You are here

Home ›

Minced confessions...

by David and Tim Bayly on March 21, 2009 - 3:30pm

(Tim) Since entering the ministry in 1983, countless times I've read statements like this in recently published evangelical commentaries by scholars highly esteemed within their own guild:

Doug Moo concludes that "there is reason to doubt whether any important part of the narrative in Matthew 27:3-8 has been created under the influence of Old Testament passages." -R. T. France, Tyndale Commentary on Matthew, p. 385.

Let me remind us that here in Matthew 27:3-8 we have in our hands the very Word of God as it has come down to us from Heaven through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So it is, and yet it really isn't a "narrative." And to say "there is reason to doubt" that Matthew "created" any "important part" of God's Word is...

well, sort of obvious to Christians, isn't it?

It's embarrassing to see such transparent pandering to colleagues.

If Doug Moo wants to give a paper at a meeting of his guild where unbelievers predominate, and he decides to speak in this way as an act of politeness; then so long as he isn't misleading those in attendance concerning his own convictions and the nature of God's Holy Word, I guess there's a place for such gentlemanly treatment of the wickedness of unbelief.

But after twenty-five years of grieving over similar statements in the commentaries I read, I here publicly record my request that evangelicals write commentaries for the believing and confessing pastors who actually buy and use them--not the scholars who get a free copy for review--and that these evangelical scholars unapologetically join us in our public confession that every single word of Scripture is God-breathed, not even one having had its origin in the mind or will of man.

Tags: 
Academia
Pastors
Quotes

Permalink

Comments

Submitted by Don Johnson on March 21, 2009 - 5:58pm

Amen on that one, Tim.

I am really tired of the kind of scholarship that gives the "perhaps" and "maybes" and all the other qualified and nuanced concessions to the respectability of unbelievers. What a mess we are in.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Submitted by Fr. Bill on March 22, 2009 - 2:40am

This is nothing new, of course. So "standard" an evangelical seminary as Dallas back in the 70s was well-laced with this attitude toward Scripture in the sources students were required to consult as they were supposedly learning "exegesis." I knew students whose faith was severely damaged during the process.

That was 40 years ago now. Is it any surprise evangelicalism generally is in the state we find it today?

Submitted by Martin James on March 22, 2009 - 5:03am

Put it under my microscope and I will tell you what what is true and false. I have the power to do that you know. I will cut and paste as I see fit.

Sounds like swiss cheese to me.

Submitted by Jim Swindle on March 23, 2009 - 8:35am

Pastor Bayly, I have mostly good memories of being taught by Doug Moo many years ago, but I agree with your assessment. Commentaries should be written for the faithful, or not written at all. The only possible exception I can think of: evangelistic/apologetic commentaries, if there such things.

Submitted by D. M. Doran on March 23, 2009 - 8:53am

While sympathetic to your concern here, I think you've skewed the argument somewhat. The problem which you address isn't really with Moo, but with France. France quotes Moo's words from a reference ("Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels").

IOW, Moo is writing in an academic context related to Gospel studies, not in a commentary. I'd have to read Moo's whole article to confirm this, but my hunch is that what he wrote is very strong on inerrancy and is a defense of the text's integrity as Scripture.

France is simply pointing anybody interested in this debate to a very conservative source. Not a bad practice by itself. I'd prefer a more direct approach in the commentary, but I guess that's a preference, not something on which to question someone's firmness on this issue. And especially not Moo's since it wasn't his commentary.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on March 23, 2009 - 10:42am

Dear Mr. Doran,

You are right to point out the Moo quote wasn't from a commentary, but even here, I'm sure the book's market is overwhelmingly those who honor the Word of God, whether pastors or other scholars. So my point may be slightly muted, but largely the same.

And really, such statements are a dime a dozen. Open any commentary evangelicals buy and you'll find the hat tipped to unbelief in the form of statements like that I've quoted from France and Moo. The literature is chock-a-block with them.

Nevertheless, I'm thankful for your clarification on this specific quote.

Warmly,

Submitted by Jay Adams on March 23, 2009 - 6:06pm

I couldn't agree more. I've been going back to the older commentaries--after all their writers claimed to understand a passage rather than play around with what all the unbelievers have to say. Why give them credence?

Jay Adams

nouthetic.org

Submitted by John on March 25, 2009 - 4:36am

Forgive my density, but what's the problem with the statement quoted? I don't get what may be unbelieving about it, what's wrong with calling it "narrative" (a literary term), etc.: would it be better to say "written" rather than "created", for instance? Technically "created" in English could be understood as that later, neither does the statement give denial, far as I can tell, that it's God-breathed: one could say "Matthew created this" meaning "written by his hand" without excluding the doctrine of the Spirit's inspiration.

Forgive me, but I'm just not seeing the issue here: I'm genuinely asking what in particular was offensive about the statement.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on March 25, 2009 - 6:46am

What's offensive is the "probably not" response to thesuggestion that Matthew made up part of the Word of God.

Submitted by John on March 29, 2009 - 3:29am

Still dense. Please elucidate, that is, if I might ask: I don't know the background here. If it's referring to the passages in the OT that are construable as prophetic of the event, why wouldn't he allude to it? I get the "created" offense, now, I guess, that is, the world would likely accuse it of being just a mere and unfactual literary production (they're often as dense as black holes in understanding Jewish polemics--like those in the NT), but perhaps the commentator is just being generous? After all, the passage is "construable", not necessarily a "sure thing" as an allusion back to the OT (In my KJV/RV it has references to 2 Sam 17:23, though I know there's another passage in the OT about trading life for pieces of silver, the relevance of which has been debated). Perhaps the guy should have gone into more detailed commentary on the whole thing? Is there a wider context to the commentator's quote above?

Add new comment

2013 Clearnote Summer Conference
Man vs. Lust
Sexual by Design
 
 

Recent Comments

more
Subscribe to Recent Comments