If you’re sincerely seeking God, God will make His existence evident to you. ― William Lane Craig

Introduction

It used to be that most people in America believed there was a God and that the Bible was God’s word. They believed in heaven and hell, even the Apostles Creed or something to close it. Hurdles to the gospel were apathy, lack of personal response, or wrong views of how to get to heaven. Now all that has changed. Many people now don’t believe in God. They don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God. Now people don’t agree on issues of morality and sin and don’t accept the foundational tenets of Christianity. Now, if you try to present the gospel to someone, you’re more likely to have them say, “That’s just your opinion.” Or, “That may be true for you, but not for me.”² When one is surprised that you believe in the resurrection of Easter or the virgin birth of Christmas it is likely because they are operating with a different world view than you are. The diversity of world views in America and elsewhere is something critical for Christians to understand if the church is to have some positive impact for Christ in our pluralistic world. How does Christianity fit into the larger contexts of other world views? Is there a God? How do we know? Why is there evil and suffering? These are some questions this lesson is going to try to survey.

Christianity/Theism in Worldview Contexts

To start with, it is helpful to try to understand how Christianity fits into a larger context of world views. These large categories of worldviews can be classified into the larger categories of Theism, Pantheism, Naturalism and Pluralism.

Theism is the belief that there is a personal God outside of time and space who created the universe out of nothing and is involved in events (supernaturally). He reveals himself to man through nature and through the Bible (Christians) or the Tanakh = Old Testament (Jews) or the Koran (Muslims). He sets the rules for mankind. And there will be eternal consequences for breaking the rules. Theism allows for the possibility of miracles since God can act in the world. If one denies that God created the universe or that he acts in human history with supernatural events, it is because they have a different world view.

Deism is a form of theism. God created everything, but is no longer involved in creation. Deism stresses God’s transcendence or distance from creation. To illustrate Deism, one can describe creation as a clock. God made the clock, wound it up and started it running according to its design, but in essence left it after that. ³

There are various forms of the world view termed Panthesim. At its core, Panthesim teaches that everything is god: humans, animals, and plants are god. The world is god and god is the world. God is neither personal nor conscious. God is not a “He” but an “It.”⁴ The universe is one. Everything material is an illusion. Knowledge is getting in touch with the cosmic consciousness. One of the favorite terms you’ll hear from pantheists is “enlightenment.” History is cyclical and men are reincarnated until they realize their own divinity. This world view is the basis for Hinduism, Buddhism, Christian Science, and New Age teaching.⁵

Naturalism (or Modernism) takes the basic position that there is no God (Atheism), or the position that God’s existence or nonexistence of God cannot be known or that God is unknowable (Agnostism). The emphasis of naturalism is that there is no supernatural. We live in a closed system in which God is not operating and the world and mankind just evolved. People are the product of their environment. Morality is decided by man. Reason and science are the basis of authority and pursued for the good of mankind. There is no purpose to history; it just happens. When you die, you cease to exist. For example, someone who denies the possibility or likelihood of miracles may be operating from a world view of Naturalism.

Pluralism (or Post-Modernism) is sort of a cafeteria style world view. People mix and match various aspects of the other world views as well as blend in new ideas. Generally, they reject the idea of objective truth and no one view may be considered right. People are suspicious and skeptical of authority. They are in search of identity, not from knowledge, but through relationship. They are on a quest for a meaningful community. They seek transcendence or spirituality, but not religion. They express the “knowing smirk” (= Yah right) at anyone who says they know the truth.⁶ One may encounter pluralism by hearing something like: there are many ways to God; there is no one truth; or even absolute truth itself does not exist.

Increasingly, we as Christians find ourselves in this melting pot of various world views. But let’s move to a basic starting question. Is there a God? And if so, how might we know?

Is there a God?

Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion stated, “we are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”⁷ Another outspoken atheist, Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great stated, “that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”⁸

But is it true that there no evidence for God? Paul states in Romans: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (Rom 1:18-22). These verses say that God is known by all or at least certain aspects about God based on the evidence of the created universe, specifically, his eternal power and divine nature. How powerful must a Being be to be able to create something as large and magnificent as the universe? Think about it. The revelation that God has given in creation makes man responsible to God in honoring him as God and giving thanks. The story is told of Napoleon who while on one of his ships at night heard some of the sailors mocking the idea of God’s existence. As he pointed up to the stars he said, “Gentlemen, you must get rid of those first.”⁹

Yet why do people reject the existence of God? First one has to say that rejection of God is primarily a moral (sin) problem and intellectual arguments will not solve this. If someone does not want to be morally accountable to God, they will not accept even good arguments. The Bible presupposes a belief in God and much of the Bible is defining who the true God is. The very first sentence of the Bible assumes God. “In the beginning God created . . . .” (Gen 1:1). But do we just have to merely accept the existence of God by faith, or is our belief in God based on evidence too? It’s that old debate of presuppositional apologetics versus evidential apologetics again. God gave Moses signs to prove to Israel that God had sent him and to prove to Pharaoh that the God of Israel was the one true God (Exod 4:1-9). Thomas needed evidence for Jesus’ resurrection when he asked to see the nail prints in Jesus’ hands and spear pierced side (John 20:25).

One way to address the issue of God’s existence is to consider some of the basic traditional evidences for God. These represent apologetic arguments that should not be considered absolute proof of God or without counterargument. These evidences, especially when taken together, lead one to believe that the existence of God is more reasonable than the belief that God does not exist. These arguments can be termed and classified as: 1) the cosmological argument, 2) the teleological argument, and 3) the moral argument.

