DISCREPANCY IN THE ACCOUNT OF JESUS’ TEMPTATIONS?

Several weeks ago the assertion was made in an article in The Banner (department “Voices”) and a similar assertion was made in a more recent article in another periodical, that there is a “discrepancy” between Matthew’s account of Jesus’ three temptations in the wilderness and that of Luke. In Matthew’s Gospel the temple-temptation precedes that of the world-kingdom temptation while Luke gives the latter second place. It is reasoned that both evangelists cannot be right and therefore that either Matthew or Luke was in error. But does this militate against the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible? The answer is: No; the Holy Spirit, to be sure, did not object to incorporating such slight mistakes in the holy Word of God. Infallibility does not exclude a certain amount of fallible material (discrepancies, errors, contradictions) in matters that are peripheral and unimportant.

We were surprised indeed to read about a “discrepancy” in the account of the temptations of Christ. There would have been a discrepancy only if both evangelists had claimed to present the three temptations in their chronological order. But the fact is that only Matthew makes that claim; Luke does not. In Matthew the second temptation (pertaining to the temple) is introduced with the word “then” and the third with the word “again” (Matthew 4:5, 7). But Luke simply connects them with the word “and” (Luke 4:5, 9). If one asks why Luke put the third temptation in the second place, we can express agreement with the answer of Edersheim (“The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah”) who writes: “…St. Luke inverts this order, probably because his narrative was primarily intended for Gentile readers, to whose mind this might present itself to them as the true gradation of temptation.” This means that to the Gentile mind, specially concerned about world affairs, the temptation concerning the kingdoms of the world must have been one of outstanding significance.

It should not be forgotten that the four evangelists do not claim that they always follow the chronological order in telling the story of the life and death of Christ. Each had his own purpose and that often determines his emphasis. Even a modern historian does not always follow the chronological order of events. He too may relate events in the order of importance or he may begin an account with a later event because it sheds light on an incident or series of events which preceded.

Why anyone should be eager to explain differences in the two principal accounts of Jesus’ temptations as discrepancies is something we do not understand.

H.J.K.

WHY CRIME IS ON THE INCREASE

According to F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover, serious crimes reached an all-time high last year, and still another sharp rise is indicated for 1960.

“This ominous rise in crime cannot be explained away as being due to population increase,” said Hoover. “Crime has been rising four times as fast as the population. Unless positive steps are taken to check this rising crime trend, this country will face a crime problem of emergency proportions in the years ahead.”

The fault does not always seem to be due to the fact that our police officers arc neglecting their duty. Parental delinquency is doubtless the primary cause for this terrible situation. But there is also the failure of our courts to punish criminals promptJy and effectively, whether they be juveniles or adults. In Ecclesiastes 8:11 the Word of God has this to say about it: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” Prompt and adequate punishment of lawbreakers is one of the most effective deterrents of crime.

P. W. Sr.

         

           

WHEN MEN DECAY

“In spite of persistent efforts to end it, featherbedding, sanctioned by much of our union leadership, still persists. Multitudes of men draw a day’s pay for an hour’s work or less. The American people have been taught to expect something for nothing and that not too much work is or should be expected of them. There are, of course, many self-employed men and women who work very hard and very long hours; but the general trend is toward shorter hours, longer vacations, more holidays, less work, and higher pay.

“Technical efficiency and high capitalization have made it possible for the American people to live better with less work than has been true in other countries. We should be thankful for that and encourage it by rewarding the savers who have accumulated the capital and the able men who have developed our efficiency. Instead of doing so, however, we decry profit, demand low interest rates, and heavily tax our ablest men while insisting upon less work and more leisure regardless of man-hour output.

“We have not realized that the high productivity of labor is caused by our technicians and the people who save money to supply more efficient and more expensive industrial equipment.

“We are often puzzled at the lack of moral standards in regard to featherbedding. What has happened to cause men to demand pay when they do not give value received—to insist in fact upon being paid for doing nothing? When union leadership insists upon it, the individual worker, of course, may excuse himself by saying that it is not his responsibility. But immorality is still immorality, though it may be sanctioned by powerful men in high places…

“When men are taught to believe that they are entitled to consume without first producing, Pandora’s box is opened and from it flow a great variety of evil that will destroy our sell-government, our freedom, and our prosperity. The moral law of God against coveting, stealing, and bearing false witness cannot be violated without bring upon ourselves the just retribution that is sure to follow. Other nations which have forgotten God and his moral law that undergird society have perished and we are by no means immune to the forces that have destroyed them. We need a nation-wide call to repentance and return to simple honesty. Let ministers proclaim it from the pulpit, teachers in the classroom, speakers on the platform, editors in their publications, commentators over the radio, and business and political leaders with all avenues available to them.”

