The Quest for the Historical Jesus

Since the late 17th century the historical reliability of the Gospels has been attacked and challenged in the academic world by skeptics who have driven a wedge between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. At least three waves of critical analysis, collectively referred to as “The Quest for the Historical Jesus,”¹ have been based on the historical-critical method with attempts to identify and evaluate sources believed to be behind the Gospel records. From the 18th-century European Age of Enlightenment, naturalists and rationalists have questioned the supernaturalistic claims of scripture and approached the texts as they would any other writings of antiquity, including secular and pagan works. 

The First Quest

German theologian F. C. Baur (1792-1860) and his Tübingen School popularized the theory that Christianity began as two conflicting movements, viz. an early Petrine Jewish form (represented in Matthew) and a later Pauline Gentile form (represented in Luke), with Paulinism originally viewed as heretical. By the mid-2nd century the opposing factions were synthesized (represented in Mark), producing the mostly spurious documents that now comprise the NT. The Gospels, according to Baur, “can only be looked upon as intentional deviations from historical truth in the interest of the special tendency which they possess.”² Many others followed Baur’s lead, as his unorthodox claims had a sizeable impact on NT scholarship that continues to this day.

The Second Quest

The hyper-subjectivism of this “first quest” was convincingly challenged by Albert Schweitzer in the early 20th century,³ paving the way for a “second quest.” In the meantime Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976),⁴ along with Karl Barth (1886-1968), argued that very little about the historical Jesus can be known apart from his mere existence on earth and his death. Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989) then promoted, through critical analysis known as Redaction Criticism, the theory that the Gospel of Luke and the early Christians changed the initial idea of an imminent return of Christ to the concept of “Salvation History,” extending the parousia into the more distant future and living as disciples in the church age.⁵

In the 1950s Ernst Käsemann, followed by Günther Bornkam, Norman Perrin, James M. Robinson, and others, through Form Criticism reclaimed the historicity of a number of Christ’s teachings but rejected others. In the 1980s–1990s Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, and the Jesus Seminar took this to an extreme, endeavoring to show that an even smaller amount in the Gospels (less than 20% of the sayings attributed to Jesus) was authentic. Their skewed methodology and conclusions, however, have been criticized and rejected by mainstream scholarship.

The Third Quest

Interest in a “third quest” emerged in the 1960s–1980s, as more evidence came to light from the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with the impact of E. P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977). This led to an interpretive strategy that focused more on Jesus in his 1st-century Palestinian environment and reaffirmed the historical value of the Gospels. 

Making a significant contribution to conservative scholarship and a considerable impact on NT scholarship in general, British theologian Ian Howard Marshall published Luke: Historian and Theologian (1970),⁶ largely in response to Redaction Criticism’s misdirected extremes of the 1960s. Marshall maintained that history and theology are not incompatible. Building on the works of forerunners like William Ramsay, Marshall reiterated the historical reliability and importance of Luke’s writings. He also shifted the prevailing proclivity of merely harmonizing to analyzing each Gospel according to its own distinctive theological perspective. 

Significant works in more recent years include Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, eds., Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence (2010); and Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (2012). These studies reinforce the solid historical foundation upon which the portrait of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels stands.

The Ongoing Quest

What many are calling a “fourth quest” has emerged within the past decade or so, with greater attention given to the Fourth Gospel’s contribution and the historical value of its distinctive features.⁷ Still in its early stages, “the [fourth] quest of the historical Jesus still has plenty of promising fruit to yield.”⁸

The quest continues to this day across the vast expanse of the theological spectrum. Out of all this analysis, discussion, and debate has developed at least three dominant critical disciplines. Form Criticism classifies individual “forms” or “units” in the biblical texts and seeks to trace their origins and developments through an extended period of oral transmission. Source Criticism seeks to identify and analyze literary sources assumed to be behind the biblical documents. Redaction Criticism evaluates how authors have presumably copied, arranged, and edited materials to produce the final product.⁹

Richard Bauckham comments:

