance to the Jewish reader where the Gentile/Greek wouldn’t have mattered.

Matthew states that the women saw the angel sitting outside on the stone. Luke records their entrance into the tomb but places two angels standing next to them (24:3-4).  The variation can be explained easily and Ed Glasscock does just that saying – “the women arrived at the tomb, saw that the stone had been rolled aside, and an angel sitting on the stone greeted them with the news of the resurrection.  Stunned in disbelief, some of the women stepped into the tomb at the invitation of the angel on the stone (Matt 28:6)…other angels standing within the tomb asked why seek the living among the dead (Luke 24:3-7).”

By juxtaposing (especially in narrative literature) the accounts we can see the event (using all the narratives) as one dramatic account – the open tomb, the angels proclaiming the message, the women that were stunned (we all would be), some ran away should be noted, some went in the tomb.  All four gospels essentially agree in reporting the facts of the resurrection.  However the diversity of details in each of the accounts SUPPLEMENT each other rather than CONTRADICT.

The Churches Relation to the New Covenant

Please open the attachment to view a paper on the New Covenant and the Church

The Church and the New Covenant

Types in the Bible

“A type looks forward to and prefigures the antitype, whereas in an illustration the truth referred to in the New Testament is pointing back to an analogous person or situation in the Old Testament and drawing some parallels (Zuck 177).”  There are four views on interpreting types in the Bible.  These are – (1) No types in the Bible; (2) Excessive use of types; (3) Moderate View or two kinds of types; (4) the New Testament designates types.

The first view in interpreting types that says there are no types in the Bible is an extreme and I believe is incorrect.  Then there are excessive uses of types.  This seems to be the road allegorizers travel down.  There are no limits or controls placed on hermeneutics in this system.  In this system there is forced meaning in the text and historical realities are ignored.  The moderate view is the middle road which the limits and controls are minimized still.

Pentecost says “by its very nature a type is essentially prophetic in character (52).”  Fairbairn chimes in and says of a type and prophecy that “one images or prefigures (type) while the other foretells (prophecy) coming realities (106).”

I would say that the final view, that the New Testament designates types, would be the preferable one.  That being said the very term type should be understood.  “Most Bible students recognize that the Old Testament includes types that are later specified in some way in the New Testament.  The two Testaments are related by types and antitypes, shadows and fulfillments (Zuck 169).” 

“The safeguard against over imaginative misuse of the text does not lie in a retreat from the spiritual and divine nature of the Bible, or in the minimizing of its typical teaching.  The only legitimate and effective safeguard is to clearly demonstrate that the interpretation of typical passages is not a matter of whim and fancy, but of sound, cautious and logical procedure (Fairbairn X).” 

Zuck says that a type must have at least five elements.  They are “a notable resemblance or correspondence between the type and antitype, a prefiguring or predictive foreshadowing of the antitype by the type, a heightening in which the antitype is greater than the type, and divine design (Zuck 175).”  He goes on to add a sixth element which I agree with and that is – “it must be designated in the New Testament.”  Looking back on one of the basic principles of Bible interpretation – the Bible interprets itself.  The interpreter isn’t left hanging in trying to figure what God is saying.  I think where many go wrong with types is they fail to put controls on their system and confuse illustrations with types.  The Bible is full of illustration, especially those that speak to the coming Christ in the Old Testament.  Joseph was certainly an illustration of Christ.  He is the “lilly of the Valley” and the “Rose of Sharon” – but those aren’t types.  Geisler points out well I believe that there is a Christological theme in each book of the Old Testament.  “The Old Testament views Christ by way of anticipation; the New Testament views Him by way of realization (Geisler 18).”  Illustration are not specifically designated as a type in the NT.

On the other hand “a type may be defined as an OT person, event, or thing having historical reality and designed by God to prefigure in a preparatory way a real person, event, or thing so designated in the NT and that corresponds to and fulfills the type (Zuck 176).”

There must be controls and limitations in proper hermeneutics, without them the student is a ship on a large ocean with no rudder.

