Minced confessions...

Error message

(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.