The God Kind of Faith- Part 4 | Pastor Eddie Smith | 3.10.24 | Message Only

A Biblical Theology Of God’s Glory

By Elliott E. Johnson

[Elliott E. Johnson is Senior Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Many evangelicals have long accepted dispensationalism as a mainspring in the study of the Scriptures. For example Ladd wrote of the influence of dispensational teachers: “It is doubtful if there has been any other circle of men who have done more by their influence in preaching, teaching, and writing to promote a love for Bible Study, a hunger for the deeper Christian life, a passion for evangelism and zeal for missions in the history of American Christianity.”[1] This model of interpretation can be seen also as contributing to a biblical theology.[2]

Ryrie, a strong proponent of dispensational theology, suggests that three elements are essential in dispensationalism: (a) a distinction between Israel and the church, (b) historical-grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures, and (c) God’s purpose in the world in bringing glory to Himself.[3]

This present study focuses on Ryrie’s third sine qua non and seeks to show that God’s overarching purpose in history is to reveal His own glory. While the theme of God’s glory is shared by other biblical theologies,[4] dispensationalism has a unique perspective. It focuses on God’s glory revealed through the progress of revelation from creation to the new heavens and the new earth. Also the full range of historic divine purposes, when fulfilled, displays God’s glory. Regarding this theme Walvoord wrote, “The larger purpose of God is the manifestation of His own glory. To this end, each dispensation, each successive revelation of God’s plan for the ages, His dealings with the non-elect as with the elect . . . combine to manifest divine glory.”[5]

This study seeks to consider how each person of the Godhead contributes to the fulfillment of God’s historic purposes in human history. God the Father is revealed in His Word as Governor. God the Son is revealed as Servant. And God the Spirit is the Enabler in fulfilling God’s plans. As God accomplishes His purposes in history, His glory is revealed and shared “with those who love Him and who are called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28).

In this author’s view dispensationalists have not always given adequate attention to the glory of God in their teaching on dispensationalism. Yet the Bible repeatedly focuses on this aspect of God’s program.[6]

The Setting Of God’s Story (Gen. 1-11)

Biblical theology appropriately begins with a view of Scripture as a whole that records the telling of God’s story.[7] As with any story the biblical story involves a setting, a plot conflict, and a conflict resolution. The setting sets the stage for the story and introduces the plot conflict. The plot involves the working out of God’s historic purposes that conflict with the purposes of evil. So a working out of God’s purposes in successive dispensations begins only after the stage is set.

God’s initial historic purpose is introduced in the creation account, in which He delegated to Adam the right to rule the earth and thus to accomplish God’s plan (Gen. 1:26, 28). This was God’s initial purpose for mankind. And in Adam the role of human responsibility as God’s stewards was introduced (2:15-17).

However, Adam’s stewardship and God’s purpose were quickly challenged by the serpent (Satan; Rev. 12:9; 20:2). The serpent emerged as the enemy of God when he questioned and then denied God’s Word (Gen. 3:1-5). The serpent proposed that Adam and Eve rebel (instead of obeying God’s command) for in that way they could be like gods themselves.

When Adam accepted the serpent’s word and ate the fruit (3:6), he lost his position as ruled by God and found himself ruled by the serpent’s word. Further, in eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge (2:17), death set in and Adam and Eve lost their immediate relationship with God in the garden.

In Adam’s fall the serpent had gained rule over man and enforced his rule by the power of death (Eph. 2:2). While death came as a judgment from God, it was occasioned by the serpent’s temptation and lie. Under God’s permission evil entered the human race, and Satan’s lie now controlled Adam and his descendants. In the following history of the human race all were ruled by sin and death (Gen. 4-11).

God’s revelation of His historic purposes for human history was now completed. First, salvation would be provided by God for all who would receive it. Second, God announced a plan to combat and defeat the serpent. Third, rule would be restored to a future descendant of the woman (3:15).[8] These purposes would now be the basis for God’s further revelation to be entrusted to His stewards.

God’s Story (Gen. 12–Rev. 3)

God The Father As Governor

God’s revelation to His stewards governed the course of salvation history with the sequence of dispensations featuring that governance. This work of God is an aspect of His comprehensive providence in human history.[9] God guides and directs the course of salvation history as He speaks to those called to be His stewards.

The certainty of God’s word. God’s governance had been predestined and will be realized. In both creation and history God speaks, and what He intends to happen is realized. In creation God spoke, and the universe came into existence (Gen. 1:3-31). God’s words had the force of a fiat statement. Nothing could challenge what God had decreed.

In history God continues to speak and govern the creation by His word. And since God is sovereign over creation, His word concerning its course is certain. Yet now God speaks to chosen stewards who are to manage their lives and ministries by His word. So while God’s word is certain, the outcome of His plan is dependent on the creatures’ response. These stewards are created in God’s image and are also sinners, fallen in Adam. Thus stewards are both appointed to a role and are weak and sinful in their response.

How can God’s word be certain if the outworking is contingent on the responses of creatures who are independent of the Creator? The answer is that God’s word determines the course of history without excluding the participation of stewards. Caird addresses the interaction between God’s word and the stewards’ responses: “In the Bible, predestination is never confused with determinism, God’s appointments have absolute performative force, but their causal power never dispenses with human response. . . . [Paul] never had any doubt that the power to which he surrendered was the constraint of love (2 Cor. 5:14; Gal. 2:20).”[10] Contrary to God’s fiat decree in creation, in human history God allows His word to be challenged both by evil and by the independent response of stewards.

Caird distinguishes between the performative intent stated in God’s word and the causal power of God’s word (Heb. 4:12). The performative force of a promise by God commits Him to act on behalf of the steward at some time in the future. The performative force of law expects those under law to perform. It depends for its effectiveness on a response of a steward. “An order does not produce the intended result unless it is obeyed; otherwise it will only have the unintended, though possibly foreseen, effect of rendering its recipient disobedient (cf. Rom 5:20).”[11]

The plan based on God’s word. God’s governance unfolds in history, as He works out three purposes: (a) to lead some to be saved from sin and its consequences; (b) to overcome the enemy and in the end to defeat him, and (c) to have mankind mediate God’s rule on earth.

In addition the setting of God’s story (Gen. 1-11) anticipates the descendant of the woman (a singular descendant, “he, him”) who will defeat the serpent (3:15).

Four stages of revelation may be noted.

First is promise. At the outset God committed Himself to act according to His promises, which reveal His plan. The force of the promises committed God both to bless the chosen stewards (by justification by faith; 15:6) and to use the stewards to mediate God’s blessings to the nations (12:3). In the time of the patriarchs Joseph was first blessed by God, and He blessed nations through Joseph as ruler in Egypt. This climax anticipated an ultimate Steward (the Messiah) of the same type.

Second is Law. The law specified what God demanded from Israel if they were to receive what had been promised. However, Israel’s national rebellion and failure in her stewardship resulted in her captivity among Gentile nations.

From the remnant that returned to Jerusalem, the ultimate Steward, Jesus Christ, arose “born of a woman [Gen. 3:15], born under the Law so that He might redeem those who were under the Law” (Gal. 4:4). And in Christ the law was fulfilled and God’s initial purpose in providing salvation was fulfilled.

Third is grace. This stage of revelation is called grace because in the cross God the Son provided for salvation for man. Of course God’s grace was also present in earlier stages of biblical history. But based on the finished work of the ultimate Steward on the cross, the day of salvation had come (2 Cor. 6:2). Based on the Messiah’s first-advent accomplishments, believers today enjoy God’s salvation and they also communicate the message of salvation throughout the nations worldwide. As such, they are stewards of this word of grace.

Fourth is the kingdom. In the Steward’s (Jesus’) second advent, the mediated kingdom of God on earth will be centered in Jerusalem. This will fulfill God’s creation purpose and His plan for the history of the creation. The serpent (Satan) will be imprisoned during Christ’s millennial kingdom and then released and defeated. Both Israel and the church will fulfill their stewardships, sharing Messiah’s reign for a thousand years.

And in these events of history, in spite of conflict with evil, God’s governance will shine forth in glory.

God The Son As Servant

One of the perplexing questions in a biblical theology is what best accounts for the progressive changes in revelation. Two dispensational explanations may be considered.

A dispensational inference. Dispensationalism does not give a direct answer to that question of changes in revelation. Rather, people often draw inferences from the following description of a dispensation. Ryrie states, “The usual characteristics listed for a new dispensation [are] a test, a failure, and a judgment.”[12] That is, in this view God changed the revelation because of man’s failure in the previous dispensation. Human failure in stewardship was the basis for an occasion for change. But this gives no reason to believe that the next dispensation would be any different. Why would another fallen generation do any better?