The Evidence for God: The Cosmological Argument

The basic cosmological argument is that everything that exists has a cause, and since the universe exists, it must have had a first cause. Another way to state it is to stress the inception of the universe. If the universe began to exist then the universe has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause.¹⁰

Sometimes the counter argument is made that the universe was caused by “chance.” But there are two problems with this: 1) chance can’t cause something; chance is not a being; it is just a mathematical probability and 2) when one looks at the odds (what the chances are), it becomes evident that it is not a probability – it is an impossibility. The “Big Bang” presupposes matter/energy before the “Bang” happened but where did this matter come from? What or who caused this? To try to get around this, some say that the universe is eternal. Carl Sagan said, “The universe is all there is, and was and ever will be.” There are two logical problems with the view that the universe is eternal: 1) Scientists have discovered that the universe is expanding (or moving) and if you go back far enough, the expansion (or moving) had to have started sometime in the past. What started this motion? 2) The “Kalam” argument stresses that the universe had to begin to exist a finite time ago. You can’t get to “now” if you start from infinity because “now” never arrives. Only if you have a finite beginning can you arrive at “now.”¹¹

Therefore, it is reasonable that that first cause must be something outside of time and space (since the universe came into being at some time in the past), immaterial (since the universe is made up of matter), powerful enough to “create” everything and a personal agent. For example consider dominos falling. Each domino falling is caused by the one before it, but you fall into an infinite regress unless you have someone pushing that first domino over. That first event is caused by an “agent,” some being who chose to start the process. What would be an adequate cause for the effect of the creation of the universe? Some Being like the God of the Bible would be that adequate cause.

Related to and part of the cosmological argument are the laws of thermodynamics. Simply, the first law of thermodynamics is also referred to as the conservation of energy. It is an established scientific fact. The law in essence states that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed in a closed natural system. Therefore, the existence of matter and energy must have come about by a supernatural event or force outside of the system.¹² The second law of thermodynamics simple stated is that is energy is becoming less usable. It is also called the law of entropy. It also is an established scientific fact. Things are winding down, becoming more disorderly, the energy is continually being spread out in less and less usable forms. Since the universe contains highly concentrated energy sources (e.g., sun) it cannot be eternal but must have had a beginning.¹³ And this beginning must have had a cause.

The Evidence for God: The Teleological Argument

The basic teleological argument states that since the world is so complex and so ordered, it had to have been designed/created by some intelligent being. The design points to a designer, a car points to a manufacturer, a watch points to a watchmaker, an I-Phone points to Steve Jobs etc. The universe and everything in it is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, and/or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally. Therefore, it must have been created by an intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful being. God is that intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful being.¹⁴

The Evidence for God: The Moral Argument

The moral argument states that since everyone has conscience and a concept of right and wrong, this must reflect some higher conscience or higher moral absolute. If God does not exist, objectionable moral values do not exist. Objectionable moral values do exist. Therefore, God exists. Paul states, “For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them” (Rom 2:14-15). Here the Bible says that man’s conscience bears the work of the law on it. C.S. Lewis points out that when someone quarrels, they are not just saying that something the other person did displeases only them. They are appealing to some standard of behavior that says what that other person did was wrong. Where does this sense of fairness come from?¹⁵ If survival of the fittest is the evolutionary law of nature why should not stronger nations commit genocide against weaker nations? Why would this be morally wrong?

These three apologetics evidences strongly suggest that belief in a powerful personal God has a reasonable basis to it. One might add that most people in history have been persuaded by the evidence seen in creation to believe in God in some fashion. While these are valid evidences for the existence of God, there are objections. The very existence of evil is sometimes presented as a major objection to the existence of God.

Why is there Evil and Suffering?

If God is good and God is all-powerful then how can there be evil in the world? It may be claimed that since there is evil, there must not be a God. Or if there is a God, he must not be good or he must not be all-powerful. This problem is also called theodicy and constitutes one of the major objections to God’s existence. But there is no logical fallacy in that statement of the problem of evil and the existence of a good God. All of the following statement can be true. God is good. God is all-powerful. God created the world. The world contains evil. Where is the contradiction? What they really mean is this: God is good. God is all-powerful. God created the world. The world shouldn’t contain evil. However, the idea, that the world should not contain evil is just an assumption on their part. One could also respond that objective evil presupposes objective good. It has been said, “Shadows prove the existence of sunshine.” Some additional responses to theodicy can be summarized as follows:

1) Necessary for free-will to work. If it was impossible to disobey God, then we’d never have to choose to obey. We would be like robots. One could also supplement this: for true love to exist it must be reciprocal with a choice made by both parties freely. For those of you who are married, do you want to be married to someone who chooses to be married to you or to someone who was forced to (due to no choice of their own)?

2) Necessary for human spiritual growth. If there are no dangers, difficulties or disappointments in life, how can we gain character traits such as patience or endurance? C.S. Lewis rightly described that pain is God’s megaphone that rouses the ear of a deaf world. When are the times people have grown closest to God? Are they the good times or the hard times? Are they the times of feasting or the times of mourning? James stated: “My brothers and sisters, consider it nothing but joy when you fall into all sorts of trials, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect effect, so that you will be perfect and complete, not deficient in anything” (Jas 1:2-4).

3) Necessary to promote the greater good and God’s glory. The chief purpose of life is to glorify and know God. It is not human happiness! God’s role is not to make life comfortable for us. However, if we recognize that the evil, which causes human suffering, is leading people to know God, then there is a greater good. There is a good example of this in John’s gospel when Lazarus, Jesus’ friend gets sick and dies. “When Jesus heard this, he said, ‘This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it’”
(John 11:4).

4) Temporal suffering compared to eternal glory. In 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 Paul compares the suffering of this life with the eternal weight of glory. Compared to eternity with God the sufferings of this world are a “slight, momentary affliction.” This perspective is critical for Christians who are undergoing suffering.

5) It is too complicated for us to understand. Even if we can see some possible purpose in some evil/suffering, there are events which we can’t understand and we just have to recognize that we are finite creatures who can’t know God’s purpose in allowing those things.