Christian Economics, November 15

WILL A MAN ROB GOD?

The above question was answered in the affirmative by Malachi when he said when he said that the people had withheld their tithes and offerings. No doubt the same form of Jahwe-robbery is continuing and calls for denunciation today. However, there is another form of robbing God which merits our attention and denunciation.

I refer to the temerity of those who would rob God of his attribute of veracity, or truthfulness. Veracity, according to Berkhof, is “that perfection in virtue of which God is true in his inner being, in his revelation, and in his relations to his people” (italics mine, V.T.). “God is not a man, that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19). Would it not seem that those who posit the possibility of error in the Word of God are calling God’s truth into question? Paul plainly tells us that he has no sufficiency of his own (II Corinthians 3:5, 6), but that his words are Spirit-taught (I Corinthians 3:13). Hence he issues commands as proceeding from God himself and the recognition of his written injunctions as divine commands is the test of a Spirit-led man (I Corinthians 14:37). Obedience to such apostolic precepts is represented as the condition for Christian communion (II Thessalonians 3:14). He assures Timothy, who had known the holy writings from early youth, that “all scripture is God-breathed,” that is, has proceeded from the mouth of God. Whether one quote from Deuteronomy or from Luke (Cf. 1 Timothy 5:18), all has its origin in God. And Peter assures us that the writers were holy men who did not speak their own minds but were moved by the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:21). Jesus is just as explicit when he affirms, Thy Word is troth (John 17:7). The whole Word is truth—not just its central message concerning salvation, not merely a core or kernel wrapped in the husks of historical forms that have no meaning today. Not one jot or one tittle of the law shall fall to the ground. For “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Scripture is the end of all disputation and gainsaying by devil or Pharisees. And Christ is the faithful and true witness (Revelation 1:5, John 8:14, 16). What Scripture says, God says (Romans 9:17, Galatians 3:8).

Yet there are those who would dissent from the conclusion, on the basis of the foregoing, that all of Scripture is infallible. They argue that though the Bible declares itself to be the breath of God, it does not say literally that it is infallible and inerrant. Yet, these same people are no literalists when they worship God on the first day of the week instead of the seventh and baptize infants as well as adults.

Where is the consistency?

H.R.V.T.

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE GOSPELS?

“It is surprising with what utter abandon the statement is made in many present day scholarly works that the four Gospels are ‘full of contradictions.’ Then when you see what things they are that they call contradictions, you are almost tempted to lose respect for some of the so-called ‘scholarship.’ To be sure, in some cases, it is not easy to harmonize all details. But to call them contradictions is going too far, and makes one suspect that the ‘wish is father to the thought.’ The fact that there are slight variations in describing the same incident makes the testimony of the various writers all the more trustworthy, for it precludes the possibility of collusion among them.”

Henry H. Halley – Pocket Bible Hand Book, p. 281

GOD’S HANDS ARE TIED?

It has often been observed that preachers who are Arminian in their evangelistic appeals can be surprisingly Calvinistic in a final plea or prayer. Apparently the inconsistency does not disturb them. An illustration of this appears in one of Hyman Appelman’s published sermons entitled “Lost, Sought, Saved.” The closing paragraph begins as follows: “God is ready, God is willing, God is eager, God is anxious, God is pleading for the privilege of washing away the sins of every soul in the precious blood of his Son and heir. But his hands are tied, his power is limited, his grace is constrained by you.” Note especially the words, “But his hands are tied.” Then observe the concluding sentence in this paragraph: “May God in his infinite mercy lead you into the way of the cross and salvation.” Now let’s put the two together: “May God whose hands are tied lead you into the way of the cross and salvation.”

 

WHY DO NOT ALL OUR MINISTERS PREACH THE CATECHISM?

One of my elders attended one of our churches. The pastor preached a Catechism sermon. Said the elder, “He read the material found in the Lord’s Day but never intimated where it was found and in his sermon never referred to it.” Recently several bulletins came to my desk from various churches. I observed that no mention is made of the Heidelberg Catechism in the sermons that were to be preached.

We as ministers and elders (who are overseers) should remember what our Church Order demands of us in Article 68. There we read: “The ministers shall on Sunday explain briefly the sum of Christian doctrine comprehended in the Heidelberg Catechism so that as much as possible the explanation shall be annually completed, according to the division of the Catechism itself, for that purpose.”

Our Synod of 1902 decided: “with a view to the dangers that threaten sound doctrine, the time-honored custom of Catechism preaching is emphasized, and the Classes are urged to attend Catechism preaching is emphasized, and the Classes are urged to attend to the regular preaching of the Catechism.”

When Church Visitors come to our consistorial meetings, their first question to the consistory as a whole refers to the decision of the Synod of 1950 (Acts, 1950, pp. 62, 441 ) and reads: “Do you have preaching services at least twice on each Lord’s Day…once after the order of the Heidelberg Catechism…and are the words of the Catechism division, to be preached, read to the congregation before the sermon is preached, and arc these sermons explanations and applications of the materials contained in the Lord’s Day under consideration?”

We cannot understand why this decision is not always carried out. Why camouflage the Catechism? Are we ashamed of this creed? Are we not convinced that it is based on God’s infallible Word? Why do we hesitate to make our sermons “explanations and applications of the materials contained in the Lord’s Day”? Surely, we can answer the argument that in this way “we are not preaching the Word of God but a man-made creed!”

We firmly believe that Catechism preaching keeps us balanced in presenting the Gospel of God’s free grace; assists us in proclaiming the whole counsel of God; aids us in building up Our people in the saving knowledge of God in Christ Jesus; and helps us to combat both old and modern heresies.

Why give this honored creed the silent, cold-shoulder treatment? It has done so much to make us a strong church!

E.B.P.

THE POISON OF SOCIALISM IN SMALL DOSES

A recent article in the Reader’s Digest tells of the gradual retreat of socialism in most of the countries of Europe (“Why Europe Turned Away From Socialism”—November issue, p. 105). There is evidence also in the Netherlands, among a certain element in the Anti-revolutionary party, of a strong revulsion against the excessive planning activity of the government, as a result of which economic and social freedom is at an all-time low. That reaction is probably most vocal in the monthly periodical edited by Dr. A. Zeegers, Mr. W. Beemink, Prof. Dr. J. Prins, Jhr. W. de Savomin Lohman, and others. The October issue contains a worthwhile article by Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Ropke entitled; “Acute and Sleeping Socialism.” After the writer describes “the lesson of Russia” as being this that a consistent planned economy involves an unbearable tyranny, he summarizes the next paragraph in the heading; “Poison in Doses,” and writes in part as follows:

“Against this we sometimes hear the objection that these lessons (of Russia’s freedom-destroying economic system) are con6ned to Communism but that they do not apply to the moderate collectivism of the West. This is a serious error. We cannot sufficiently emphasize the fact that the collectivist tendencies of the West—as well in the directed economy as in the socialization—steer with hair-fine precision into the track of this collectivistic totalitarianism. It has always been a remarkable assumption that a half collectivism is the best defense against a pure collectivism. If the economic program of democratic socialism consists in this that a certain percentage is subtracted from socialism, we may well ask ourselves whether these half collectivists will not in the end land in a more detrimental position than the whole collectivists; for on the one hand they accustom the masses to the direction of such a program but on the other hand leave the radical realization to the Communists…He who finds competition burdensome must adjust himself to organization, obedience, disappearance of personal responsibility and man’s subjection to an all-controlling system.”

These words have special significance for liS in America. If President-elect Kennedy succeeds in fulfilling the promises made in his campaign, our country will be advancing far on the road of socialism from which Europe is now retreating in disillusionment. The following words of warning by Dr. Ropke will prove to be not idle: “In contrast to the revolutionary socialism of the East with its acute socialization, creeping socialism asks us to use increasingly strong doses. Not every new dose is strong enough to arouse opposition. Such opposition usually falls asleep until it is ton late.”

H. J. K.

ST. AUGUSTINE ON SCRIPTURE

“If we add together the three factors which are bound up with Augustine’s high view of inspiration, that is, inerrancy, authority and incomprehensibility,* we shall quite readily see why he insists that one must approach the Bible with faith if he is to understand it at all…

“Faith, however, is never blind credulity. It may go beyond rational knowledge, but it is a belief growing out of a conviction of the truth of the thing believed. A man must be convinced of the authority of Scripture if he is to acknowledge that authority. Destroy his confidence in the written Word and you destroy his confidence in what it teaches. ‘Faith will totter if the authority of Scripture begins to shake’ (De Doctrina Christiana, I, xxxvii, 4). Once again it would seem as if Augustine were anticipating the problems of a later age. It has been argued frequently by the older liberal critics that Christian faith does not depend upon the veracity of every part of Scripture. It was contended that while many of the sacred writings were pious frauds we might recognize and believe the essential truths contained in them. The neo-orthodox view is that the Scripture is, as a matter of fact, a quite fallible witness to the truth. It is an authority only in the sense that nowhere else is there such a witness through which the Spirit of God speaks to men. To Augustine such arguments would probably have seemed to be devoid of common sense. His own reasoning followed some such pattern as this; The Bible is to be believed because it is authoritative; it is authoritative because it is inerrant; it is inerrant because it is inspired; it is inspired because holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”**

*Augustine uses the term “profundity,” and the term “inexhaustible” would represent this thought more accurately.

**Italics have been added throughout. (H.R.v.T.)