A dispensational messianic explanation. By the close of the Old Testament God’s partnership with Israel seemed stalemated. The stalemate focused on the apparent ineffectiveness of the causal force of the law to produce a righteous people. In fact the problem was not with the law, but with the people who were unwilling to obey (Exod. 32:1-6). As a result, in time Israel was judged and dispersed into Gentile nations. Only a remnant would return to Jerusalem to rebuild a second temple (Ezra, Nehemiah).

Yet God’s word of promise remained certain (Gen. 3:15). In time David was anointed by God (1 Sam. 16:12-13), and he received a covenant that promised an anointed Messiah, an eternal Heir (2 Sam. 7:16). What is common in each stage of anticipation was a partnership between God’s word and a chosen steward.

In the Messiah, the promised Anointed One, two natures (divine and human) were present in one person. In Christ “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). God’s revelation of promise and Law revealed an expectation that only the Messiah would fulfill. This anticipation of the Messiah is seen in the Old Testament.

Adam was the first steward, created in God’s image and entrusted with the revelation that he would eventually rule the whole creation (Gen. 1:26, 28). The task was great. Psalm 8:4 later asked the question that this situation demanded, “What is man that You take thought of him, and the son of man that You care for him?” Only a deepened partnership between God and Adam would mean God’s rule on earth could be accomplished through man.

God called Abraham to sacrifice his promised son. In obedience he immediately set out to do so (Gen. 22:3). As he traveled, he expressed what he came to believe: “God will provide . . . the burnt offering” (v. 8). Isaac was bound on the altar for Abraham to sacrifice. Only then, on the occasion of Abraham’s complete obedience, did God act to provide a ram as the offering (v. 13). And Abraham’s faith and obedience were acknowledged as God repeated His original promises (v. 18). Yet this time God added that the promises stood firm “because you have obeyed My voice.” So Abraham was a faithful steward, but God’s work through him was not yet completed. Abraham’s action anticipated a future sacrifice that God would provide.

Israel did not have a king like other nations (Judg. 21:25), and God permitted Israel to reject Him as king (1 Sam. 8:7). What followed was an opportunity to focus on the kings’ stewardships and failures. God then promised that the ultimate Steward would be king. “The Psalter loses little time in introducing the figure of the king, who will play so large a part in it. As early as Psalm 2, he is presented in terms which leave the limitations of local kingship far behind.”[13] Further, “the poem draws out the logic of the fact that the Davidic king reigns on behalf of God, whose throne is in heaven.”[14]

This one who had been promised and anticipated was born in Bethlehem of Judah, the heir of David, and named Jesus (Matt. 2:5). He was both divine, as conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), and human, as Mary gave birth to her firstborn Son (2:7). Jesus ministered as a human: “The Son can do nothing [of a miraculous sort] of Himself” (John 5:19). But He is also the Son of God (10:36; 11:4; 20:31).

Paul spoke of Jesus’ humiliation in His first advent when he wrote that He “emptied Himself” (Phil. 2:7). By these words Paul did not mean Jesus ceased to be God. Instead Paul meant Jesus surrendered the independent exercise of His deity. Thus He lived as a human fully trusting the Father. As God’s ultimate Steward, He acted according to His word, and the Father acted in and through Him. As Jesus neared death, He agonized, “Now my soul has become troubled, and what shall I say, ‘Father save Me from this hour?’ But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name” (John 12: 27-28).

Jesus became “obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8). And in doing so, He served God the Father and His purposes, and He also served man who was unable to accomplish those purposes.

The Spirit As God The Enabler

While God the Father governs the world and God the Son serves the Father on behalf of the world, God the Spirit empowers His people to be stewards of His word. This empowerment does not replace individuals nor disregard their independent response. The Spirit’s presence can be grieved by disobedience or quenched by rebellion. The Spirit indwells believers to empower them in their lives and ministries.

The work of the Spirit is seen throughout Scripture, though it was enhanced following the finished work of Christ (John 7:37-39). The Spirit is the source of regeneration (John 3:5). Also the Spirit enabled Old Testament leaders in their mighty works, and kings were anointed by the Spirit (1 Sam. 16:12-14).

To accomplish God’s will requires divine enablement. Without question, the most dramatic display of God’s empowerment featured the Holy Spirit raising Jesus to life. Jesus had submitted to death according to God’s plan (Acts 2:23), the Spirit raised Him out from among the dead (Rom. 1:4), and the Spirit glorified the Son in His ascension (John 16:14).

While the ministry of the Spirit was awe-inspiring before Christ’s ascension, after Jesus’ glorification the Spirit was given to establish the identity of Christ’s presence on earth in the church. In His ascended state in heaven, He was glorified with the Father “with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5).

This gift given by the ascended Christ was first announced by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16; John 1:33). The promise of Spirit baptism was repeated by the Lord when He addressed His disciples after His resurrection (Acts 1:5). Dunn advanced an intriguing synthesis of the ministry of Spirit baptism as introduced by John and Jesus and as explained by Peter and Paul.[15] The Spirit’s ministry is central now while Jesus is in heaven, and the Spirit identifies God’s people as Christ’s body.

Jesus introduced the ministry of the Holy Spirit after His resurrection and before His ascension. In a few days they would be “baptized with [or in] the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5). On the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out according to the Father’s promise (2:33). The gift of the Holy Spirit’s baptism was not specified until later when Cornelius had the same experience (11:15-16).

Several Pauline passages refer to baptism with or in the Spirit. There are three aspects of Paul’s teaching.

First, alluding back to John the Baptist’s comparison, water and the Spirit refer to the substances into which/whom the believer is immersed. The image portrays a believer immersed into the Spirit.

Second, the Spirit is both the Substance in whom one is immersed and the Agent with whom believers are related to Christ and to each other. The Spirit unites individual believers into one body (1 Cor. 12:13). Earlier Paul had used the same language to refer to Christ’s body when he said believers are “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Paul later noted that this union between Christ and the believers forms the church, Christ’s body, on earth in His absence (Eph. 2:22).

Third, Dunn proposed an additional aspect of the image. Baptism into Christ’s body includes union with Christ’s death (Rom. 6:3). And that union extends to His burial and resurrection “just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (v. 4). While believers await a bodily resurrection from the dead (1 Cor. 15:22-23), they have already been resurrected spiritually, and thus are enabled to live as stewards of His word.

As every believer is indwelt by the Spirit, each is positioned to produce fruit (Gal. 5:22-23), to receive gifts (1 Cor. 12:4, 8-10), and to be empowered by His presence (Eph. 5:18; Acts 6:3, 5). This extensive ministry of the Spirit in God’s stewards displays God’s glory as His purposes are accomplished in the church.

Conclusion

An essential distinctive of a dispensational theology is God’s bringing glory to Himself.[16] At first reading this may sound as if God created mankind for purely selfish reasons. But that is to misunderstand God’s creative purposes. This overlooks the goodness of God. “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with Him there is no variation or shifting shadow” (James 1:17). When God created man, He put him in a good garden. God shared His goodness with His stewards, Adam and Eve. But God’s enemy, the serpent, brought deception and evil into the world. As a result God established vast purposes for mankind’s good. These included His plan to save whoever received what He provided, to defeat the enemy, and to restore man to rule over the creation.

God is glorified as He accomplishes these historic purposes, and His own people are the objects of His benevolent works. So His people who partner with Him share in the glory of His accomplishments (Rom. 8:18-30). Thus God is glorified and His people share in that glory.

God the Father is glorified as He governs the purpose of creation until it is accomplished. God the Son was glorified when He took on human flesh and was born as one person with two natures. The Son is glorified when by means of His human nature He serves, trusting the Father to overcome death and to defeat the enemy in judgment. God the Spirit is glorified as He works in believers to accomplish their roles in God’s purposes. That work includes regeneration, baptism of believers to establish the identity of His body, the church, and empowerment to accomplish their roles. Thus the three persons of the Godhead together accomplish God’s historic purposes that contribute to His glory.