The Letter to Laodecia (Col 4:16)

There are a couple of views as to the statement found in Colossians 4:16 – “The epistle to the Laodecians.”

It is important to keep in mind that Paul had not been to Laodecia, so any information he had was delivered to him.  Nor had he been to Colassae as this is one of the “prison epistles.”  John Phillips interestingly notes “Paul knew something was wrong at Laodecia.  Probably Epaphras had told him all about all of the churches in Asia Minor…evidently whatever the trouble was, it was affecting the Colossian church, too.  Similarly some of the things that Paul addressed in the Colossian church were infiltrating the Laodecian church.  (Therefore) he called for a mutual sharing of the two letters (Phillips 222).”

Norman Geisler in his commentary included in the BKC says “The Laodecian letter may be the letter to the Ephesians.”  He doesn’t really come down specifically – just speculation.  However in the same BKC, Harold Hoehner contributes the Ephesians commentary, and in the preface he comments that Ephesians as well as other epistles were circular letters and that “Paul in writing Colossians urged the believer’s there to read the letter from Laodecia, which is most likely a reference to the Ephesian epistle (BKC 613, 685).”

John Knox suggests “the letter from (should be ‘to’) the Laodecians is in fact the letter to Philemon (Knox 38).”

Douglas Moo comments “that ye likewise (kai) read the letter from Laodecia – suggests that Paul is the author of both letters.  The most plausible suggestion is that the letter is Ephesians (Moo 351).”

It is also interesting to note that some of the early church fathers (Chrysostom & others) thought this letter to be “from” the Laodecian church “to” the Colossae church.

The letters Paul wrote to the churches were addressed to specific churches, however many scholars believe that these letters were circulated around Asia Minor.  They were read aloud to the assembly as a whole.  It seems to me that to say that this “mysterious” letter (which was not mysterious to the Colossians) is Ephesians is purely speculation at best.  Colossae and Laodecia were in the same region which makes me think they dealt with some of the same issues – mainly Gnosticism.  There are several parallels in Ephesians and Colossae – those parallels are very similar.  Keeping in mind these similarities, I would have to say that the “letter to the Laodecians” is a letter that has been lost.  There were other letters that Paul wrote during his ministry that were not included in the canon of Scripture, and this could be one of them.

I agree with Curtis Vaughn who writes “The Colossian Christians were to see to it that (Colossians) was read also in the Laodecian church.  Perhaps they first made a copy of it to keep and then sent the original to Laodecia.  In return the Colossians were to read the letter from Laodecia.  It has been conjectured that this is the epistle we know as Ephesians, but that is highly unlikely.  The most obvious conclusion is that Paul wrote to the Laodecian church an epistle that has not been preserved (Vaughn 226).”

If we interpret literally “the letter to the Laodecians” – then that means exactly that – a letter to the Laodecians.  Instead of worrying about what we don’t know or don’t have – God has given us plenty in what is included in the Canon – let us give ourselves to that!

Presuppositions (2 of 2)

Biblical Theology

          Scripture is the product of God – the mind of God.  He has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind through His Word and the manifestation of Himself in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Only a consistent system of theology which represents God accurately (as much as He has shown us) will be sufficient.  What is it that a consistent system of theology consists of?  I will use four presuppositional anchors for the remainder of this paper.  The first anchor is as I have mentioned already and that is the undeniable reality of an all powerful living creator Biblical God.  Secondly, the source of the Bible is God Himself.  The Bible is divine in its origin.  It was not thought up by man (Galatians 1).  The Bible doesn’t contain the thoughts of man.  The Bible is the believer’s authority in which God has chosen to reveal Himself.  Thirdly, one who is not born again cannot comprehend God’s revelation.  The Bible says that the natural man cannot comprehend the things of God.  Lastly, as I have already alluded to: a consistent grammatical/historical/literal method of Bible interpretation. 