We should be under no illusions that, however minimal a Jesus results from the quest, such a historical Jesus is no less a construction than the Jesus of each of the Gospels…. What is in question is whether the reconstruction of a Jesus other than the Jesus of the Gospels, the attempt, in other words, to do all over again what the Evangelists did, though with different methods, critical historical methods, can ever provide the kind of access to the reality of Jesus that Christian faith and theology have always trusted we have in the Gospels.¹⁰

How reasonable is it to think 19th-, 20th-, and 21st-century westerners are in a better position to determine the true state of affairs of persons and events thousands of years in the past in distant lands and foreign cultures than those who actually lived and reported contemporaneously? Rather than stand on the shoulders of giants, many seem determined to start all over from scratch.¹¹

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See B. Witherington III, The Jesus Quest 9-13; M. A. Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History 13-15; J. G. Crossley, Reading the NT 56-71.

     ² Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ 1:108, trans. A. Menzies.

     ³ The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906).

     ⁴ Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1921); trans. J. Marsh, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (1995). Along with Bultmann, other leading proponents of Form Criticism during this period were K. L. Schmidt and M. Dibelius.

     ⁵ Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas (1954); translated into English as The Theology of St. Luke (1960).

     ⁶ Published in three editions, latest 2006.

     ⁷ See Paul N. Anderson, “A Fourth Quest for Jesus,” The Bible and Interpretation (July 2010), <Web>; P. N. Anderson and T. Thatcher, eds., John, Jesus, and History Vol. 1: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views (2007); Vol. 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel (2009); Vol. 3: Glimpses of Jesus through the Johannine Lens (Early Christianity and Its Literature) (2016). See also J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making (2003); C. L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (2011).

     ⁸ C. L. Blomberg, “The Fourth Quest of the Historical Jesus: Jesus The Purifier,” WBN (4 April 2021), <Web>; also Blomberg’s upcoming Jesus the Purifier: Furthering the Fourth Quest of the Historical Jesus (2023).

     ⁹ J. P. Meir acknowledges that assessing the criteria of authenticity “is more an art than science, requiring sensitivity to the individual case rather than mechanical implementation” (A Marginal Jew, vol. 1: Mentor, Message, and Miracles AYBRL [NY: Doubleday, 1991]: 184). For a reasonably concise overview from a reasonably conservative perspective, see C. L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed.) 91-107. Blomberg also observes that in the 21st century, German scholarship no longer dominates, Form Criticism is passe, and Redaction Criticism is eclipsed by Critical Realism. Anti-supernaturalism still offers a challenge but not as definitively as in the past (“I. H. Marshall’s View of Redaction and History in Luke-Acts,” ETS 73rd Annual Meeting, 17 Nov. 2021). See also J. G. Crossley, Reading the NT 15-32.

     ¹⁰ Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2nd ed.) 4.

     ¹¹ C. H. Dodd candidly observes, “it is the plain duty of the historian to make use of every possible source of information in the effort to learn the facts about an historical episode which on any showing was a significant and influential one” (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel 2).  

Related Posts: Challenging the Gospels' Integrity: a Response (Part 1), Part 2, Part 3

 

Image credit: https://www.picturemosaics.com/photomosaics/id/133

Practical Advice for Evangelism

Everyone who is in Christ, having been reconciled to God through him, has been granted immeasurable spiritual blessings. But this also comes with responsibility: “and has given us the ministry of reconciliation ... and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ ...” (2 Corinthians 5:17-21, NKJV). All who have been reconciled to God through Christ are expected to give others the same opportunity. This is the God-given ministry of every disciple.

What is Evangelism?

Evangelism is not something we do to people. It is what we do with the gospel (“the good news”). We have no control over how people respond to the gospel, but we do have control over whether or not we make it available to those outside of Christ. The Lord has not given any of us the responsibility of saving souls. That’s his job. 

When it comes to evangelizing, stop putting so much unnecessary pressure on yourself. God, through his word, is the one who ultimately saves (Acts 2:47; James 1:21). No matter how smart, eloquent, and knowledgeable you might be, you do not have the inherent power to save anyone. At the same time, no matter how clumsy, inept, and inarticulate you may think you are, God can and will save people through your humble efforts, despite your inadequacies. “So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase” (1 Corinthians 3:7). 