Notes

1. George E. Ladd, Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 49.
2. Frank Gaebelein contended that “dispensationalism should be understood as a method of interpretation helpful in grasping the progress of revelation of the Bible” (“Foreword,” in Dispensationalism Today, by Charles C. Ryrie [Chicago: Moody, 1965], 8). On the other hand Ryrie presented dispensationalism as a theology (a study of God) that focuses on God’s glory as the ultimate goal in history (ibid., 17). The two points of view differ, but are not in conflict.
3. Ibid., 39-41.
4. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995). Dispensationalism reflects the basic purposes of God in all His dealings with mankind, that is, glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes (ibid., 40).
5. John F. Walvoord, “Review of Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God, by George E. Ladd,” Bibliothecra Sacra 110 (January–March 1953): 3-4.
6. For example, when David brought the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, he gave a lengthy prayer of thanksgiving (1 Chron. 16:8-36), in which he included the words, “Ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. Ascribe to the Lord the glory due His name” (vv. 28b–29a). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus urged His followers, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may . . . glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). In a doxology Paul wrote, “To Him be the glory forever” (Rom. 11:36). And he encouraged believers to “with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:6). Because believers have been “bought with a price,” namely, the blood of Christ, they should “therefore glorify God” (1 Cor. 6:20). And Paul prayed that “the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified” in Thessalonian believers (2 Thess. 1:12). Spiritual gifts, Peter stated, should be exercised by God’s strength “so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 4:11). In the tribulation an angel will say to everyone, “Fear God, and give Him glory” (Rev. 14:7).
7. Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Gokeen, “Story and Biblical Theology,” in Out of Egypt, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew, Mary Healy, Karl Möller, and Robin Parry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 153.
8. “There is good New Testament authority for seeing here the protevangelium, the first glimmer of the gospel. Remarkably, it makes its début as a sentence passed on the enemy (cf.Col. 2:15), not a direct promise to man, for redemption is about God’s rule as much as about man’s need (cf.Ezek. 36:22)” (Derek Kidner, Genesis [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1967], 70).
9. “The Reformed tradition characterizes God’s providential activity as a threefold work encompassing his preservation of creation, his cooperation with all created things, and his direction and guidance of all things toward his ultimate purposes and their highest fulfillment in Christ Jesus” (Benjamin Wirt Farley, The Providence of God [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988], 31).
10. G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 24.
11. Ibid., 22.
12. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 38.
13. Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973), 18.
14. Ibid., 19.
15. James D. G. Dunn, Pneumatology, vol. 2 of The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 93-117.
16. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 40.

Hermeneutical Principles and the Interpretation of Psalm 110

By Elliott E. Johnson

[Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas]

In the developments within dispensationalism several passages of Scripture become focal points. Psalm 110 is one such focal point. Three issues in its interpretation are faced by the evangelical community as a whole. One issue is hermeneutical. When Psalm 110 is read in its historical context, what valid role does the added revelation of the New Testament have in reaching a proper interpretation of the psalm? In other words how does the meaning derived from the exegesis of Psalm 110 compare with the New Testament interpretation of the psalm?

The second issue is theological. What relationship, if any, does the Messiah’s session “at the right hand” of God the Father (Ps 110:1, 5) have to the kingdom of God today? Is Jesus’ present session in some sense related to the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant? The third issue is practical. What do the answers to the preceding questions imply for the ministry of the church today?

To address these issues, four questions will be discussed. (1) What hermeneutical principles are relevant to the interpretation of Psalm 110? (2) What range of interpretations are possible within a literal interpretation of Psalm 110? (3) What range of interpretations remain after the analogy of faith has been used to interpret Psalm 110? (4) What practical implications follow from the interpretation of Psalm 110?

Hermeneutical Principles

The dispensational tradition is known for its literal interpretation. Ryrie says literal interpretation is part of the sine qua non of dispensationalism.[1] But what is meant by “literal” interpretation?

Some like Ryrie stress the “plain sense,” while others such as Walvoord stress the “literal” reference.[2] Still others stress “normal language” usage. The most widely accepted understanding of literal interpretation among dispensationalists today is grammatical, historical interpretation. However, this is not distinctive to dispensationalism. Grammatical, historical interpretation is shared broadly by evangelicals.

Is there then no principle of hermeneutics distinctive to dispensationalism? The distinctiveness is not in the definition of grammatical, historical interpretation but in the consistent use of the principles in grammatical, historical interpretation. Common to dispensationalists is the application of the principles to discern the meaning of a passage or verse in its context. For example God promised Abraham and his descendants a land (Gen 12:1, 7). Subsequent revelation in the Scriptures did not absolve or alter that promise spiritually. This use of the literal principle—ascertaining the determinate meaning of a text in its context—is the hermeneutical sine qua non of dispensationalism.

The Reformed tradition also stresses the principle of the analogy of faith. This principle, as defined and used by Berkhof[3] and others, rests on the unity of meaning expressed in the Scriptures as a whole. Since the biblical revelation is true, then what the Bible says about a given subject in various passages must be compatible. The New Testament must not be interpreted in a way that contradicts the Old. This principle of the analogy of faith is also valid.

The two traditions have faced conflict over interpretations of particular passages because priority is given either to literal interpretation or to the analogy of faith. The one principle has often overridden the contribution of the other. But another solution is to be preferred. Since both principles are valid, the resolution does not rest in giving priority to one over the other, but in harmoniously utilizing both principles. In the case of Psalm 110 the question becomes, What interpretation provides a harmonious understanding of both the near context as well as the entire context of the Bible?

An Interpretation of Psalm 110 according to the Literal Principle

Interpreters of Psalm 110 are generally agreed that the subject of this psalm is an Israelite king-priest. The psalm affirms that this king-priest will totally defeat and subjugate his earthly adversaries after a session at Yahweh’s right hand.[4] In applying the literal principle to Psalm 110, interpreters face the question of the identity of the Israelite king-priest. No less than 10 historic occasions are proposed for the setting (the Sitz im Leben) of this short psalm, and each view influences how the psalm is interpreted.[5]

In seeking to determine the exact historical occasion of the psalm, two questions must be considered. (1) Who is speaking in the psalm? (2) To whom does the psalm refer? However, the psalm gives only limited clues about the psalm’s historical background. This explains the large number of reconstructions of the occasion of the psalm. The options are reduced somewhat if the superscription (לְדָוִד) is accepted as historically reliable. It has the force of an early commentary either speaking of David as the original author (“of David”) or of David as having received the psalm in some sense.

The choice between these alternatives in answering question one is clarified by the use of the analogy of faith. A more complete discussion of the use of this principle will be developed shortly, but its use here clarifies the interpretation. When Jesus said David spoke the words of Psalm 110:1 (see Mark 12:36–37), David must have spoken the psalm in some sense. Further, when Jesus said David referred to “my Lord,” David must necessarily have been speaking of a personal relationship. This would naturally be the case if David spoke as author.

The answer to the second question is more difficult to determine. Following the literal principle, David could have referred to the Messiah, himself, his son Solomon, or another descendant of his as his Lord. When Yahweh invited David’s Lord to sit at Yahweh’s right hand (Ps 110:1), was the throne a heavenly and distinctively divine throne, or Yahweh’s throne represented by David’s throne, or Yahweh’s throne symbolized in the Davidic order? Without any further clues in the psalm itself, the literal principle cannot by itself resolve this question decisively.

Thus in following the literal principle of interpretation, “my lord” in Psalm 110 results in a range of possible meanings based on the immediate context—the future Messiah, David himself, or a descendant of David. These different meanings are the result of various plausible reconstructions based on the text. However, while each reconstruction is independently plausible, they are not necessarily capable of being combined as stages in the progress of fulfillment. In other words “my lord” cannot mean “David’s descendant” in David’s day and also “David’s Messiah” in some future day. The reason is that Psalm 110:1 refers to “my lord” as a person given a position of honor. The question that follows is this: Is the person who in one reconstruction fills a position of honor also able to fill the position of honor in the other reconstruction? The answer is no. In one reconstruction, “my lord” refers to a merely human person (David or a descendant of his), and in the other reconstruction “my lord” deals with a divine person. In a historic reconstruction, “my lord” refers to a position of royal authority on David’s throne much as the chronicler wrote that “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father” (1 Chron 29:23). In a future reconstruction “my lord” seated at Yahweh’s right hand refers to a position of shared, heavenly honor with God Himself. No man shares or even sees God’s full disclosure of glory (Exod 33:18–20). That position thus necessarily entails a divine Person who alone would be worthy to share God’s glory without reservation. While all would agree that the position is possible, not all see that the conclusion is necessary. However, the conclusion will be demonstrated to be necessary based on Jesus’ interpretation of Psalm 110:1. That interpretation will be examined in more detail shortly.

So while the two reconstructions are textually plausible, the two interpretations of “my lord” refer to persons who would be mutually exclusive—one a mere human who could not share God’s glory and the other, a divine Person who naturally and necessarily shares God’s glory.

An Interpretation of Psalm 110 according to the Analogy of Faith

An examination of Psalm 110 suggests two possible, though mutually exclusive, views on the identity of “my lord.” However, using the hermeneutical principle of the analogy of faith means that the two possible contextual meanings are no longer both viable. Only one meaning is viable, namely, the Messiah. This is seen in New Testament passages that quote Psalm 110. They include Mark 12:35–37 and its parallels, which address the Person of the Messiah (Matt 22:42–45; Luke 20:41–44); Acts 2:33–34, which speaks of the exaltation of the Messiah; and Hebrews 5:5–6; 7:17, 21, which refer to the ministry of the Messiah.