          The aspects of theological method and theology must arrive exclusively from the Bible.  There should be no considerations from any other source – the Scripture alone – Sola Scriptura.  If external sources are brought into the equation they will undoubtedly impact method.  We must not allow influences from outside the Word of God, to impact our study of God – our theology.  Millard Erickson offers some expertise here: “A final meaning of the expression biblical theology is simply theology that is biblical, that is based on and faithful to the teachings of the Bible.  In this sense, systematic theology of the right kind will be biblical theology.  It is not simply based on biblical theology; it is biblical theology.  Our goal is systematic biblical theology (Erickson 26).”  He goes on to emphasize that we are striving for pure and true biblical theology.  Our system of theology must be arrived at from biblical theology.

First Anchor

          This anchor is the undeniable existence, without wavering, of the God of the Bible.  This is the first presupposition in Bible study and theological method.  The major works of God in Scripture all serve the doxological purpose.  God is glorified – He glorifies Himself – in the believers predestining and calling, Creation, keeping His promises, in His Church, faithfulness of believers, Christ’s ministry on earth, in sickness and even death, judgment to come, the future deliverance of Israel, and the consummation of all things.  God has revealed all of this, plus others, to mankind through His Word.  “A basic and working conception of the purpose of God is His own glory (Ryrie 48).”

          That said it doesn’t take long in examining Scripture, to find that Scripture does not seek to prove the existence of God.  It assumes the existence of God. The Bible’s opening factual statement is “In the beginning God (Gen 1:1).”  The Psalmist says “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.”  The “fool” starts from the conviction (presupposition) that God is not interested in what is happening on earth, and is not interested in them.  However in denying God, the “fool” actually points to God. 

          Without this assumption, the existence of the God of the Bible, one cannot effectively investigate the revelation of God in the Bible.  This requires a belief in the God of the Scriptures.  “Faith in the existence of the object to be investigated is the condition sine qua non of all scientific investigation (Kuyper 58).”  The Bible says “God has put eternity in the heart of man (Eccl 3:11).”  There is within all of us, a void in which only God can fill.  Many seek to fill that void as they deny God’s existence, with the things of this rotting world.  Those things aren’t lasting, and people go looking for more.  It is that “void” in which God has put that awareness of Himself in all of us.  God has implanted in man an understanding of His glory.  The void mentioned above is stuffed often times with false gods.  Man’s attempt in creating a god suitable for him.  Geisler says that we cannot recognize false gods without knowing the true God (Geisler 18).  The first anchor is the presuppositional approach to the existence of God, who desires a personal relationship with man by grace through faith.

Second Anchor

          This anchor is the belief that the Bible is the Word of God; that the words are the very words spoken of by God.  God has made Himself known to man through divine self disclosure.  This is through His Word (the Scriptures) and as His calls men into fellowship with Himself.  Not that His purpose is man centered, His divine purpose is for Himself to be glorified.  But He manifests His glorious character in His calling man unto Himself. 

        God has revealed Himself through general revelation and special revelation.  His general revelation is seen clearly in creation and order in the universe.  The general revelation of God is enough to where man will stand before God, outside of Christ, without excuse.  However it isn’t enough to result in a regenerated heart, therefore more revelation is necessary.  This is specific or special revelation.  Specifically God has revealed Himself in many ways (Heb 1:1).  He also moved holy men of God along in their penning the Scriptures, which are inspired and without error.  In the Bible we see that down through the ages God has progressively revealed more about Himself and His purposes. 

          God also chose from eternity past to reveal Himself in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The second person of the God-Head hasn’t always been a man, but He always has been.  “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1-2).”  When Jesus Christ was born and walked this planet, He fully exegeted God.  In other words, He fully explained God.  He was God manifest in the flesh.  He took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh yet without sin.  Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:18b).  Jesus Christ, on the cross of Calvary, propitiated the wrath of God for man which is appropriated simply by faith – believing God.  “It is imperative that the Bible student recognize the conflict between biblical claims and the claims of liberal criticism…we must make a choice to either acknowledge God’s sovereign and supernatural work in revealing Himself (Archer 113).”