Where To Begin: Attitude

Eliminate excuses. The Lord cannot be obeyed or glorified by coming up with reasons for not doing what he has called us to do. Excuses are unacceptable. Understand that the best way to ensure a lost soul stays lost is to say and do nothing.

Have a realistic understanding of who you are and what your purpose is. The greater burden actually rests on those you are trying to reach and the condition of their hearts. If a person does not genuinely desire to know and obey the Lord, there is very little you can say or do to change that (cf. John 8:47). At the same time, if a person sincerely wants to know the truth and do God’s will, irrespective of how many mistakes you might make in your fallible attempts to communicate, he or she will learn the truth and obey it. 

Jesus promised, “seek and you will find” (Matthew 7:7), regardless of how unimpressive the teacher might be. He also said, “If anyone wants to do his will, he shall know concerning the doctrine …” (John 7:17), no matter how awkwardly that doctrine might be presented. He further stated, “you shall know the truth” (John 8:32), irrespective of those who make less-than-perfect attempts to communicate it.

Where To Begin: Initial Approach 

Always start with prayer. Jesus (the greatest evangelist) was a man of constant prayer. Although the book of Acts is a record of evangelism and conversions, it is replete with references, examples, and allusions to prayer. What were the acts of the apostles? In their own words, “we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4). If you are attempting to do God’s work, shouldn’t you invite God to be involved in it?

Be yourself. If you try to mimic someone else’s approach or recite a memorized sales pitch, you may come across fake and insincere. Develop an approach you’re comfortable with and that works best for you. 

Be transparent. People appreciate and are more receptive to sincerity and honesty. If you’re nervous, acknowledge it. If you don’t know how to answer a question, admit it. If your aim is to share your faith, don’t try to hide it. Never be deceptive, pushy, or manipulative.

Always be mindful of your immediate goal: introducing this person to the word of God. While the ultimate goal is to “make disciples” (Matthew 28:18-20), this can only be accomplished one soul at a time. If someone is not engaged in Bible study, there can be no genuine conversion (John 8:31-32, 51). With this goal in the back of your mind, it is not the purpose of your spiritual conversations to declare the whole counsel of God or to win an argument or even to answer questions. 

Let the Bible do the teaching. No matter what you attempt to convey verbally, it can never replace God’s inspired word. Even if what you say is the truth, it will be no more convincing than what anyone else might say without scriptural confirmation. You are simply a guide, pointing to the scriptures for the answers and instruction.

 

The aim of your conversations is to develop the person’s interest in studying the Bible, and the best approach is to simply ask questions with that purpose in mind. “Tell me about your spiritual journey.” “What do you think about God?” “What do you know about the Bible?” If you get stumped and can’t think of what to say next, just blurt it out: “I’d really like to study the Bible with you.” You may be surprised at how many doors of opportunity are opened that would be missed otherwise.

Conclusion

While we should surely give attention to developing effective evangelistic techniques, tools, and strategies, at the end of the day these things are a means to an end but in and of themselves do not save anyone. The results of evangelism are not up to you. What is in your control is what you do with the word of reconciliation that has been placed in your hands. “But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so we speak …” (1 Thessalonians 2:4).

--Kevin L. Moore

*Published in The Christian Exile (04 July 2022), <Link>.

Related Posts:

 

Image credit: adapted from https://plainbibleteaching.com/2012/12/12/how-to-reach-others-with-the-gospel/

Why I love the church

I love the church because I love God, and God has demonstrated his own love for me and the rest of the world through his Son Jesus Christ, who is inseparable from his church. Jesus Christ is the builder, the foundation, the purchaser, and the head of his church (Matthew 16:18; Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 3:11; Colossians 1:18). He is the savior of the body, which is his church (Ephesians 1:22-23; 5:23). As a penitent baptized believer I am forgiven of sins, reconciled to God, and added to this community of the saved (Acts 2:37-47). I love the church because God through Christ loves the church. The church is his precious bride (Revelation 19:7; 21:9). I am privileged to not only be a member of Christ’s church but to know and work with others around the world who share the same faith and commitment. These are by far the best people I have ever known, diligently engaged in loving and serving people, seeking to save the lost, and glorifying the Lord in view of eternity. The church, comprised of fallible human beings, is not perfect. But imperfect people like me are invited to be part of this community wherein we work and serve together and support each other to be more like the one to whom the church belongs. The church of Christ allows me to be identified with and to honor him. How can I not love the church?