The Person of the Messiah

During Jesus’ defense of His claims in the temple (Mark 12:35–37), His interpretation of Psalm 110:1 establishes “my lord” as a reference by David to Christ as deity.[6] After answering each question from the Jewish leaders, He posed a question for them: “How is it…that the Christ is the son of David? …David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; and so in what sense is He his son?” (vv. 35, 37). The scribes accepted the teaching of Scripture that Messiah was David’s son. Jesus’ question challenged that conclusion, since Psalm 110:1 teaches that Messiah is Lord. The challenge rested in the dilemma that Messiah was presented both as David’s son and as David’s Lord.

The Jewish leaders could have met the challenge and resolved the dilemma in various ways. They could have denied that Psalm 110:1 referred to Messiah, but they did not. Or they could have rejected Jesus’ interpretation of the verse that “my lord” meant God, but did not. Had they held the historic reconstruction that “my lord” meant someone positioned on David’s throne, they could easily have removed the dilemma. For Solomon was both David’s son and lord in this sense, but their silence conceded Jesus’ point. Thus Jesus’ interpretation of Psalm 110:1 confirms the future reconstruction, which treats David’s words as a direct prophecy of the Messiah.

The Exaltation of the Messiah

In Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost he affirmed that the Messiah must be raised from the dead (Acts 2:31–32). Then he quoted from Psalm 110 to point out that David’s “Son” (i.e., Christ, David’s Descendant), having been raised from the dead, is also exalted to God’s right hand (Acts 2:33–35). This exalted position is one of equal honor with God.[7] As Jesus anticipated returning to this position with the Father (John 13:3, 32), He prayed that He would be glorified with the glory He had with the Father “before the world was” (John 17:5).

Is Jesus’ present position at God’s right hand one of royal, Davidic status? Several observations about Psalm 110:1 and Peter’s quotation of it in Acts 2:34–35 help show that the answer to that question is no.

1. The Messiah’s present seating awaits a future conquest. The word “until” in Psalm 110:1 distinguishes present opposition from a future conquest over the enemies as affirmed in Psalm 110:5–7. (Also note the use of “until” in Acts 3:21 and 1 Cor 15:25.) The “seating” does not suggest that “my Lord” is presently inactive. Instead the point is that He is in a position of honor in the presence of God in spite of a continuing presence of enemies.

2. The Messiah’s present position does not include the image of coronation. The only present activity mentioned is seating,[8] and the only activities implied are in the priestly decree. None of the actions associated with anointing a king—including the blowing of trumpets, celebration, or the taking of an oath of allegiance from subjects of the kingdom—is mentioned. Nor is there any mention in verse 1 of crowns, scepters, robes, or installation ceremony (cf. Pss. 2, 72).[9]

3. The Messiah’s present seating involves what Yahweh decreed. When David’s Lord was seated at God’s right hand, He assumed a position already enjoyed by Yahweh. Therefore it follows that the Messiah shares in Yahweh’s honor and in some sense in Yahweh’s throne prerogatives and thus in His reign. But are these prerogatives to be associated with Davidic rights to rule and kingdom promises? Bock answers yes, by pointing to the verbal link between Psalm 132:11–12 (“The Lord swore an oath to David …One of your own descendants I will place on your throne…their sons will sit on your throne for ever and ever,” NIV) and Psalm 110:1 (“The Lord says to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand’“).[10] Bock sees these as identified in the common motif of being seated, based on Peter’s use of Psalm 132:11 in Acts 2:30 and his use of Psalm 110 four verses later in Acts 2:34. However, it is preferable to see David’s earthly throne as different from the Lord’s heavenly throne, because of the different contexts of Psalms 110 and 132. Psalm 110 refers to the Lord’s throne (v. 1) and a Melchizedekian priesthood (v. 4) but Psalm 132 refers to David’s throne (v. 11) and (Aaronic) priests (vv. 9, 16).

These two have traditionally been regarded as distinct. However, Ladd says Peter reinterpreted these passages, so that Psalm 132:11 refers to Jesus’ present messianic reign from God’s right hand in heaven, not from a throne in Jerusalem.[11] “In His exaltation Jesus becomes the Messiah in a new sense: he has begun his messianic reign as the Davidic king.” However, this involves a radical reinterpretation of the Old Testament prophecies.[12] In such a reinterpretation the principle of the analogy of faith wrongly overrides and “corrects” the principle of literal, contextual interpretation.

A better approach is to allow the meaning of God’s sharing His throne rule affirmed in Psalm 110:1 to be determined by the decree which He made, as mentioned in verse 4 (“The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind: ‘Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek’“). This leads to the third aspect of the interpretation of Psalm 110 in the New Testament.

The Ministry of the Messiah

Twice the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews quoted Psalm 110:4—in Hebrews 5:6 and 7:17 —to point up the fact that Christ has been decreed by God the Father as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. What is that order or pattern? According to Genesis 14:18–20 five facts are true of Melchizedek: (1) Melchizedek was king of Salem, who (2) brought out bread and wine (for Abram), (3) blessed Abram on God’s behalf, (4) blessed God in Abram’s stead, and (5) received a tithe from Abram. The priestly aspects of this pattern are important in the argument of the Book of Hebrews. Like Melchizedek, Christ ministers as a priest by dispensing blessings.

Peter said that the Messiah, having been exalted to God’s right hand, received the promise of the Father, namely, the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33). Then at Pentecost, Christ dispersed (“poured out,” Acts 2:33) the blessing of the Holy Spirit, doing so as a priest, much as Melchizedek distributed blessings to Abram.

This gift of the Holy Spirit by the Messiah further demonstrates Jesus’ deity. Only a Person of the Godhead could receive the gift of the Spirit with authority to dispense the Spirit and His blessings to whomever He wills. While men are given the Holy Spirit, they do not have the authority to give the Spirit according to their own will (Acts 8:19).[13]

As already noted, Melchizedek’s dispensing of blessing to Abram was the work of a priest. Similarly, when Christ, who is a priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:6, 10; 7:11, 17), gave the blessing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, He did so from His position as a priest. However, Melchizedek was also a king. He was a king-priest. Does the Spirit’s presence on earth involve any rule on Christ’s part? A positive answer is suggested in that Christ through the Holy Spirit enables righteousness and grace to reign in a believer’s life (Rom 5:17, 21; cf. 6:12, 14). At salvation God’s work of justification brings peace (5:1). These two features of the Holy Spirit’s work unmistakably resemble the work of Melchizedek, king of righteousness and peace (Heb 7:2). Christ rules now, not from David’s throne, but from God’s right hand, bringing righteousness and peace to hearts of individuals who believe.

This model of the kingdom of God on earth today is compatible with the variety of positions held by dispensationalists.[14] All would agree that whatever is meant by the kingdom of God today, this must be distinguished from the Davidic form of the kingdom of God on earth for the future. That Davidic form, while continuing the eternal ministry of Melchizedek in righteousness and peace, will extend the reign through earthly political structures originating in Jerusalem. In addition, dispensationalists agree that this future reign will be established in Messiah’s judgment of the nations of this world (Ps 110:2, 5–7) as disclosed in the Book of Revelation. This Davidic form of God’s kingdom will completely fulfill all of Israel’s hopes and the promises of God to Abraham and David.

In addition, this view of the ministry of Messiah in the kingdom of God today provides a clearer understanding of what this kingdom entails. It is a kingdom defined by the order of Melchizedek. This is compatible again with the basic views among dispensationalists. On the one hand it supports those who desire to preserve the Davidic identity of the Old Testament revelation of the coming kingdom and thus see no kingdom on earth today. It sharply preserves the future Davidic kingdom while also explaining the many New Testament references to a kingdom of God present on earth today. On the other hand it is compatible with those who see a present spiritual expression of the kingdom that is distinct from the future kingdom. But it enhances that view by specifying the spiritual ministry of Christ in accord with the pattern of Melchizedek.

The Practical Consequences of Psalm 110 in the Church

This hermeneutical examination of Psalm 110 suggests several conclusions.

Messiah’s Present Session Does Not Involve His Reigning on David’s Throne

Because the Messiah is the anointed Descendant of David and the Davidic Heir, He presently possesses the right to reign though He has not yet assumed David’s throne. This was also true of David, who assumed the throne over Israel years after he was anointed.

Before Christ will be seated on David’s throne (Ps 110:2), He is seated at the right hand of God (v. 1). His present session is a position of honor and power, but the exercise of that power is restricted to what God has chosen to give the Son. God the Father reigns and has decreed that Christ dispense blessings from the Holy Spirit to believers in this present age. When Christ returns to earth to begin His messianic reign on David’s throne, He will conquer His enemies (Ps 110:2, 5–7). Until then, He is now seated at God’s right hand (v. 1), exercising the decreed role of the Melchizedekian King-Priest (v. 4), the believer’s great High Priest (Heb 2:17; 4:14–15; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11; 10:21).