Jesus summarized an important lesson when considering situations of evil and suffering. Luke 13 reads, “Now there were some present on that occasion who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. He answered them, ‘Do you think these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered these things? No, I tell you! But unless you repent, you will all perish as well! Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower in Siloam fell on them, do you think they were worse offenders than all the others who live in Jerusalem? No, I tell you! But unless you repent you will all perish as well!’” (Luke 13:1-5). First, notice that two different types of situations of evil and suffering are presented. The first one refers to moral evil in which Pilate governor of Judea had killed some Galileans. Why they were killed is not known. In the second case, a tower had fallen apparently accidently and killed 18 people. One might call this a natural evil or disaster. The Jewish people might have been asking the question from a theological perspective concerning why this happened. They came to the conclusion that it was because these people who died were sinners. But consider Jesus’ point. He basically says you are all sinners and unless you repent you will perish as well. In other words, do not focus so much on why these evil events occurred but focus on your own relationship with God to make sure it is right.

Summary Thoughts

Sin and evil are not things created by God. They are a deprivation of things created by God. Just like darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat, evil is really the absence of good. This was one of Augustine’s arguments.¹⁶ The Bible says: God created the world and it was “good” (Gen 1). However, man sinned and brought sin and suffering into the world (Gen 3). God is in the process of eradicating sin, suffering and Satan and all this will happen in his perfect timing (Rev 20-22). The apostle John writes, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and earth had ceased to exist . . . He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will not exist anymore – or mourning, or crying, or pain, for the former things have ceased to exist (Rev 21:1, 4).”

Discussion Questions

1. How could one begin to share the gospel with someone who does not believe the Bible?
2. How did Paul adjust his gospel presentation to the Athenians who did not accept the Jewish Scriptures (Acts 17)? Is there a lesson there for us today?
3. What convinces you that God really exists?
4. Does evolution contradict the Bible? Does it allow for a denial of the existence of God?
5. How would you answer the question of why God allows natural disasters and moral evil in the world?
6. Should American society have a theistic worldview in governmental matters, for example having “In God we trust” on US money?

¹ This lesson is an abbreviated formation of a series entitled “Understanding World Views” (http://bible.org/series/understanding-world-views) Hampton Keathley IV, which was edited and modified by James F. Davis.

² See Jim Keller, The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in a Postmodern World. Audio message from desiringgod.org.

³ Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 151-171.

⁴ Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 184-185, 193.

⁵ Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 151-171.

⁶ Graham Johnston, Preaching to a Post-Modern World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 26.

⁷ Richard Dawkins, http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/117 (Date accessed Nov 5, 2012).

⁸ Christopher Hitchens, http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12042-that-which-can-be-asserted-without-evidence-can-be-dismissed (Accessed Nov 5, 2012).

⁹ http://www.ccel.org/ccel/newell/romans.ii.htm (Accessed Nov 7, 2012).

¹⁰ Norman Geisler, Philosophy of Religion (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 172.

¹¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument (Date accessed March 5, 2013).

¹² See Jeff Miller, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 (Date accessed March 5, 2013).

¹³ See Jeff Miller, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 (Date accessed March 5, 2013).

¹⁴ Based largely on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument (Date accessed March 5, 2013).

¹⁵ C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (The McMillian Company, New York, 1960), 17-18.

¹⁶ Augustine states, “For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name evil.” Augustine, City of God, 11.9.

The Bible is alive, it speaks to me; it has feet it runs after me; it has hands, it lays hold of me. ―Martin Luther

Introduction

It is often rightly said that the Bible is the best-selling book of all time. Just looking at the distribution of Bible by the United Bible Societies for 2011 they distributed over 32.1 million Bibles.¹ This amounts to about 88,000 Bibles per day. The Bible has been translated in whole or in part in over 4800 languages and this work is still ongoing.² Scribes have spent countless hours over the course of history to bring forth accurate copies of the biblical manuscripts. William Tyndale died by a fiery execution in his efforts to translate the Bible into English. The Bible has had an amazing history and an amazing impact.

What is the nature of the Bible? Is the Bible without error? Is the Bible authoritative and how did Jesus view the Bible? How did we get it? Who decided what books went into the Bible and why? Why are there differences in Bible translations? The theological term for the study of the Bible is referred to as bibliology. This lesson will survey these critical issues surrounding the book that we base our entire faith and salvation on.

The Nature of the Bible

Inspiration

The Bible itself claims to be inspired by God. Paul states, “Every scripture is inspired by God”
(2 Tim 3:16) and also Peter, “No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Pet 1:20-21). In essence, we can say that the Bible is “God breathed.” Also, sometimes the inspiration is referred to as verbal and plenary. That is, inspiration applies to all the individual words of the entire Bible. One good theological definition of inspiration is articulated like this, “The act of the Holy Spirit in which He superintended the writers of Scripture so that, while writing according to their own styles and personalities, they produced God’s Word, written, authoritative, trustworthy, and free from error in the original writings.”³

There are two implications of the doctrine of inspiration. The first is that the Bible is a human book. The authors used their own language, writing methods, style of writing and literary forms of writing. For example, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament in Greek. These were the common human languages of the authors. They used writing materials such as scraped animal skins. Also, the human authors wrote to an audience in a specific historical context for a specific purpose. Moses wrote the law for the nation of Israel as they were about to enter the promised land. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians to address certain problems in a church in Greece. In addition, the Bible is influenced by the culture in which the author wrote. Jesus is engaging the Jewish culture; Paul largely is dealing with the Roman and Greek cultures on his missionary journeys. The Bible has over 40 authors and was written over a time period of 1500 years.