--Kevin L. Moore

*Originally written for Revista Edificação (July 2022), ed. Randal Matheny.  

Related Posts: The Church of CHRIST, The Church in the Gospel Plan of Salvation 

 

Image credit: https://www.google.com/search?q=love+the+church&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS780US780&sxsrf=ALiCzsbcFwUhF9sBf-J9owoKVqlsNd8yjg:1658855602823&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLk8LXhpf5AhWLJ0QIHfBiDa0Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw

Supply in Your Faith … Godliness

Text: 2 Peter 1:5-7

Introduction

The apostle Peter contributed two inspired documents to the NT; the first deals with problems from outside the church (sufferings), while the second deals with problems from within the church (false teachers). To guard against these inevitable challenges, in 2 Peter heavy emphasis is placed on “knowledge.”¹ The epistle opens with reminders of what God has done for us (1:1-4), followed by what God expects of us (1:5-7).

What God Has Done for Us

Faith is “obtained,”² not through self-righteousness but in the “righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:1). Faith is grounded in what God has done through Christ rather than our own innovation and accomplishment.³ Grace and peace are multiplied, not by self-achievement but “in full-knowledge [ἐπίγνωσις]⁴ of God and of Jesus our Lord” (1:2). Divine power has supplied all we need for life and godliness “through the full-knowledge [ἐπίγνωσις] of him who called us …” (1:3). We have access to “the precious and magnificent promises,” including fellowship with the divine nature and liberation from spiritual corruption (1:4).

At the same time these blessings and provisions come with expectations and responsibilities (1:5-7).

What God Expects of Us

In view of everything the Lord has done and continues to do, “giving all diligence …” (NKJV); “make every effort …” (ESV) (1:5). We have personal responsibility and accountability to God, involving our own determined effort (cf. 1:10).

Beginning with our “faith” [πίστις], initiated by what God has done through Christ (1:1), we are directed to supply in our faith:⁵ moral goodness [ἀρετή], knowledge [γνῶσις], self-control [ἐγκράτεια], endurance [ὑπομονή], godliness [εὐσέβεια], brotherly affection [φιλαδελφία], and love [ἀγάπη] (1:5-7). Not that any of these is mastered before moving on to the next, but all are developed concurrently and interdependently under the umbrella of faith. The focus of this lesson is “godliness.”

Godliness Defined

The English word “godliness” implies Godlike. We are invited to be “sharers” or “partakers” [κοινωνοί] of the divine nature (1:4b) – not that we are deified, but we are sanctified.⁶ Having escaped the lustful corruption in the world (1:4c),⁷ we embrace and emulate God’s holiness (1 Pet. 1:13-16; Heb. 12:10), righteousness (Eph. 4:22-24), and love (1 John 4:7-11).⁸

Whatever God expects us to be, he already is. Having been sanctified through the new spiritual birth (John 1:12-13; 3:3-5; 1 Pet. 1:22-23), we are Godlike when we are Christlike (cf. Rom. 8:9-10, 29; Phil. 2:5; 1 Pet. 2:21).

The Greek noun εὐσέβεια, most often rendered “godliness,”⁹ occurs fifteen times in the NT.¹⁰ Its highest concentration is in 1 Timothy and 2 Peter, along with the adjectival form εὐσεβής in 2 Pet. 2:9 as a description of the “godly [ones].” Assuming these inspired authors practiced what they preached, the lives of Paul (after Acts 9:18) and Peter (after Acts 1:13) demonstrate what godliness and these other virtues entail (cf. 1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Gal. 2:8; Phil. 3:17; 2 Tim. 3:10). Additional information is available in the other writings of Paul and Peter, with which the original recipients of 2 Peter were familiar (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 3:1, 15-16).

Leading up to the publication of 2 Peter, we learn about εὐσέβεια (“godliness”): 

·      It can be fake and insincere (1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Tim. 3:5).

·      It is not of human derivation (Acts 3:12; 1 Tim. 3:16).

·      It is characteristic of the Christian lifestyle (1 Tim. 2:2).

·      It is profitable for all things, present and future (1 Tim. 4:7-8).

·      Coupled with contentment it is great gain (1 Tim. 6:6).

·      It develops through sound teaching and full-knowledge [ἐπίγνωσις] of truth (1 Tim. 6:3; Titus 1:1).

·      It is the opposite of prideful, ignorant, argumentative; envy, strife, slander, evil suspicions, and constant turmoil among the depraved and greedy (1 Tim. 6:3-5).

·      It is to be pursued along with righteousness, faith, love, endurance, and gentleness (1 Tim. 6:11).

Peter adds in his second epistle …

·      Godliness ultimately comes from God, who has provided all we need to attain it (1:3).

·      Manifesting godliness involves diligent effort in the context of faith (1:5-7).

·      Full-knowledge [ἐπίγνωσις] of our Lord Jesus Christ is inseparable from possessing and abounding in godliness and the other virtues (1:8).

·      Lacking it is spiritually detrimental (1:9).

·      It is necessary for entering into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (1:11).

·      The “godly” have assurance of the Lord providentially working in their lives (2:9). 

·      Coupled with holiness, it is how we ought to be in view of the Lord’s return (3:11).

Godliness Demonstrated 

Godliness is demonstrated in the life of Christ: our perfect example (1 John 2:3-6). It is demonstrated in the life of Paul: transformative redirection (1 Cor. 15:9-10). It is demonstrated in the life of Peter: transformative recovery and maturation (Matt. 16:16-19; Luke 22:32). Let us therefore be “imitators of the ones who through faith and forbearance are inheriting the promises” (Heb. 6:12).

Conclusion

God provides all that is needed to be who we ought to be. Each of us has the responsibility of accessing and utilizing the Lord’s provisions in obedient faith. Manifesting “godliness” is to be Godlike, which is to be Christlike, which is the aim of all who seek to please him. 

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works” (Titus 2:11-14, NKJV).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Noun γνῶσις [“knowledge”] (1:5, 6; 3:18), verbal γινώσκω [to “know”] (1:20; 3:3), noun ἐπίγνωσις [“full knowledge”] (1:2, 3, 8; 2:20), verbal ἐπιγινώσκω [to “know fully”] (2:21 [x2]), verbal οἶδα [to mentally “see”] (1:12, 14; 2:9), verbal γνωρίζω [to “make known”] (1:16), verbal ἀγνοέω [to “not know”] (2:12); also repeated explicit calls to remembrance (1:12, 13, 15; 3:1, 2, 8). Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² The same verbal [λαγχάνω] is used of the allotment of Judas among the apostles; the Lord invited him and he willingly accepted (Acts 1:17).

     ³ Cf. Rom. 5:17; 8:10; 1 Cor. 1:30-31; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:21-27.

     ⁴ The noun ἐπίγνωσις and its verbal form ἐπιγινώσκω are compound words, whereby γνῶσις (“knowledge”) and γινώσκω (to “know”) are intensified by the prepositional prefix ἐπί (“on,” “upon,” “over”), conveying the idea of knowing something thoroughly, accurately, or completely.

     ⁵ The clause ἐπιχορηγήσατε ἐν τῇ πίστει ὑμῶν employs the aorist active imperative form of ἐπιχορηγέω (to “supply” or “furnish”), calling upon readers to actively provide these virtues “in your faith.” Variously rendered, “supplement your faith with …” (ESV); “add to your faith …” (N/KJV); “in your faith supply …” (ASV, NASB).

     ⁶ John 17:17; Acts 20:32; 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Eph. 5:26; 1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 2:11; 9:13-14; 10:10, 14.