Messiah’s Present Session Corresponds to Melchizedek’s Ministry as King-Priest

Genesis 14 does not emphasize the political or legal aspects of Melchizedek’s ministry. Instead in a spiritual ministry, he brought sustenance to Abram (14:18), spoke spiritual blessings from Yahweh to Abram (v. 19), and presented Abram and his worship to the Lord (v. 20). Similarly Christ today, as the Melchizedekian royal Priest, provides spiritual sustenance and blessings through the Holy Spirit (e.g. Rom 8:15–17, 26–39; 1 Cor 12:7, 13; 2 Cor 3:12–4:18 }; 2 Thess 2:13; Titus 3:5–7; cf. Eph 1:3, 7–9). In addition, as the Melchizedekian royal Priest, Christ represents believers (John 17) in their walk in the world and in their worship of God (Heb 5:1–8:28).

Believers Today Are Priests

Christ’s authority as King-Priest is mediated through the Holy Spirit in His body, the church. The church does not have any political agenda as such, though individual believers may pursue roles in the political arena as citizens. As priests, believers are salt and light in the world, and they seek to bring righteousness and peace to others’ lives by encouraging them to receive salvation from sin through faith in Christ. Indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9), believers, as priests, also intercede for and serve each other (Gal 5:13; James 5:16) and offer sacrifices of praise and sharing (Heb 13:15–16). In their ministry of righteousness and peace, the focus of their expectations is not toward social structures or political transformation apart from the return of Christ in judgment on this evil world. Rather they expect righteousness and peace to be realized in the lives of believers individually and collectively. But this expectation does not ignore the reality of continuing conflict with evil and the evil one who seeks to thwart a ministry of righteousness and peace (Ps 110:1–2).

Notes

1. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1965), 45.
2. John F. Walvoord, “The Theological Context of Premillennialism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 108 (July-September 1951): 272-74, 276. He also does talk about “grammatical, historical” interpretation.
3. Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950).
4. Jay J. Butler, “An Exegetical Study of Psalm 110” (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980).
5. Those who say the psalm refers to Israel’s cultic worship generally view it as one of three fall festivals. (1) A New Year enthronement festival (Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh, trans. G. W. Anderson [Nashville: Abingdon, 1954]; idem, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas [Nashville: Abingdon, 1967]; Elmer Leslie, The Psalms [Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1949]; Pius Drijvers, The Psalms: Their Structure and Meaning [New York: Herder and Herder, 1964]; Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, 2 vols. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961, 1967]; John B. Gammie, “A New Setting for Psalm 110, ” Anglican Theological Review 51 [1969]: 4-17; J. W. Bowker, “Psalm CX,” Vetus Testamentum [1967]: 31-41; Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World:Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms [New York: Seabury, 1978]). (2) Covenant renewal festival (Arthur Weiser, The Psalms [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962]; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols. [New York: Harper and Row, 1962, 1965]). (3) A royal Zion festival (Hans-Joachim Kraus, Worship in Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament, trans. Geoffrey Buswell [Richmond, VA: Knox, 1966]; J. H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms [Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967]; K. R. Crim, The Royal Psalms [Richmond, VA; Knox, 1962]; A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel [Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967]; A. G. Herbert, “The Idea of Kingship in the Old Testament,” Reformed Theological Review 18 [1959]: 34-35). Those who say the setting of the psalm is a more specific historic occasion have made seven suggestions. (4) Instructions for conquering Jerusalem (B. Eerdmanns, The Hebrew Book of Psalms [Leiden: Brill, 1947]). (5) Celebration after conquering Jerusalem (G. W. Anderson, “Psalms,” in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. Matthew Black and H. H. Rowley [London: Nelson, 1962], 437–38). (6) Moving the ark to Jerusalem (F. G. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873; reprint, Minneapolis: James Family, n.d.]); J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms, 4th ed. [London: Geo. Bell and Sons, 1878; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976]). (7) Granting of the Davidic Covenant (Charles Augustus Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907]). (8) Instructions to the king as he goes to war (Heinrich A. Ewald, A Commentary on the Psalms [London: Williams and Norgate, 1880]; E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Psalms, 3 vols. [reprint, Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack, n.d.]; Franz Delitzsch, Psalms, trans. James Martin, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes [reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975]). (9) A meditation on Psalms 2 and 21 (Edmund Kalt, Herder’s Commentary on the Psalms, trans. Bernard Fritz [Westminster, MD: Newman, 1961]). (10) Coronation of Solomon (J. W. Rogerson and J. W. McKay, Psalms 101–105, Cambridge Bible Commentary [London: Cambridge University Press, 1977]).
6. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 167–68, 341; Vincent Taylor, The Names of Jesus (London: Macmillan, 1953), 50–51; Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 2:15.
7. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1988), s.v. “Right (Hand),” by K. C. Hanson, 4:191. He acknowledges the metaphorical use of “the right hand” as the hand of power and the idiomatic use of “sit at the right hand” as the place of honor.
8. E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (1898; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 7.
9. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1988), s.v. “Throne,” by A. E. Hill, 4:844–45. See also 2 Samuel 2:4 and 5:1–5 .
10. Darrell L. Bock, “The Reign of the Lord,” in Dispensationalism, the Church, and Israel, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).
11. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 336.
12. George E. Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 21.
13. While the apostles laid hands on the Samaritans, who then were given the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17), the gift of the Spirit came in response to their prayer to God (v. 15).
14. Some dispensationalists see His present work of bringing individual righteousness and peace as a preliminary stage of the Messiah’s ultimate reign on earth (J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990], 272–73; Charles L. Feinberg, Millennialism: The Two Major Views [Winona Lane, IN: BMH, 1985], 51, 58; and William Kelly, An Exposition of Acts of the Apostles [London: Paternoster Row, 1914], 30). Other dispensationalists view the New Testament references to the kingdom of God as referring only to the Davidic, messianic kingdom, and thus affirm that there is no form of God’s kingdom on earth today (Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959], 432–34), and Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew [Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1980]).

Dual Authorship and the Single Intended Meaning of Scripture

By Elliott E. Johnson

[Elliott E. Johnson, Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary]

Christian hermeneutics has long wrestled with the perplexing problem of the dual authorship—divine and human—of Scripture. This dual authorship seems to imply that a given passage may have more than one meaning. Yet in order to maintain the determinate nature of interpretation, Protestant hermeneutics has often affirmed the maxim of one meaning and many applications.

In response to the hermeneutical problem of how many meanings a passage may have, two solutions have been proposed in current evangelical discussions. These two will be evaluated briefly and then a third alternative will be proposed.

Single Meaning

Kaiser presents a view held by many evangelicals.[1] He writes:

Evangelicals are urged to begin a new “hermeneutical reformation”…it is urged that the following axioms be adopted and implemented….

1) God’s meaning and revelatory-intention in any passage of Scripture may be accurately and confidently ascertained only by studying the verbal meanings of the divinely delegated and inspired writers….

2) That single, original verbal meaning of the human author may be ascertained by heeding the usual literary conventions of history, culture, grammar, syntax, and accumulated theological context.[2]

This is certainly accurate as far as it goes. The divine meanings are expressed in the human author’s words. But in other writings Kaiser states the issue in this question: “Could God see or intend a sense in a particular text separate and different from that conceived and intended by his human instrument?”[3] The issue turns on the words “separate” and “different.” How is the divine meaning separate and different from the human author’s meaning? Kaiser affirms that there is no difference. In fact he says the human authors of Scripture fully knew and expressed the divine meaning. So he concludes, “God did not exceed the intention of the human author.”[4]

In discussing 1 Peter 1:10–12, Kaiser rightly argues that the passage does not support “double meaning.” But he also argues that the ignorance of the human authors was an ignorance, not of the subject matter of the Old Testament prophecies, but of the times when those prophecies would be fulfilled. “This passage does not teach that these men were curious and often ignorant of the exact meaning of what they wrote and predicted. Theirs was not a search for the meaning of what they wrote; it was inquiry into the temporal aspects of the subject, which went beyond what they wrote.”[5]

His argument seems to be dealt a fatal blow, however, if temporal aspects are stated in some of the prophets’ writings. And such is certainly the case in Daniel 9:24–27. A period of time was decreed against Israel that is related to the 70 years predicted by Jeremiah (Jer 25:11). So Peter’s general summary could legitimately include Daniel’s ignorance of all the implications of what he wrote. This ignorance seems to be referred to in other passages as well. Daniel repeatedly prayed for understanding of the visions he saw (Dan 7:15–16; 8:15–16; 10:12–14).

After Daniel was given understanding, he was told to “seal up the book until the end of time” (Dan 12:4). God spoke through Daniel to later generations who would understand more fully what Daniel wrote on the scroll. Their understanding would not arise, however, because of new, special revelation but because they could recognize the correspondence between what Daniel had written and what was happening in their day in its historical fulfillment. So Simeon had a prophetic understanding and expectation: He was “looking for the consolation of Israel” (Luke 2:25). Similarly John the Baptist understood his ministry in terms of the prophetic Word and described it as such (3:4–5). Jesus likewise presented Himself as fulfilling the prophetic expectation (4:17–19), and the people of His day recognized Him in terms defined by Old Testament prophets (9:19–20). In each case it is possible that those who lived when prophecies of Jesus were fulfilled understood the prophecies better than the prophets themselves understood their writings, and the later understanding was based not on further revelation but on correspondence between the prophecies and their fulfillments. (Of course in some situations additional revelation did provide the basis for understanding earlier prophecies.)