The second implication of inspiration is that the Bible is a divine book. As such the Bible is inerrant and authoritative. Also, the Bible has unity of a coherent and consistent message and can be compared with itself for proper interpretation. In addition the Bible has an element of mystery. Some passages may be hard to understand. Lastly, the Bible has an interpretation to it that is intended by God.

A good example of the dual authorship of the Bible can be seen in the example of Matthew 1:22-23 who is citing the Old Testament prophet Isaiah: “This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: ‘Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him Emmanuel.’” Notice that the Old Testament passage of Isaiah was spoken “by the Lord,” which indicates the divine ultimate source of what was said. This passage was also spoken “through the prophet,” which indicates a human intermediate source in this case Isaiah. It’s by the Lord and though the prophet. In other words the prophet is the human messenger by which God spoke.

Inerrancy and Challenges to It

A theological definition of inerrancy can be stated as follows, “The teaching that since the Scriptures are given by God, they are free from error in all their contents, including doctrinal, historical, scientific, geographical, and other branches of knowledge.”⁴ The inerrancy of the Bible is derived from Scripture itself. Deductively one can say that if God is true (and he is; Heb 6:18) and the Bible is inspired as God’s word (which it is; Mark 7:13), then this leads to the doctrine of inerrancy which means that the Bible in its entirety is without error.⁵ Jesus stated himself that the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35) and that even the smallest part of it would be fulfilled (Matt 5:18). Paul saw interpretive significance in a singular word as compared to a plural (Gal 3:16).

Despite the view though of many evangelicals, overtime there has been many challenges to inerrancy and these can be divided into three general categories: 1) alleged contradictions of the Bible with science, 2) alleged contradictions of the Bible with history, and 3) alleged contradictions of the Bible with itself. Let’s just take a look at a few examples of these common objections.

Evolution is often stated as a scientific contradiction to the Bible showing that the Bible is not without error in terms of the science of our origins. But while there is natural variation within species, macro-evolution (e.g., one species evolving to another species) is a theory and not a fact. It has never been observed and is not subject to the scientific method. The most that one can say is that the Bible is not consistent with a theory but this does not prove the Bible has an error when it speaks of the world and man’s origins. Some theologians have tried to reconcile the Bible with evolution by arguing for theistic evolution. Theistic evolution views that God created living things through the evolutionary process itself as understood by science. But this is a difficult exercise that is hard to square with all of the biblical data. For example, in the Bible plants are created on the third day but light is created on the fourth day (Gen 1). The existence of plants before light does not fit into any evolutionary scheme.

Another example sometimes given to argue that the Bible is not scientifically accurate is the case of the mustard seed found in Matthew 13:31. “He [Jesus] gave them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest garden plant and becomes a tree, so that the wild birds come and nest in its branches.’” The problem that some people have pointed out is that a wild orchid seed is smaller than the mustard seed. The Bible is then said to be inaccurate. What would a response be to this? Well for one thing, if this is true not only would the Bible be in error, but there would be a larger problem that Jesus spoke the error as well. While various solutions to this dilemma have been given, perhaps the simplest is to look at the statement in context and see that Jesus is referring only to sown seeds. Jesus speaks of a seed “sowed in a field.” The wild orchid is not a sown agricultural seed. Also, within the Judean world view and in their context it was the smallest seed.⁶

Alleged historical discrepancies have also sometimes been cited as an argument against the inerrancy of the Bible. Prior to the advent of the archeological era of the 19th and 20th centuries, critics often called into question the historicity of the Bible especially the Old Testament in terms of places, peoples and events. However, over time archeological discoveries have often silenced specific historical criticism. One can cite three examples of alleged or once alleged historical inaccuracies that have later been validated by archeological finds: 1) the Hittite Empire: In 1876 and later in 1906 evidence of the Hittite capital and language was discovered at Boghazkoy in modern Turkey; 2) the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah: starting in 1924 excavations were done in the area of the Dead Sea and evidence of cities which had been burned is present during the time of the biblical account; and 3) King David: In 1993 at Tel Dan in Northern Israel a 9th century BC inscription was discovered referring to the “King of Israel” and the “House of David.”⁷

William Albright was a prominent archeologist and professor at John Hopkins University (1930-1958). He stated, “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.”⁸ Nelson Glueck, archeologist and President of Hebrew Union College gave his overall perspective: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries.”⁹

The third area that the Bible’s inerrancy has been challenged on is alleged contradictions with itself. In other words if the Bible claims to be the word of God there should be no real factual contradictions in comparing one passage with another because if there were then one of the passages would be in error. But one has to realize that differences in parallel passages do not necessarily mean there are actual contradictions. Harmonization and understanding the nature of historical reporting most often provides good solutions to differences. For example in a football game on a pass interference play one reporter states the cornerback bumped the receiver while another states the receiver bumped into the cornerback. Both statements while different may be true because they are being reported from a different perspective.

Let’s look at a difference in a parallel passage between Matthew 10 and Mark 10. Are there two blind men or one blind man? Matthew writes, “As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed them. Two blind men were sitting by the road. When they heard that Jesus was passing by, they shouted, “Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!” (Matt 10:29-30). But Mark writes, “They came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus the son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the road. When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to shout, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!
(Mark 10:46-47).’” Can these passages be harmonized? That is, can both of these accounts be reconciled as true or does one have to be false? Matthew writing to a Jewish audience may wish to confirm the testimony of the blind men (Jesus = the son of David = a Messianic title) by the Jewish required number of at least two (Deut 17:6). Mark chooses to focus on one of the blind men naming him. The fact that Mark reports that one blind man was healed does not preclude that another blind man was also healed on the same occasion. Therefore both accounts can be true even though they contain differenes.