     ⁷ Cf. 2:10, 18, 20; 3:3; 1 Pet. 1:13-16; 1 John 2:15-17.

     ⁸ See also Gen. 1:26-27; Matt. 5:48; John 14:23; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor. 3:18; 6:16-18; Eph. 1:4; 5:1-2; Col. 3:9-10.

     ⁹ Alternative English renderings include “devotion” (NAB), “devotion to God” (CEV, ERV), “piety” (LSV, YLT), “service for God” (NCV), “service to God” (Expanded Bible). Cognate forms include the adj. εὐσεβής (“devout,” “godly”) in Acts 10:2, 7; 2 Pet. 2:9; the adv. εὐσεβῶς (“piously,” “godly”) in 2 Tim. 3:12; Tit. 2:12; and the verbal εὐσεβέω (to “show piety” or “act reverently”) in Acts 17:23; 1 Tim. 5:4.

     ¹⁰ Acts 3:12; 1 Tim. 2:2; 3:16; 4:7, 8; 6:3, 5, 6, 11; 2 Tim. 3:5; Tit. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:3, 6, 7; 3:11.

*Presented at the Estes church Summer Series 13 July 2022.

Related Posts:

 

Image credit: Heinrich Wilke’s Jesus Christ looking upward <https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/jesus-looking-at-heaven-by-heinrich-wilke-249-c-86542509bf>

The Acceptability of What Appears to Have Been an Unauthorized Act

As the people of Israel were suffering a plague as a consequence of David’s sin, David prayed for God’s mercy (1 Sam. 24:10-17). David was then instructed to erect an alter to God, “And David built there an altar to the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the LORD heeded the prayers for the land, and the plague was withdrawn from Israel” (v. 25, NKJV).

Since priests of the tribe of Levi were the only ones authorized to officiate at the sacrificial altar (Heb. 7:13-14), and David was of the tribe of Judah, why was his offering acceptable?

Qualifying the Law

All Israelites were commanded to offer sacrifices to God, including burnt offerings and peace offerings (Lev. 1:2; 7:38). As the command was obeyed, the assistance and mediation of a Levitical priest does not mean the Israelite (irrespective of tribe) did not himself obey the command.

“Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘When any one of you brings an offering to the LORD …. If his offering is a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer …. He shall kill the bull before the LORD …’” (Lev. 1:2-4). Levitical priests assisted in the process (vv. 5-13; 6:8-13), with essentially the same procedure for peace offerings (3:1-16), albeit with additional regulations for the one observing the sacrificial law (7:11-18). “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘He who offers the sacrifice of his peace offering to the LORD shall bring his offering to the LORD from the sacrifice of his peace offering. His own hands shall bring the offerings made by fire to the LORD …. And the priest shall burn …’” (7:29-31). 

That David “offered burnt offerings and peace offerings” does not mean he did anything other than what the law stipulated. Nevertheless, this was in obedience to a direct command of God, which God accepted.

An Apparent Inconsistency

Earlier, under the leadership of King Saul, the Israelites were terrified as they faced the overwhelming force of the Philistines (1 Sam. 13:1-8). ^“So Saul said, ‘Bring a burnt offering and peace offerings here to me.’ And he offered the burnt offering. Now it happened, as soon as he had finished presenting the burnt offering, that Samuel came… And Samuel said to Saul, ‘You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you …’” (1 Sam. 13:9-14).

Neither Saul nor David was a Levitical priest, so why was Saul’s offering rejected by God, while David’s was accepted? The bottom line is, Saul’s actions were clearly self-motivated and presumptuous. David’s actions were guided by and in accordance with the revealed will of God.

Conclusion

The Bible’s message is consistent. Apparent discrepancies are resolvable as long as the entire context of scripture is taken into account. The lesson here is that seeking the Lord’s will is paramount as we do what the word of God teaches and refrain from what the word of God does not authorize. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts:

 

Image credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foster_Bible_Pictures_0073-1_Offering_Up_a_Burnt_Sacrifice_to_God.jpg