Though Kaiser’s work[6] is appreciated for his insistence on the single meaning of Scripture, his limiting the biblical meaning to what the human author consciously perceived must be rejected.

One Literal Meaning and Several Spiritual Meanings

A second evangelical alternative is presented by LaSor.[7] He forthrightly affirms that “the literal meaning of the text, then, is the basic meaning and the basis for interpretation…. Without the literal sense we have no control of any other sense.”[8] This literal sense is the product of the grammatical-historical method. Then LaSor writes:

Starting from the premise that the Bible is the word of God to the people of His covenant, it follows that this word is applicable according to His will to all generations. Since He is a spiritual being and since His purpose is redemptive, it follows that His word is spiritual and redemptive. There is therefore a spiritual meaning—or possibly more than one spiritual meaning—implicit in His word. Discovering the spiritual message in, rather than imposing it on, the Scripture is a serious task; and the believing community has attempted various methods.[9]

On the surface the approaches of Kaiser and LaSor seem directly opposite. While Kaiser argues for single meaning and single intent, LaSor readily acknowledges a literal meaning and one or more spiritual meanings. In part the difference is one of emphasis. Kaiser acknowledges the importance of recognizing several factors in interpreting a passage’s single meaning, including history, culture, grammar, syntax, and accumulated theological teaching. LaSor limits the literal meaning to two contexts: grammatical and historical. At this point it is clear that Kaiser’s view of “single meaning” differs from LaSor’s view of “literal meaning.” But in this author’s opinion, LaSor has lost control on the determination of limits to meaning in his discussion of sensus plenior.

In discussing the Davidic Covenant LaSor criticizes the literal meaning as being inaccurate. “Israel did not continue to live ‘in their own place, and be disturbed no more’ ([2 Sam] 7:10)…. The throne of David was not ‘made sure forever’” (7:16).[10] Then he turns to the New Testament writers’ view of the Davidic Covenant and concludes, “It becomes obvious that, for the New Testament writers (and for Jesus), at least, the Old Testament passage must have some deeper meaning.”[11] Concluding the discussion with these remarks, LaSor leaves a number of questions unanswered. If the literal meaning is inaccurate, in what sense is it a controlling base for the sensus plenior? If a passage has some deeper meaning, what limits exist for that deeper meaning? How are those limits recognized? These two approaches introduce the need for parameters in interpreting the Bible. The first parameter is determinate limits that enable meaning to be known and recognized as known. The second parameter is flexibility in the fullness of meaning so that some distinction may be acknowledged between the textual sense understood in the historic context and this same sense understood in its future fulfillment.

At stake here is the very tradition of literal interpretation that both Kaiser[12] and LaSor acknowledge as basic to accurate and controlled interpretation. At issue is the question of whether there is a sensus plenior that is legitimate and one that is illegitimate. Could God intend a sense separate and different from that intended by the human author? LaSor argues for a sensus plenior that is built on the literal sense.

One Single Meaning That Includes Related Submeanings

In Kaiser’s view the “control” for interpretation is that each text has a single meaning that is textually determined. He properly recognizes historical and cultural contexts with emphasis on lexical, grammatical, and syntactical considerations. In addition the theological context is limited to the accumulated theological revelation at the time of the human writer. The textual context determines the meanings expressed, and the theological context may inform his written textual usage. It is clear that the stated text was understood sufficiently by the human author to express the message. But are there unstated meanings that are also necessarily intended meanings? Clearly in cases where there is dictation of the message, as in the case of the “70 sevens,” Daniel may not have understood the full sense of what he wrote. In his case the decree to rebuild Jerusalem had not yet been given. Who can say that Daniel knew the date of the future decree? The date that would initiate the period of the “70 sevens” was unknovrn. Thus a definition of literal sense that rests on the indeterminate aspect of the human author’s awareness results in a literal sense that is ultimately indeterminate itself.

Another view of “controls” in interpretation is that the sense of a passage is textually indeterminate. This is the traditional allegorical interpretation. In this view a text may have a literal sense and also several other senses determined by other factors such as theology, church tradition, or spiritual practice. Since the textual form may be interpreted within any conceivable context brought by the interpreter, no controls are within the text itself. This is the danger in LaSor’s treatment of the Davidic Covenant.

A third view is proposed by this writer. In this view the sense of a passage is textually determined as a single meaning that includes any related submeanings or implications of the meaning expressed by the human author. This statement of literal sense has the advantage of being textually determined. The sense expressed by the author in the text is a single meaning that includes any unstated yet related submeaning, a meaning that is a necessary trait of that type of meaning as a whole. It follows that the determinate nature of literal meaning must be defined not at the word level but at the level of a unit of text in which the author expresses a single message or proposition. Each message expressed by the author involves a distinct unit. The most clearly distinguished unit expressed by a human author is the composition of the whole piece of literature. However, this includes many other subunits of thought, such as sentences, paragraphs, and chapters. The propositions so expressed must also be recognized as distinct “types of meaning” subsumed by the overall type of meaning.

This recognized type of meaning determines the limits of a literal meaning. In this model the textual meaning consists of (a) a type of meaning as a whole and (b) component traits of meaning. This rests on a knowledge of categories of meaning shared between an author and his reader. When an author expresses a new type of meaning in the text, the reader recognizes that meaning as he reads. The meanings of the text are necessary or associated traits of the type of meaning expressed. This model describing the communication of textual meanings explains both the implications of the textual sense and the implications of historical reference. It does not rest on determining those meanings the human author is aware of or on distinguishing which meanings the divine Author knows beyond the human author. Meaning is determined by the text and by considering the historical reference about which the Author spoke.

This model of the literal meaning can be supported because it accounts for test cases in which the biblical writers interpreted the Bible. The divine and human authors shared the textually expressed meanings. How many additional unstated submeanings the human author consciously knew is unnecessary to determine. At the same time God, since He is omniscient, intended all the submeanings necessary to this expressed type of meaning. The interpreter may not know or recognize all these submeanings until the divinely intended reference appears in history. But such recognition of submeanings is not a “consequent” sense.[13] Nor are they “separate” in the sense of unrelated. They are separate only in the sense of being unstated. Nor are they “different” in the sense of being conflicting. They are different only in the sense of being unexpressed. They are necessary submeanings of a category of meaning. They are necessary because, though they are unstated, they still define that type of meaning. In addition there are associated traits which, though not defining, are commonly associated with this type of meaning. But associated traits must be stated for them to be determined.

Without identifying this model of type and trait of meaning, Marshall exhibits the same concept. He imagines the Apostle John responding, “I hadn’t consciously thought of the story like that, but now that you suggest it to me, I would agree that you could also understand it in that way.”[14] This approach also helps clarify passages that are difficult to interpret.

The Views Illustrated in Isaiah 7:14

As illustrated in Isaiah 7:14, submeanings or implications are not an “elusive surplussage.”[15] Two questions focus on the central issues in this crux interpretum. What is the meaning of Isaiah 7:14, and what is the correspondence between Isaiah 7:14 and the sign to Ahaz? Three views have been given in answer to these questions. (1) The verse refers to a natural conception, and the birth of a son was the sign to Ahaz. (2) The verse refers to a natural conception followed by the birth of a son, which was a sign to Ahaz; and at the same time the verse typologically refers to the supernatural conception of Christ to which Matthew refers. (3) The verse refers to the supernatural conception and birth of Christ, and the sign refers either to the growth of this future “Son” or more likely, to the statement of promise given to Ahaz.

Support for the meaning of a natural conception rests in the broad semantic range of the word, עַלְמָה. In Hebrew usage this word means “young woman.” Koehler and Baumgartner say the word means a girl of marriageable age, a young woman (until the birth of her first child).[16]

However, some would seek to limit the range by specifying the trait of virginity. “Since bétulā is used many times in the Old Testament as a specific word for ‘virgin,’ it seems reasonable to consider that the feminine form of 'almâ is not a technical word for virgin but represents a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity.”[17] This limited sense rests on biblical usage where the sense can be determined, but not all cases are clear. And since עַלְמָה is not the technical term in Old Testament usage, Wilson draws the following conclusion: “Since the presumption of common law and usage was and is, that every 'almah is virgin and virtuous until she is proven not to be we have the right in assuming that Rebecca and the 'almah of Isa 7:14 were virgins until and unless it shall be proven that they were not.”[18]

Because of the difficulty in limiting the meaning of עַלְמָה to “virgin,” various commentators have concluded that Isaiah’s promise refers to a historic woman, either Isaiah’s bride-to-be or Ahaz’s wife, who conceived in a natural fashion and not as a virgin. Isaiah’s prophecy then concerned the timing of the conception and the birth of the boy. The determinate limits of the condition of the young woman are settled in the broader semantic range of the word in its usage.