How does one explain the following differences in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Phillipi? The question Jesus asks is slightly different: In Matthew 16:13 Jesus states, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” In Mark 8:27 it’s reported as “Who do people say I am?” And in Luke 9:18, “Who do the crowds say I am?” Peter’s answer in Matthew 16:16 is, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” In Mark 8:29 it’s, “You are the Christ.” And in Luke 9:20 the reply is reported as, “The Christ of God.” Can one reconcile these differences and if so how? Sometimes the Bible’s authors condense or summarize speeches and events. It does not mean the condensation is inaccurate. This is the nature of historical reporting. For example when the President of the United States gives the annual State of the Union address that lasts one hour, there is a verbatim speech of what he gave. But a reporter comes on the TV and gives a five minute accurate summary of what was said. The summary is correct but is condensed from the entire verbatim speech. This practice is considered accurate reporting of what was said. It’s not erroneous.

The Authority of the Bible

If the Bible is God’s word then the implication is that as God has authority over his creation, then his Word would also have authority over us. The term Sola Scriptura comes from the Latin which means, “by Scripture alone.” This was one of the major themes of the Protestant Reformation. Simply it means that the Scripture alone is our supreme authority to all other authorities in matters of faith and practice. The author of Hebrews writes, “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart” (Heb 4:12). As Martin Luther said, “The true rule is this: God’s Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.”¹⁰ How did Jesus view the Bible? Jesus appealed to the authority of the Bible when he was tempted in the wilderness and in his arguments in citing the Old Testament stated “it is written” (Matt 4:1-11). Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place (Matt 5:18).” And “If those people to whom the word of God (= Old Testament Psalm) came were called `gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken)”(John 10:35). These verses suggest that Jesus believed even the smallest portion of Scripture down to the letter or even the part of a letter would come to pass; none of it can be broken or nullified. The Scripture is what is authoritative in regard to truth and how that truth relates to us.

The Canon of the Bible

The term canon is from the Greek word kanon meaning reed or straight rod thus a “standard.” By the 4th century A.D. for the New Testament, it is what was applied to a list or a collection of books that met a prescribed standard recognized by the church. Now in a theological sense, the canon refers to the closed collection of Jewish and early Christian writings that are divinely inspired and authoritative Scripture for the beliefs and practices of the church.

Principles of the Canonicity of the Bible

The basic guideline for whether a book was included in the Old Testament canon was if it had a prophetic origin (Deut 18). The Old Testament canon is divided between the Law (or Torah), Prophets (or Neviim) and Writings (or Kethuvim). This is referred to as the Tanakh. For the New Testament the basic guideline was and is apostolic origin or association. For the Gospels, Matthew and John were apostles while Mark was an associate with Peter and Luke was an associate with Paul (cf. also Acts). For the Epistles Paul, Peter, Jude, James, John, the author of Hebrews¹¹ and Revelation (John) were either apostles or associates of them. Other factors for New Testament canonicity included universality that is that the writings applied to the whole church (geographical and time); orthodoxy: that the writing in agreement and not conflict with the teaching of Jesus, the apostles and with the rest of the canon; and traditional usage: whether the book was used in the early first century church.

One historical factor that led to a formal list of the canon was heretical writings and groups who were making competing claims for authority. An example is the abridged canon of the heretic Marcion (A.D. 140) who left Jewish elements of the Bible out. He abandoned the Old Testament and only accepted Paul’s writings (except the pastorals letters of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) and Luke. There was also the expanded Canon of Montanus, who wanted his prophecies to be included and be elevated to canonical status.¹² It is best to understand that the church recognized what the canon was as opposed to determining it. In some cases, it took some time for the entire church to recognize the entire collection of books.

The Apocrypha

What about books written between the Old Testament and New Testament (mostly 250 BC-AD 100) that are referred to as the Apocrypha? There are 15 books in this category: 1 & 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirach), Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh and 1&2 Maccabees. The church father Jerome included them in the Latin Vulgate but separated them from the canon describing them as “Deuterocanonical.” In response to the strong position against these books by the reformers in 1546 the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent declared them all canonical (except the Prayer of Manasseh and 1&2 Esdras). The Apocryphal books should not be part of the canon because: 1) they are not accepted in the New Testament as authoritative as seen by the fact there are no direct quotations from them; 2) they never make the claim to be inspired or say, “Thus says the Lord” like the Old Testament does; 3) they are not part of the Hebrew Bible and the Jews never viewed the books as authoritative or canonical and they wrote them; and 4) the Council of Trent in 1546 was the first official proclamation on the matter for their canonicity and this was 1500 years after the books were written.¹³

Why the Canon is Closed

Perhaps the strongest argument for the canon’s close is that there is no longer the apostolic office to originate or validate the writings (cf. 1 Cor 9:1–2; 2 Cor 12:11; Eph 2:20). An important criteria to be an apostle is that one had to have seen the resurrected Jesus and been appointed by him. Paul states that these men as well as the prophets formed the foundation for the church, which has already been laid.

How We Received the Bible

Most of the Old Testament is written in Hebrew. It was written over a period of over 1400 years from Moses (and probably before) to the last book of the Old Testament Malachi. The text was transmitted by Jewish scribes, experts in the Old Testament. The Masoretic Text refers to the Hebrew Old Testament text that Jewish scribes¹⁴ in the Middle Ages received with consonants only and they added vowels to it. These vowels aided in the pronunciation and interpretation of the text. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained Old Testament biblical manuscripts some of which were 1000 years earlier than other manuscripts that we previously had. Some sections of the Old Testament were originally written in Aramaic (Gen 31:47; Jer 10:11; Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26); Dan 2:4b-7:28). The entire New Testament is written in Koine Greek which was a period of Greek language that last from about the time of Alexander the Great (300 BC) to Constantine (300 A.D.). The New Testament text was transmitted by Christian scribes and there are over 5600 Greek manuscripts (2nd to 15th A.D).

An example of a Hebrew Old Testament Verse (Genesis 1:1)

בּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

An example of a Koine Greek New Testament Verse (John 14:6)

λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι᾿ ἐμοῦ.

Early Bible Translations

The purpose of Bible translation is to get the Bible into a native language that people can understand. There were many early Bible translations that preceded any effort to get one into English. For the Old Testament some of these early translations were the Koine Greek Septuagint (LXX) which was started in the 3rd Century B.C., the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Jewish Targums and the Latin Vulgate done by Jerome 400 A.D. Early translations of the New Testament were also done starting in the second century A.D. in Coptic (Egyptian), Latin, and Syriac.

Brief History of the English Bible

John Wycliffe (1330-1384) is credited as being the first person inspiring the effort toward a complete English translation though his followers did the actual work¹⁵. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Here is a verse from the Wycliffe translation. Matt 22:37-40: Thou schalt love thi Lord God of al thin herte, and of al thi soule and of al thi mynde, and thi neighebore as thi self, for in these twey comaundements hangith al the lawe and prophetis. The Wycliffe translation was copied by hand as it preceded the development of the printing press. In 1415, Wycliffe was condemned by the church, his followers were jailed and Wycliffe’s bones were dug up, burned and ashes scattered in a river. William Tyndale (1492-1536) was the first to use Greek and Hebrew manuscripts for an English translation. He explained that the reason he did it was for the common man: “I will cause a boy that drives a plow to know more of the Scripture than a learned scholar.”¹⁶ Many modern renderings of English Bible phrases can be traced back to Tyndale. John 14:6: “Iesus sayd vnto him: I am the waye verite and lyfe. Noman cometh vnto the father but by me.” He was the first to complete a printed edition of English Bible and six thousand printed copies of the English Bible were smuggled into England. Tyndale was hounded and eventually burned at the stake for the translation and prayed as he was being burned, “Lord open the King’s eyes.”

God answered Tyndale’s prayer and later the English King began to allow the English Bible into the church. Following Tyndale’s translation there was: The Coverdale Bible (1535); Matthew’s Bible (1537); The Tavner Bible (1539); The Great Bible (1539); The Geneva Bible (1560; Bible used by the Pilgrims); The Bishops Bible (1568); The Douai-Rheims Bible (1609-10). These were largely revisions of each other. In 1603 King James I took the throne of England. He was unhappy with the Calvinist notes in Geneva Bible and the anti-protestant notes in the Douay-Rheims Bible. The King wanted to have one standard Bible for the English church. So he supported 50 scholar/translators to complete the King James Bible, which they did in 1611. The King also controlled the English presses which helped to ensure the translation’s widespread use. The King James Version underwent revisions in 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769 (Current KJV), and 1982 (New King James Version (NKJV)).¹⁷ Starting with the English Revised Version in 1885, many other English translation followed: 1901 American Standard Version; 1952 Revised Standard Version (RV) (1971; Protestant); 1989 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) (Protestant); 1958 The Phillips Bible (Evangelical.); 1960/95 The New American Standard Bible (NASB) (Evangelical.); 1966 Jerusalem Bible (JB); 1985 New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) (Catholic); 1971 The Living Bible (LB) and 1996 New Living Translation (NLT)(Evangelical); 1979 New International Version (NIV) (1984; 2005 TNIV; 2011 (Evangelical); 1993 The Message (Evangelical); 1995 Contemporary English Version (CEV)(Evangelical); 2004 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) (Evangelical); 2005 The NET Bible 2001; and The Evangelical Standard Version (2007, 2011; Evangelical).¹⁸

Types of Bible Translations

Many people who read different Bible translations wonder why there are differences in Bible translations. One of the main reasons for these differences is differing translation philosophies. The three major translation philosophies are termed Dynamic Equivalence, Word Equivalence, and Paraphrase. Dynamic Equivalence translations seek to express the meaning of the text in a way that is idiomatic in English. It is more concerned about good stylistic English and willing to forgo some literalness to accomplish this objective. It usually results in translations that are easier to read and understand. These types of translations are also more interpretive to what the translators think the text means. Examples of Dynamic Equivalent translations are: NIV, NLT, CEV, (NET and HCSB in part). Word Equivalence translations are more literal to the language structure of the original text. The translations seek to produce the semantic equivalence of each word and represent it in the translation. This type of translation is usually harder to read. Also, sometimes these may confuse what the author means with an unfamiliar idiom. They are generally less interpretive in translation and allow for more interpretive options translating what text says not what it means necessarily. Examples of Word Equivalent translations are: NASB, NKJV, RSV (NET and HCSB in part). Paraphrases are not translations from the original language, but someone putting something in their own words as to how they would say it. Examples of Paraphrases are the Living Bible and The Message. Below is a comparison of how different types of translations render Psalm 1:1.

Comparison of Ps 1:1

Notice how the word equivalence rendering of the NASB translated the Hebrews words very literally as “walk”, “stand” and “sit”. The NET keeps two of three of these renderings but on the first one translates, “follow” for a more literal “walk.” The HCSB renders all three terms in a dynamic equivalence fashion “follow” for “walk”, “take” for “stand” and “join” for “sit”. The Message speaks for itself.

Concluding Reflections

The Bible has an amazing history of how it came to be and how it came to us. It is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. People, some of them to the point of death, have dedicated themselves to get the Bible into our hands. John Wycliffe states the importance of God’s word: “God’s words will give men new life more than other words that are for pleasure. O marvelous power of the Divine Seed which overpowers strong men in arms, softens hard hearts, and renews and changes into godly men, those men who had been brutalized by sins and departed infinitely far from God.”