 

Third Anchor

          This anchor is that a man cannot comprehend or understand God’s revelation until he is born again.  The unregenerate heart knows not the things of God.  The Bible says “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit because they are spiritually discerned.”  Not only can the lost man not comprehend God, he cannot comprehend his own nature.  Sin has been imputed to all people.  It is sin that blinds the eyes of the lost person.  Until this person comes to a recognition of the God of the Bible he is incapable of comprehending that he is a sinner and the reality of Creator God.

          The Satan offered promise of “knowing good” proved to be a deception, it also left mankind without the ability to appraise reality.  The light of creation offered by God pours forth truth and reveals God, naturally understanding in natural revelation (Rom 1:19) is impossible (Rom 1:18) by the human mind and unregenerate heart.  God must intervene.  God’s ways and thoughts are much higher than mans.  In Eden the human race was plunged into the depravity of sin, but praise be to God for his actions in making salvation available by faith.  “The history of the human race as presented in Scripture is primarily a history of man in a state of sin and rebellion against God and of God’s plan of redemption to bring man back to Himself (Grudem 490).”  Until a person is justified by faith they cannot comprehend or know the things of God.

Fourth Anchor

          This last one is that we must approach Scripture in the hermeneutical process with a consistent literal/grammatical/historical method.  God has chosen to reveal Himself, as discussed already, in the incarnation of Christ and His Word – the Bible.  The men who penned the words were lead, moved along, by the Holy Spirit of God.  In other words they wrote exactly what God wanted them to write.  However, God did not overtake their personalities, nor did He remove them from the cultural settings in which they were most familiar.  That said, when we approach theology and biblical theology the presupposition of this consistent hermeneutic is essential.  If we are inconsistent with this we begin to go in a variety of directions, none of which God intends for us to go.  He literally revealed Himself in the Lord Jesus Christ, it stands to reason that would be the way to approach the Scripture. 

          The hermeneutic that is chosen cannot be in conflict with the other three anchors.  It is interesting to note that the Ethiopian Eunuch of Acts chapter 8, after being guided rightly into understanding the meaning of Scripture, responds rightly to God.  The hope is that the interpreter would move from the knowledge of God possessed by those who do not honor God (Rom 1:21), to the knowledge of God which is eternal life (John 17:3) – the establishment of a personal relationship by the power of God. 

          Keeping in mind the second anchor, which is the truth that God has chosen to reveal Himself to glorify Himself.  If we do not use a consistent approach to the study of the Bible we will be in dangerous areas.  The spiritualizing and allegorizing of the Scripture destroys objectivity which in turn destroys damages the authority of the Scriptures.  This eventually leads to the interpreter being the authority and removing God from the equation.  When we are consistent in our hermeneutical method the doxological purpose of God will jump off the pages.  He created us as an expression of His glory and He has revealed Himself as an expression of His glory.  Getting away from a consistent literal hermeneutic evangelicalism runs crazy in different directions – progressive dispensationalism, ultra dispensational, covenant/reformed theology and the list goes on and on.  This in turn has a negative impact on eschatological and theological conclusions.

Conclusion

          There is so much more to say on this subject.  In systematic theology we should dedicate more energy into the study of presuppositions.  Lewis Chafer many years ago states the essential requirements in theology as – the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures are assumed, the laws and methodology are as essential in the science of systematic theology as in any other science, finite limitation must be recognized, and Spiritual illumination is necessary and provided.  All of those agree with my four anchors, but Chafer goes further with three other “essential requirements.”  The aim of every theologian should be to hold the entire divine revelation in a true balance of all its parts and free from fads and inaccuracies (Chafer 12).  In other words do not allow cultural influences affect biblical theology.

          The Bible student should be deliberate in understanding prerequisites of Biblical doctrine.  We must not ignore presuppositions.  He should also maintain a consistent and proper approach to hermeneutics and exegesis.  The Bible student must be diligent to systemize the Bible themes – remember – context, context, context.  Always be aware of the doxological purpose of God, and respond to Him in fear and humility and love.  Bible study should result in a life that is impacted.  Isolating presuppositionalism gives the foundation to build a sufficient method of theology. The goal being – “charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned (1 Tim 1:5).”

Clean and Unclean

I want to discuss an odd topic; one you may have never given much thought to.  It involves some of the “Laws” of God in Leviticus.  This post also shows the importance of the literal hermeneutic – ALWAYS!

God has called His people to a life of separation and holiness.  That doesn’t mean odd or weird or an old stick in the mud, but different than the world.  There is an interesting chapter found in Leviticus 11 in which God gives in the Law animals which are clean and others which are unclean.  The question is then – Why did God decree that some foods can be eaten and then others need to be rejected?  This passage has drawn the attention of many today who claim to have “the answer” to the proper biblical diet.  The Law is broken down into categories:

First (vv. 2-8) cud chewing animals that their hoof is divided can be eaten and the others cannot be eaten; secondly (vv. 9-12) only fish that swim and have fins and scales can you eat the others “abomination to you”; thirdly (vv. 13-19) we are given a listing of 20 unclean birds which are birds of prey cannot be eaten; fourth (vv. 20-23) you cannot eat insects that crawl around “on all fours” but the ones that jump you can eat; (vv. 24-28) says that touching a dead unclean animal you must wash; (vv. 29-38) says that rodents and lizards and such are unclean; and in conclusion even the clean animals that die of natural causes you can’t eat.  The rules are pretty simple – but the question is – what is it all about?  Wenham suggests there are four explanations that have been presented – the distinctions between clean and unclean animals are arbitrary, cultic, hygienic, or symbolic.  The hygienic interpretation is where a lot of modern writers camp out.  In the day in which we live there are a lot of people obsessed with health and diet, which makes this interpretation attractive.  However Wenham makes a great observation when he says “just because we see hygienic considerations underlying some of the laws does not mean the human authors of scripture did too” – In other words just because we might find some significance related to health in 2009, Moses probably could have cared less about that aspect.  If this was the case it should shock us that Jesus Christ put an end to these laws – he came to fulfill them.

The symbolic interpretation of clean and unclean animals seems to fit nicely with the fact that God had called Israel to a life of consecration.  However we know that using this without controls could send the interpreter off a cliff.  Wenham says that Douglas seems to avoid these dangers in arguing that these laws do have symbolic significance.  The book of Leviticus seems to suggest this call to holiness and cleanness which represents wholeness and normalcy.  We all know that the animal world is basically broken down into three categories – birds, fish, and animals that walk on land.  In those categories wholeness represents cleanness.  Clean animals are the ones that live up to the standard of the category they are in.  The ones that overstep the parameters are unclean.  For instance – insects that crawl around are unclean but ones that have wings and jump are ok.  “Holiness requires that individuals shall conform to the class to which they belong (Douglas).”  So there is a parallel between the holiness of man and the cleanness of an animal.  Wenham says that the strongest argument for Douglas’s interpretation is its “comprehensiveness and coherence.” 

As the chapter concludes we see the holiness of God in relation to the swarming creatures.  They must be respected and not eaten.  They are related to God’s holiness.  As the Jews distinguished between clean and unclean foods they were reminded (even in their meals) that holiness is more than a matter of food – but a way of life.

This separation principle also showed the division between the Jew and the Gentile.  James 1:25 “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty and continueth therein he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”  This dietary law has been fulfilled in Christ.  In Acts 10 Peter had the zoo paraded before him and God showed in that, that He was not to consider Gentiles unclean anymore.  The animals that were on that sheet (Acts 10:11-13) were both clean and unclean, and God said kill and eat.  The divine cleansing of food in the vision is a parable of divine cleansing of human beings in the incident to which the vision leads up.  It didn’t take Peter long to understand it.  Peter says “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.”  Moving forward from the framework of the food vision is the wider narrative of men and women – even Gentiles – who are cleansed by faith (Acts 15:9).

In the life of a Christian that person has been called to a life of holiness, and the great news is that the Holy Spirit indwells us to give us the power to do so.  There are things of the world that are “unclean” – alcohol, drugs, sexual immorality etc……