This interpretation is certainly legitimate, but it conflicts with Matthew’s interpretation. In Matthew, the angel quoted Isaiah to satisfy Joseph’s concern, since Isaiah anticipated a “virgin conception.” Mary’s pregnancy, which came by the Holy Spirit, was a historic realization of what Isaiah prophesied. So Joseph need not put her away but could take her as his wife without any sense of guilt or any concern. This sense of “virgin conception” is not the same as “natural conception.” Thus in light of the broader biblical context the limited historic view (view 1) must be rejected.

Therefore some have taken the historic sense to have also a typological meaning that anticipates a future conception. Hoekema holds to this interpretation. “Obviously, this [Isa 7:14] was fulfilled in the immediate future in the birth of a child as a sign to King Ahaz [but] the greater fulfillment of these words to Ahaz occurred when Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.”[19] In typology there are shared traits as well as traits distinguishing the type from the antitype. In this case the shared traits must be the same kind of conception and birth. In this typology view the conception by a woman in Isaiah’s day anticipated and was fulfilled in Christ’s conception. But in what way is a natural conception a type of a virgin conception? In fact this example of double reference involves two meanings that are unrelated in the text. A natural conception corresponds to a virgin conception only in that both are conceptions. In this interpreter’s judgment, the single textual meaning is violated in the two unrelated types of conception, natural and virgin. The natural conception was miraculous only in timing, and that timing does not adequately typify the virgin conception by Mary.

Rather than being established by usage, the meaning of the kind of conception is determined in the contextual type of meaning expressed by Isaiah. The meaning builds on the legitimate semantic range of עַלְמָה but the determining limits are found in the type of meaning expressed in the context. While there maybe some question about the defining components of a type of meaning, it is clear that a subject and complement define important components of the textual meaning. The immediate textual unit is Isaiah 7:10–17. Isaiah proclaimed a sign that is two-edged. This is the subject. The Lord granted evidence (signs) that accompany His Word and vouch for its validity and reliability. At issue in the context is the Lord’s warning of the certain and near demise of Damascus and Ephraim (7:7–9a). Included as well is a warning concerning Ahaz’s own future (7:9b). His future rested on his faith in response to the Lord’s warning.

Isaiah offered a sign to verify his warnings. When Ahaz refused to believe (7:12), the sign did two things. It guaranteed the house of David in spite of the threat of attack from Israel and Syria, and at the same time it assured the king of his coming demise.

The Hebrew word אֹת (“sign”) “either signifies the unusual event itself (miraculous display) or in some way points to that unusual event.”[20] Beecher has argued with force that the syntax of the stated prophecy reflects the syntax of the promise formulation of a divinely enabled birth as it was first spoken to Abraham and Sarah.[21] When this promise was clarified (Gen 15:4–5), Abram asked how he might know it would happen. In response God confirmed the promise in the form of a covenant formulation. In the initial expression, the covenant gave evidence of fulfillment.

The sign then was in the restatement of the divine Word that promised a divinely enabled birth. In Isaiah’s prophecy the sign[22] was in the statement of the promise that pointed to an unusual miracle in the future. The complement expressed something about that two-edged sign. It denied Ahaz, who rejected the sign, a future in the royal line. And yet it affirmed the glorious climax of the Davidic line in spite of imminent judgment by Assyria. If this is stated about the עַלְמָה conception, then the conception must necessarily be a virgin conception. Only a virgin conception would exclude Ahaz or his heir from participating in the royal line of David. Thus the type of meaning expresses limits and determines the sense of עַלְמָת and harmonizes completely with the Matthean usage.

But what about the historical elements in the sign? A prediction of a future miraculous conception does not seem at first to relate to the events in Ahaz’s day. The antecedent of “He” in 7:15 seems to anticipate some historic figure. This difficulty may be surmounted either by saying that “He” refers to the future born Son in anticipation of His growth[23] or by saying that “He” refers to “Shear-Jashub” (7:3), whom Isaiah was told to bring with him during his prophecy. This second alternative would introduce a break in thought between 7:14 and 7:15, as a new subject is introduced.

This model of literal interpretation meets the criteria demanded by the biblical usage and data. First, it establishes a determinate sense expressed in the text. This determinate meaning is shared by the human author who expressed the text and by the divine Author who authored the text. Recognized as a type of meaning, it determines both the proposition (subject and complement) and any unstated but necessary submeanings. Isaiah knew that his prophecy anticipated an עַלְמָה, a virgin who conceives and who bears a son who is named Immanuel. Did Isaiah know it referred to and meant Mary? One has no way of knowing. Did God know it meant Mary? There is no way of denying that. If Isaiah could have been transported to the time of Mary’s experience and he had no further information beyond his own prophecy, he could identify her as the girl God said would conceive. This is the understanding of the angel, of Joseph, and of Matthew who recorded the prediction. The construction of biblical meaning and its interpretation recognizes determinate textual limits and possible components of meaning in the progress of revelation. Thus this model of literal interpretation is valid because it corresponds with the data of Scripture and because it meets the demands of literal interpretation.

Notes

1. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The Single Intent of Scripture,” in Evangetical Roots, ed. Kenneth C. Kantzer (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1978), pp. 123-42.
2. Ibid., p. 138 (italics added).
3. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “A Response to Author’s Intention and Biblical Interpretation,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 442 (italics his).
4. Ibid., pp. 445-46.
5. Kaiser, “The Single Intent of Scripture,” p. 126 (italics added).
6. “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Article XVIII,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, pp. 889-900.
7. William Sanford LaSor, “The Sensus Plenior and Biblical Interpretation,” in Scripture, Tradition and Interpretation, ed. W. Ward Gasque and William Sanford LaSor (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), pp. 260-77.
8. Ibid., p. 263.
9. Ibid., p. 266.
10. Ibid., p. 268.
11. Ibid., (italics added).
12. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Exegetical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981).
13. Kaiser, “A Response to Author’s Intention and Biblical Interpretation,” pp. 441-42.
14. I. Howard Marshall, “Introduction,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), pp. 11-14.
15. Kaiser, “A Response to Author’s Intention,” p. 442.
16. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, eds., Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958), p. 709.
17. Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, s.v. “עלְמה,” by Allan MacRae, 2:672.
18. Robert Dick Wilson, “The Meaning of ‘ALMA (AV virgin) in Isaiah 7:14, ” Princeton Theological Review 24 (1926): 308.
19. Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), p. 209.
20. Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, s.v. “אוֹת,” by Robert L. Alden, 1:19.
21. Willis J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise (1905; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963).
22. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, s.v.”σημειον,” by O. Hofius, 2:627.
23. Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965, 1967, 1969), 1:291–92.

An Alternate Solution To An Alleged Contradiction In The Gospels

By Monte A. Shanks

[Monte A. Shanks is Assistant Professor, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Lynchburg, Virginia.]

Many alleged contradictions in the Bible are just that—”alleged,” and not without explanations. One such alleged contradiction involves the differences between Jesus’ instructions to His disciples as to whether they were allowed to carry a staff during their missionary journeys.[1] Matthew 10:9-10 states, “Do not acquire . . . a staff,” and Luke 9:3 says, “Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff.” But Mark 6:8 records that Jesus said His disciples “should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff.” Stein wrote concerning this conundrum that “no fully convincing explanation has yet arisen that explains these differences.”[2] This article seeks to provide a resolution to these differences.

Vocabulary

Some feel that an answer to this apparent contradiction can be found by focusing on the vocabulary in the passages in question.

Ahern categorized this type of approach to this discrepancy as “verbal harmonizations.”[3] One theory employing this approach involves Matthew’s use of “acquire” and Mark’s use of “take,” the argument being that Matthew was describing what the disciples should not accumulate while on their journeys, whereas Mark recorded what the Twelve could procure as they began their mission. Concerning this solution France wrote the following: “One apparently promising avenue of harmonization is to note the different verbs used: Mark allows the taking (αἴρω) of a staff, whereas Matthew forbids the acquiring (κτάομαι) of one—i.e., perhaps the procuring of a new one rather than taking the one which the disciple is assumed to have already. Unfortunately, however, Luke forbids them to take (αἴρω) a staff and in any case the use of κτάομαι rather than αἴρω in Matthew covers the whole list of prohibited items.”[4]

France concludes that “the disagreement about the staff remains unresolved.”[5] Similarly Davis asserted, “I know of no way to reconcile this inconsistency. . . . The proper conclusion, I think, is that the accounts are inconsistent and that at least one of the Gospels is in error.”[6] The other relevant vocabulary within these passages displays no variation and therefore provides no solution to this dilemma. Jesus’ descriptions of their missions on the road (ὁδός) and their taking of a staff (ράβδος) are identical in all three accounts. Thus the variance or lack thereof in the vocabulary of these accounts does not solve the problem.

Bock lists seven theories that have been proposed to resolve this issue.[7] The first approach focuses on the problems of discerning Jesus’ instructions given in Aramaic and contained in Q rather then what is found in the Gospels. Bock correctly notes that this theory still leaves the apparent contradiction unresolved. A second solution states that Jesus had two different kinds of “staffs” in mind, one that could aid in traveling and one that could be used for personal defense. This view assumes that Jesus was telling His disciples not to take a club for defense against wild animals but that He did not prohibit their taking a staff whose primary purpose was to support the traveler. Bock rightly concludes, however, that “the use of the same term in all three Gospels speaks against this view.”[8]

The third theory states that Mark was using imagery from Exodus 12:11 rather than recording Jesus’ exact instructions, but this too does not solve the problem. The fourth solution is much like the first, dealing with Jesus’ instructions in Aramaic, except that this approach focuses on the word “except” in Mark 6:8. In this view Mark’s tradition is a misunderstanding or mistranslation of Jesus’ original Aramaic instructions, but like the first and third theories, this only explains the contradiction and does not resolve it. The fifth approach suggests that the disciples were not to procure a staff if they lacked one. Focusing on the possible different meanings of αἴρω (“take”) and κτάομαι (“acquire”) is possible, but this is neither likely nor convincing.

The sixth theory ignores the contradiction by contending that the details are “irrelevant” and that Jesus’ instructions contained in the Synoptics are actually in agreement. The seventh proposed solution suggests that Jesus’ prohibition was against taking an extra staff (and sandals), the point being that Jesus intended His disciples to travel light. But would anyone normally carry two staffs? Bock believes this is the “best” resolution to this apparent contradiction.[9]

The theory of prohibiting the disciples from taking extra supplies is possible. However, this is a conjecture at best because it is not supported by the vocabulary of the Synoptic accounts. The prohibition in Matthew’s account is against acquiring anything such as gold, silver, copper, a bag, coats, sandals, “or a staff” (10:9).[10]

When Jesus told His disciples not to carry two tunics, the implication is that the one they had was sufficient for their mission. No other supplies were to be procured, including a staff. Matthew’s record of Jesus’ instructions seems clear; they were not to accumulate anything other than the coat on their backs, and with that single provision and no others Jesus’ disciples were to go preach the good news that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (v. 7).

Luke’s account seems to confirm this reading of Matthew’s narrative. Luke first listed the items that were not to be taken: “neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money” (Luke 9:3).[11] Then after these prohibitions Luke recorded what could be taken, namely, only a single tunic and no extras. Why did Jesus give such austere instructions? Because He knew that a “worker is worthy of his support” (Matt. 10:10). In other words God would supply the needs of those engaged in His work. Some of the theories above are possible solutions to this dilemma. However, an additional solution more adequately resolves this apparent contradiction.

A Chronological Approach

Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus stated that His disciples were not to take a staff (along with several other items) on their mission.[12] Mark, however, recorded that the disciples could in fact take a staff on their journeys. These facts seem to indicate that an absolute contradiction exists, and that would be the case if in fact all three Gospel writers were referring to the same event. However, a more thorough analysis indicates that the Gospel writers addressed two different missions by the Twelve. Matthew and Luke referred to Jesus’ initital commissioning of the Twelve, whereas Mark recorded a subsequent mission of the Twelve that occurred later in Jesus’ Galilean ministry.

Evidence that these accounts describe separate missions is seen in the chronologies of the Synoptics. To demonstrate this evidence, the chronology in the Gospel of Matthew is displayed in this chart.

Matt. 9:18-31	Matt. 10:1-11:1	Matt. 11:2-13:52	Matt. 13:53-58	Matt. 14:1-12	Matt. 14:14-21
Jesus’ healing of Jarius’s daughter	First mission of the Twelve (no staff allowed)	Jesus’ teaching and confrontation	Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth	Fate of John the Baptist	Feeding of the five thousand

Matthew’s chronology is more complex than that of Luke and Mark.[13] It reveals, however, that Jesus’ first commissioning of the Twelve occurred before His visit to Nazareth, and Matthew 10:10 records Jesus’ command to His disciples that they not “acquire” (κτάομαι) a staff for their mission. Luke’s chronology of this same period is less extensive than that of Matthew, but it follows the same basic timeline.

Luke 8:40-56	Luke 9:1-6	Luke 9:7-9	Luke 9:11-17
Jesus’ healing of Jarius’s daughter	First mission of the Twelve (no staff allowed)	Fate of John the Baptist	Feeding of the five thousand

Luke also recorded Jesus’ prohibition against “taking” (αἴρω) a staff (9:3). A major difference between Luke’s and Matthew’s records is that Luke chose not to include Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth in his narrative, a visit that occurred after the first commissioning of the Twelve. The reason is understandable; Luke had already documented an earlier visit of Jesus to Nazareth, a visit that occurred at the beginning of His ministry (Luke 4:14-30).[14] And that visit was considerably more perilous than His later visit recorded by Matthew. Luke chose to document Jesus’ earlier visit to His hometown for his own editorial reasons; so he felt no need to document any other visit(s) made by Jesus to Nazareth.[15] A comparison of these visits indicates that the Nazarenes were unimpressed with Jesus on both occasions. Matthew’s record of Jesus’ reception on this particular occasion, however, reveals that they were less impetuous than during His previous visit recorded by Luke. The salient point is that Luke followed the Matthean tradition with respect to the prohibition against staff-bearing, but Luke also elected not to include Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth in his chronology of that same period of Jesus’ ministry.

Mark, however, gave an entirely different chronology of this same period, one that records that Jesus’ replicated His previous commission of the Twelve after his visit to Nazareth.

Mark 5:21-43	Mark 6:1-6	Mark 6:7-13	Mark 6:14-29	Mark 6:33-44
Jesus’ healing of Jarius’s daughter	Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth	Second mission of the Twelve (staff allowed)	Fate of John the Baptist	Feeding of the five thousand

Mark’s narrative of the second commissioning includes the fact that Jesus allowed His disciples to carry a staff on that mission.[16] The reason(s) He did so is a matter of speculation. However, some reasonable suggestions would be that the terrain where they were going was more rugged, thus making staff-bearing a necessity; or perhaps this second mission involved longer distances.[17] There are other possible explanations, but the pertinent point is that (assuming that Matthew and Luke had Mark’s Gospel before them) they each chose to record a commissioning of the Twelve other than the one recorded by Mark. Matthew and Luke documented a commission of the Twelve that occurred before Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth, a mission in which He prohibited His disciples from carrying a staff. Mark on the other hand recorded a second commissioning of the Twelve (after Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth) in which He allowed His disciples to carry a staff.[18] With this in mind the relevant passages of all three accounts are shown in the table below.

Matt. 9:18-31; Luke 8:40-56; Mark 5:21-43	Matt. 10:1-11:1; Luke 9:1-6	Matt. 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6	Mark 6:7-13	Matt. 14:1-12; Luke 9:7-9; Mark 6:14-29
Jesus’ healing of Jarius’s daughter	First mission of the Twelve (no staff to be taken)	Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth	Second mission of the Twelve (staff allowed)	Fate of John the Baptist

Corroboration By Replication

Some might argue that the Gospel writers recorded the same event and either redacted it for their own theological purposes or followed oral traditions in which certain details were confused and changed during their multiple transmissions.[19] There is, however, a more reasonable and intellectually satisfying explanation for what the Gospel writers documented, which is that Matthew and Luke recorded a similar but different event than that recorded by Mark. This discrepancy would not be the first concerning which form critics or redaction critics were mistaken. It would also not be the only instance in which the Gospel writers documented similar events involving Jesus. For example the three synoptic Gospels report that Jesus’ raised Jarius’s daughter from the dead, but only Luke recorded that Jesus also raised a widow’s son from the dead (Luke 7:11-17), while John also reported Jesus’ power over death by documenting the raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-44).[20] All four Gospels report the feeding of the five thousand, but only Mark and Matthew documented Jesus’ feeding of the four thousand. The synoptic Gospels report that Jesus at one time or another sent the Twelve out on a mission, but only Luke recorded that Jesus also commissioned seventy-two of His followers for a similar mission (Luke 10:1).[21] The Synoptic writers reported Jesus’ cleansing of the temple late in His ministry, but only John recorded that Jesus also cleansed the temple at the commencement of His ministry (John 2:13-22).[22] As previously mentioned, Matthew and Mark reported Jesus’ visit to Nazareth in the middle of His ministry in Galilee, but only Luke documented Jesus’ visit to His hometown early in His ministry. