Poythress' high regard for the Word

For my last post on Vern Poythress' significant book on harmonizing the Gospels, entitled Inerrancy and the Gospels, I will share three quotes that, among other things, emphasize the high regard that the author has for Scripture in general and the Gospels in particular. I have mentioned Poythress' deep respect and reverence for God's Word in other posts about this book, and these last three quotes emphasize this quality. This high view of Scripture espoused by Poythress is obviously integral to how he approaches the Bible as well as how he deals with problematic passages in the Gospels. This viewpoint of the Word, and his submitting to it, is something that I desire to emulate. A book such as Inerrancy and the Gospels helps me to do that.

First, let's consider how Poythress perceives the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels:

Jesus is God. So Jesus' speeches are divine speech. The four Gospel writers are human beings, but they were inspired by the Holy Spirit so that what they wrote is also divine speech. Whenever the Gospel writers report things from Jesus' speeches, we are seeing God's report of what God himself said. (163)

This next quote makes an interesting point,a point that underlines Poythress' willingness to accept God's Word as it has been delivered. Even though we may want more information, we may want more thorough answers, what we have been given is sufficient for all we need:

The main point here is that the Gospels give us information about speeches but not exhaustive information. Human curiosity is normal. We are curious to know more. It would be interesting to hear a full verbatim transcript of everything the disciples said to Jesus and to one another. But we do not have it, nor do we really need it. (186, emphasis mine)

Finally, Poythress touches upon what it may mean if we are not satisfied with the Scriptural account we have been given. It looks like a lack of trust, or worse, it looks like questioning God's wisdom. A high view of Scripture means reverencing what we have, not pining for what is not there:

The Gospels themselves are "summaries," in a sense, when we compare them to what it would be like to have records of everything that Jesus said and did. They are sparse. God planned it that way. We have to trust God's wisdom. He knew what would be best for us to have. He gave it to us in the four Gospels. An insistence on having more easily represents a lack of trust and a lack of contentment with God's choice. (187)

These three brief quotes expose Poythress as a man who admires, submits to, and reverences the Bible. I want to be that kind of man.

For fear of snickers!

Vern Poythress, in his helpful and heart-strengthening book on harmonization of the Gospels called Inerrancy and the Gospels, develops an interesting discussion on intellectual suffering. Poythress draws attention to these oft-overlooked types of trial and encourages readers to face and overcome them. That being said, he also gives the following well-balanced reminder lest we develop a martyr-syndrome:

I said that I do not depreciate the agonies of intellectual suffering that some people may have gone through. Only God knows the story of each of us. But for the sake of balance I should also note that sometimes we give in to temptation under less violent circumstances. Most of us have not come to the point of being screaming martyrs stretched on the rack or whipped until unconscious (Heb. 12:4). Instead, we give in for fear of snickers! We swallow the propaganda that the Bible is outmoded for fear of being thought foolish or uncool. Or maybe we yield when we face the threat of losing a grade or a diploma (111).

Trust in intellectual matters

Some helpful thoughts from Dr. Vern S. Poythress on trusting God in the midst of uncertainty about the Bible from his book Inerrancy and the Gospels:

In a fundamental way, trust in the matter of intellectual questions or historical difficulties or apparent discrepancies or biblical paradoxes remains part of the general obligation to trust God in every area of life. We have good grounds for trust, because of God's character and the faithfulness of his Word. He is infinitely good. We have grounds also in the demonstration of his goodness and faithfulness throughout history. Supremely, we have grounds in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. God shows there his supreme commitment to righteousness. Christ was vindicated and sin received its due payment in Christ as substitute. God showed there his supreme commitment to truth: his promise of redemption proved true, at supreme cost to himself. He showed his supreme commitment to us in the love that he manifested in the cross. (109)

Thus, we look to the cross and Christ's work at Calvary for assurance and reassurance of his commitment to truth and his commitment to us. We have good grounds, infinitely good grounds, to trust God in all things and particularly to trust him in regards to his Word.

Intellectual suffering

I  really like this excerpt on intellectual suffering by Dr. Poythress from his book Inerrancy and the Gospels:

God and man have been reconciled, and so there will be fruit in the progressive reconciliation taking place in our hearts. Our hearts become reconciled to God not only in the sense that God forgives our sins, but in the sense that our hearts come more and more into submission and conformity to the mind of God and of Christ, who is the Logos, expressing himself in Scripture. Christ calls us as his disciples to bear our cross daily that we may "know him [Christ] and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death" (Phil. 3:10). We may therefore expect to have our minds and our hermeneutical principles and all that is intellectually dear to us suffer and be crucified and raised, in the process of having our minds  conformed to the rationality of the Logos (Rom. 12:1-2). Intellectual anguish among God's people is for our good (Rom. 12:5-11).

We may conclude that intellectual difficulties with the Bible are not, in the end, alien to the mystery of the suffering of Christ. In knowing God's Word we know truly, but not transparently, and not without being beset by mental anguish at times. (99, emphasis mine)

Our knowledge has limitations

Vern S. Poythress  in his book on Gospel harmonization called Inerrancy and the Gospels:

Even when we study the Gospels carefully, prayerfully, and attentively, we do not understand everything ...

We know that God knows all the solutions. Yet we cannot demand a clear solution to all of our difficulties right now. We do not have massive informative detail about each episode recorded in the Gospels. we have only what the Gospels themselves choose to tell us ...

God knows all the details about what happened. It all makes sense in his mind. But we have our piecemeal knowledge. We cannot insist before God that he must always give us enough information in order to "solve" or disprove all the difficulties that we perceive. He is God. He does as he pleases (Ps. 115:3). He acts according to the infinitude of his wisdom, a wisdom that he has revealed in a wonderful and spectacular way in the mystery of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. He is wise, but we cannot always see that when we want to have more information than the Gospels provide. We must patiently submit to his wisdom in such cases (91).

Autonomous thought

An excerpt from Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization by Vern Poythress:

... in the realm of thought, the basic issue separating Christians from non-Christians is the issue of autonomy of thought. Ever since the fall of Adam, non-Christians have wanted to be autonomous judges and thinkers and decision makers. They want ultimate control of their lives. And to the extent that we as Christians give way to sin, we do the same thing. To an autonomous thinker, the process of studying Scripture with a commitment to God and his word seems circular, because it involves what he thinks is a bad commitment, a commitment to treat as ultimate something outside of himself. To someone who worships autonomy, autonomy is the ultimate. Commitment to Scripture seems to be a betrayal of who he is. Before he makes any commitment, the autonomous thinker wants to be allowed autonomously to judge the wisdom of such commitment (85).

Delighting in the differences

One of the characteristics of Vern Poythress' book Inerrancy and the Gospels that I really appreciated was the underlying attitude towards Scripture that permeates the entirety of this work. This is evident in the following quote about the differences in the Gospels:

Each of the four Gospels gives us the truth about the life of Jesus. No one Gospel is exhaustive, nor does it claim to be-each is selective. And each makes choices about how it is going to tell the history. Each is interested in highlighting theological significances and relationships to the Old Testament. Matthew is noteworthy for his Jewishness, for his compression, and for the introduction of subtle hints of extra significance. Mark is noteworthy for action and concentration on the main points. Luke is noteworthy for care in historical research. John is noteworthy for theological depth in interpreting the significance of events.

We should also remember that all four Gospels are God's writing, not simply the product of human authors. The differences between them in their approaches to writing history illustrate that God himself is comfortable with using distinct perspectives in revealing what happened and its significance. The significance in God's mind is infinitely deep. He enriches us by providing us four windows on his wisdom rather than merely one. (74).

The Gospels are not video recordings

Vern S. Poythress, in his book on harmonization of the Gospels entitled Inerrancy and the Gospels, brings to light that we can become unreasonable in our expectations of the information available in the Gospels. He discusses our desire to get a report of events that would approach equating truth to a video-recording-like narrative of the proceedings of different events. He writes,

If we push expectations far enough in this direction, we might call the results a "video-recording" concept of truth. A "true" narrative, according to this theory, produces a mental picture equivalent to a video recording of the entire episode.

But this conception is unworkable. A literal video recording of reasonable quality provides massive details about colors, textures, shapes, and positions of every person and object in a scene, all of the motions of the various persons and objects, and all the sound audible within the scene (including, for example, the sound of a dog barking in a neighboring yard). Verbal communication does not equal a video recording. Verbal communication is "sparse." It does not mention all the colors or all the positions of all the persons and objects. Typically, it does not mention all the bystanders in a scene. Were some of the apostles present when the centurion sent elders? Which ones? What were the expressions on their faces? We simply do not know. In our mental picture we may, if we wish, begin to fill out in our imagination many of these details. But neither Matthew nor Luke gives us massive details. Even if they did, they would still fall short of a video recording. (49)

If we bring unreasonable expectations to bear on the Gospel accounts, such as a desire for an almost exhaustive description of events, we are sure to be disappointed. Let's remind ourselves as we read the Bible that the accounts given in the four Gospels are just that, accounts. They are not video recordings.

Differences in the Gospels

From Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization:

The Gospels are intrinsically in harmony, but also complimentary. No one Gospel says everything that could be said. Each one is completely true in what it presents about Christ and his life. If we had access to only one Gospel out of the four, it would give us knowledge of God in Christ, and we would be saved by trusting in Christ  as he is presented in that Gospel. We would have true knowledge. But it would not be all the knowledge we could ever have. We learn more when we read a second Gospel because it brings out aspects of Christ that were not so much in the foreground in the first. The four Gospels together give us greater riches than any one alone. They harmonize in a symphony rather than giving a unison performance. This symphonic harmony agrees magnificently with the very character of God who is magnificently rich, and with the character of Christ, who reveals God to us in his fullness. The richness in inexhaustible. The differences among the Gospels make known the manifold wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10). (36)

Truth is personal

Here is a short paragraph from Vern S. Poythress' book Inerrancy and the Gospels that you can ponder for a few minutes...or a few years:

First, the involvement of persons and their perspectives in knowledge does not in itself undermine the validity of knowledge. An impersonalist worldview may suggest that truth ultimately be impersonal. But God is the ultimate standard for truth, and he is personal. We may express this reality by saying that truth is what God knows. So personal involvement, namely God's involvement, is necessary for the existence of truth. And of course, human persons must become involved as persons when they come to know something true. This involvement takes place according to the design of God. It is not innately alien or corrupting. (34)

Submit and cherish

I recently finished reading and reviewing Vern S. Poythress' book on the harmonization of the Gospels entitled Inerrancy and the Gospels. It was an interesting and informative read which introduced me to several new concepts of harmonization as well as reminding me of some I have encountered before. The most compelling part of the book for me was the attitude that the author demonstrated in regards to Scripture. Pervasive throughout the book is Poythress' determination to submit himself to God's Word, and to cherish God's Word. His posture in relation to the Bible is one of humble deference and exalting admiration. This brief except gives you the idea:

The Gospels, since they are written with God's authority, deserve our ultimate allegiance and trust. They are therefore more ultimate and more reliable accounts of the events of the life of Christ than is any humanly constructed harmonization, which would try to figure out "what really happened." It is legitimate for us to try to see how the various Gospel accounts fit together into a larger picture. But this larger picture should include everything that the Gospels give us, rather than only a minimum core in the form of our modern human reconstruction of what happened. (Poythress, Vern S. Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Print. 32)

Book Review - Inerrancy and the Gospels

Book Review – Inerrancy and the Gospels

I am not overly interested in biblical inerrancy though I certainly hold to it and have read several books, as well as essays and articles, discussing it; that is not why I requested to review this book. Neither did I request a copy of Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization from Crossway because I needed convincing of the legitimacy of the Gospel accounts. My main interest in this book had to do with its author. Vern Sheridan Poythress, professor of New Testament interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, has impressed me with his brilliant mind, his precise teaching, and most of all his love for God’s Word. I wanted to hear what he had to say about reconciling the differences in the Gospel narratives. His work on this topic as expressed in this book is notable, in my opinion, for three reasons: its presentation of principles for harmonization, its practically helpful examples, and its clear respect and reverence for God and his Word.

Principles

Obviously, a book discussing the harmonization of the Gospels should introduce and explain some of the various principles that theologians and apologists use to reconcile difficult passages in these canonical narratives. Poythress elucidates many of these principles in a manner that is interesting and easily understandable, even for a layman such as I. Most of these principles are covered in Part Two of the book which is simply Principles for Harmonization. Poythress introduces initial principles that discuss the trustworthiness of the Bible, the use of help from past scholars, differing incidents confused as the same event, omission of details, and the theological emphasis of the writers. He moves from these to consideration of history, theology, artistry, and the genre’s effects on harmonization. His chapter on mental-pictures and how we use and misuse them in regards to interpretation was very enlightening for me and it alone made reading the book worthwhile. Explanations of the principles of contrast, variation, and distribution are elaborated as are ideas of compression and precision. Principles are adeptly explained by the author and examples from Scripture anchor these concepts for the reader. This material will provide solid reference fodder for future study.

Examples

Inerrancy and the Gospels delivers what many readers will be looking for; examples. Throughout the book, Poythress demonstrates harmonization and addresses many of the seemingly erroneous or contradictory passages in the Gospels that those familiar with their Bibles will recognize. These are tackled with intelligence and an approach that endeavours to be realistic in terms of the difficulties that really exist. Some of the  parallel passages that Poythress engages with are: the healing of the Centurion’s servant, the cleansing of the Temple, the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth, the cursing of the fig tree, the commissioning of the twelve, the stilling of the storm, the rich young ruler, Jarius’ daughter, blind Bartimaeus, and several others. These examples are necessary when you consider the topic at hand, but they are also successful in demonstrating how the principles brought forth work in the harmonizing of the passages.

Reverence

The most enamouring aspect of this book is the attitude that Poythress takes in regards to Scripture. The professor’s stance goes beyond a high view of Scripture; it is clear the author admires and adores God’s Word as he admonishes and advocates for the reader to do the same. This is evident throughout the book, but is most poignant in the third section entitled Attitudes in Harmonization. The author reminds readers that though we wrestle with doubt, neutrality is not an option. One should read the Bible with submission and receptivity while rejecting the current trend to try and be autonomous in our approach to Holy Writ. We should accept the limits of our sin-stained and derivative knowledge while anticipating difficulties and suffering in our intellectual pursuits. These are not just any books, the author regularly reminds us, but they are the very words of God written to us. Poythress’ posture when it comes to Scripture is an edifying glimpse into the heart of a professional interpreter who clearly recognizes God’s sovereignty and grace directed towards us. I will not soon forget this.

Inerrancy and the Gospels is a formative work that succeeds due to, among other things, lucid teaching of harmonization principles, practical demonstration of those principles at work, and a refreshingly uplifting attitude toward the Bible. I recommend this book.

Mystery and Magnificence

God has given us His Word that we might be fully equipped in our understanding. However, the fullness is not exhaustive. We are given everything we need to know, but not everything. There are some things we will likely never understand. Oliphint, in his book Reasons for Faith, writes:

Though arguments for God's character can be, and is, profound and complex at times, we may need to realize that arguments concerning exactly how, for example, the Son of God can be one person who is both created and uncreated, sovereign and limited in power, a se and hungry, may never be forthcoming.

The incarnation teaches us that God can be in ways that simply are not readily conducive to intellectually satisfying argumentation. The fact, for example, that God can remain eternal while at the same time interacting with his creation on a day-to-day basis does not always make for good philosophical fodder. It does, however, (if we are correct here) make for the truth of the matter, and we would be hard pressed to want anything less from our theological and philosophical meanderings. (254-5)

Though we should strive to understand all we can, and unravel the complex mysteries of our faith to the best of our abilities, we must realize and accept that we will not intellectually master all there is to know about our great God. And we should be fine with this. Professor Vern Poythress, in his newly published book Inerrancy and the Gospels writes, "Any difficulty that does not quickly yield to our investigation testifies to the fact that God is greater than we are and that he understands what we do not." (107)

Mysteries and lack of complete clarity should be expected and exulted in; we serve an awesome God. If we could completely grasp our Creator, he would not be infinite and eternal and therefore not fit to be worshiped. Let the mystery and paradox that surround our God propel us to more study and more worship.