Discussion Questions

1. If we as Christians believe the Bible is inspired by God and inerrant how should this affect our interaction with it?
2. What challenges to the reliability of the Bible have you encountered? How have you responded?
3. What are some questions you have about what books are included in the canon and what books are not? Are you comfortable with it?
4. Are there any differences in the Bible that you think are very difficult or cannot be reconciled? What are they?
5. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of having so many Bible translations?
6. What Bible translation do you like and why?
7. How does the fact that Tyndale died to get the English Bible completed and distributed help you appreciate the Bible we have?

¹ http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/news/2119-bible-distribution-grows-by-11-in-2011/ (Date accessed November 27, 2012).

² http://www.wycliffe.org/about/statistics.aspx (Date accessed November 27, 2012).

³ Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 2008), 715.

⁴ Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 713-714.

⁵ See Norm Geisler, http://www.inplainsite.org/html/alleged_bible_errors.html (Date Accessed Nov 28, 2012).

⁶ Other less attractive solutions have been to see the statement as proverbial or as seeing the reference to the seed as “very small” as opposed to “smallest”. But in any case the different possibilities are a demonstration that a scientific error what Jesus said cannot be proved.

⁷ See Patrick Zukeran, http://bible.org/article/archaeology-and-old-testament (Date accessed Nov 27, 2012).

⁸ William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religions of Israel  (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1956), 176.

⁹ Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (New York: Farrar, Strous and Cudahy, 1959), 136.

¹⁰ Martin Luther, Smalcald Articles II, 15.

¹¹ Even though we do not know for sure who wrote Hebrews it seems clear that at least he had an association with the apostles (Heb 2:3-4). 

¹² James Davis, “Class Notes Critical Issues and Bible Backgrounds – New Testament Portion,” Capital Bible Seminary, 2009; Köstenburger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross and the Crown (Nashville: Broadman Holman Publishers, 2009) 8-10.

¹³ Credit is given to Dr. Todd Beall for most of the ideas in this paragraph. Todd Beall, “Class Notes Critical Issues and Bible Backgrounds- Old Testament Portion,” Capital Bible Seminary, 2004.

¹⁴ The Jewish scribes of this historical era were called Masoretes which means “tradition.” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text.

¹⁵ F. F. Bruce, The English Bible A History of Translation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961), 12-13.

¹⁶ F. F. Bruce, The English Bible A History of Translation, 29.

¹⁷ Arthur L. Farstad, The New King James Version in the Great Tradition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993) 9-18.

¹⁸  Andreas Köstenburger and David A. Croteau, eds, Which Bible Translation Should I Use? (Nashville: Broadman Holman Publishers, 2012), vi.

¹⁹ Peterson notes that the Message was not intended to be a replacement for other translations: “When I’m in a congregation where somebody uses [The Message] in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, “Hear the Word of God from The Message.” But it surprises me how many do.” Eugene Peterson, “I didn’t Want to Be Cute,” Christianity Today (October 2002) (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/october7/33.107.html?start=2) (Date accessed March 5, 2013).

²⁰ The HCSB editors prefer to term their translation approach as “optimal equivalence” using word equivalence where they can but dynamic equivalence when deemed necessary. Andreas Köstenburger and David A. Croteau, eds, Which Bible Translation Should I Use, 117. 

The books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—composed as they were in the postexilic period of Israel’s history—were intended, among other purposes, to bring hope to a people whose national and even personal lives had been shattered by the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the subsequent deportation of much of the Jewish population. That hope centered not only on the return of the exiles and restoration of their religious and political community but pre-eminently in the eschatological promise of a messianic redeemer and ruler.

The foregoing reasons make these brief prophetic writings particularly relevant and beneficial to modern Christians, for they can see in them the covenant faithfulness of God to His ancient people—a faithfulness exhibited in the coming of Jesus Christ—and they can take heart in the realization that the God who restored Israel long ago can also restore them in times of spiritual decline and personal tragedy. This has been my experience, at least, as I have been confronted with the power and presence of the God of Israel and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The undertaking of a commentary on these books has proven to be more than a mere task. Instead, it has turned into an opportunity to be reminded in a fresh way of the perfection of God’s eternal purposes.

The successful completion of a project of this nature is dependent on many others besides the author. I wish first to thank Bruce Winter, David DeBoys, Iain Hodgins, and other staff members and colleagues at Tyndale House, Cambridge, for their hospitality and invigorating fellowship in the year 1989-90. Also, I thank the administration and faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary for a year’s sabbatical that offered the time and resources to pursue the project. These resources include Amy Hall and Sue Knepp, whose patient word processing—always done with competence and cheerfulness—contributed more than words can say. Finally, I stand in gratitude to my wife Janet and to family and friends who have encouraged me along the way. To all who have been a part, this work is affectionately dedicated.

Editor's Note: Dr. Merrill occasionally uses the term "Palestine" to anachronistically refer to Israel in this study. This is due to the general, non-pejorative use of the term which was more common in preceding years (due to the previous name of the region [A.D. 135-1948]). From personal experience we know that Dr. Merrill has often visited Israel, and maintains a love for the land and people. He has likewise enjoyed a warm relationship with many rabbi's, pastors, and scholars from diverse backgrounds and beliefs. Consequently, we have left these manuscripts as originally written. Yet we pray that this clarification will alleviate any misunderstanding that might occur.

What Those You Disciple Need to Know about Who They Are in Christ

When I became a Christian, I was told I'd been "adopted" into God’s family and was a "new person" in Christ. That sounded nice, but I didn't have a clue what it meant until much later. If I'd understood earlier, I might have been spared years of insecurity.

Now, when I disciple new believers, I begin with five biblical truths about our identity in Christ that can help them avoid self-accusation, doubt, and uncertainty. Though we usually cover these truths in weekly, casual settings (over coffee, perhaps) at the start of our relationship, the same truths can be covered in a structured Bible study using the Scripture references I’ve provided.

Truth 1: We are God’s children.

One woman I discipled saw herself as God’s unfavored foster child: The Christians with perfect faces and tidy lives were His real children. As we looked at scriptures on God’s love (such as 1 John 4) and talked about being part of a loving family—not the shattered family that had been her experience—she gradually absorbed her true status as God’s dearly loved child.

Romans 8:15-17 as well as Gal. 3:26-4:7 explain the theology of adoption, but I sometimes find it helpful in discipling someone to put those truths into these less complicated terms:

When we receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, we enter God’s family. We are no longer orphans, slaves, beggars, strangers, or prisoners. Neither are we foster kids, distant cousins, employees, team members, or His management staff. We become permanent members of God’s family in every ideal sense of the word. God delights in us just as loving earthly fathers delight in their children—only more so. He loves us not because of anything we’ve done, but because it’s His nature to do so. We belong to Him.

Truth 2: We are heard.

"Lorraine" doubted God would hear her, let alone answer. She assumed He was too busy with other people’s big problems to listen to her small concerns. Then we watched the movie Anna and the King.

In one moving scene, King Mongkut’s young daughter, fearing something that occurred in her classroom, sought help. She raced through elaborate courtyard gardens, up the palace’s marble steps, and down a gilded hall. Breathing heavily, she stopped short at the Grand Hall’s entrance and peeked in. Dozens of men knelt in reverence before the enthroned king while dignitaries petitioned him with their concerns.

Undeterred, the little girl picked her way through the bowing men, scooted around the dignitaries, climbed the steps to the throne, scampered onto the king’s lap, and whispered in his ear. The king dropped everything to come to her aid and calm her fears. Other matters would wait; his child needed him.

That scene helped Lorraine realize that because we are God’s children, He is constantly available to us. We can climb confidently onto His lap—"approach the throne of grace," as Heb. 4:16 puts it—and whisper into His ear anytime, anyplace, and in any circumstance. Just as King Mongkut joyfully responded to his daughter’s cry for help, so God delights in coming to our aid. Many of the psalms reinforce this marvelous truth (see 46:1, 50:15, and 91:15).

Truth 3: We are condemnation-free.

In a world that portrays God as a stern school monitor waiting to smack our knuckles, we all need to be reminded that God meets us in grace and forgiveness. As Ro. 8:1 reminds us, "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

"It’s too easy," said "Allison," when I told her God had forgiven her past. "With what I’ve done, how can I expect Him just to forgive? Don't I need to make up for my mistakes?"

I identified with Allison. For many years, I felt haunted by the need to do more. I didn't get it until someone put it this way: "So you think what Jesus did wasn't good enough for you?"

"What do you mean?" I stammered, horrified at the thought.

"By saying you have to ’do more' to make up for your bad acts, you're essentially saying Jesus' sacrifice on the cross wasn't sufficient to pay the cost of your sin."

My friend was right. According to the Scriptures, my sinful attitudes and actions did require punishment to satisfy a righteous God’s justice, but Jesus' punishment paid for it all. He then gave me His spotless record to replace my criminal one, the one for which He paid. I was clean before God and no longer condemned.

When I explained the doctrine of justification to Allison in this way, she realized that God didn't condemn her anymore; neither should she condemn herself. Reading and discussing Ro. 8:1-11 is an effective way to drive home these truths with the person you're discipling.

Truth 4: We are changed but in process.

How different the world would be if every believer knew, really knew, he was a changed person in Christ (2 Cor. 5:16-17)! But explaining this change to new believers can be a challenge.

One of the most important assurances we have is of God’s ongoing presence within us. His indwelling Spirit frees us to resist sin and temptation in ways we couldn't before. We don't have to stay mired in bad choices or unhealthy behaviors. The same power that enabled Jesus to rise from the dead is available for us to live by each day (Ro. 8:10-11, Eph. 1:19-20).

However, that doesn't mean our thoughts and behaviors change overnight (Ro. 7:14-8:2). I repeatedly remind those I disciple that change is a process—one choice at a time—of learning to depend on God and act more like Jesus. It’s an "already but not yet" experience of being, yet becoming, princes and princesses in God’s royal family. Yes, we are the King’s kids, but we have to learn royal ways. We will mess up sometimes; we can count on it. That doesn't change the truth that God’s Spirit permanently resides within us and possesses the power to make us new.

Truth 5: We are the recipients of God’s faithfulness.

At the point of failure, all the assurances we have talked about in the first four truths can come under question. That’s when we most need this last truth: God is faithful.

"Linda," just four weeks into our meeting together, called me in tears. "I swore I wouldn't lose it with my kids again, Joan. I asked God to give me patience. But I blew it big time. I screamed and screamed at Timmy until I was hoarse. Now what do I do?"

Inevitably we will respond to circumstances and people in our lives with thoughts or actions that are less than Christlike. Some days, even 25 years into the journey, I wonder if I'll ever become the woman God wants me to be. It can be discouraging when we see how much we still need to grow.

After discussing with Linda what happened and why, I prayed with her and then reminded her of the first four truths we'd already covered in our times together. I encouraged her to trust what she knew the Scriptures said about her identity in Christ over what her feelings were telling her. This review helped us gain perspective on her situation, but our greatest encouragement came from a new truth about God’s faithfulness.

First Thessalonians 5:24 reminds us, "The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it." Philippians 1:6 tells us that "he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion." God promises to keep us blameless until He comes; He says He will accomplish what He started.

The God whose "compassions never fail" and are "new every morning" (Lam. 3:22-23) is our God. The truth that He is ever faithful, ever at work in our lives, helped Linda overcome her despair over her sinful temper, to confess her sin to her little boy and to God, and to move forward with confidence in her identity in Christ.

All of us—new believers and old—will sometimes fall in this walk of faith. We need regular assurance from the Scriptures and from each other that God loves us, hears us, refuses to condemn us, empowers us to change, and is ever faithful to us.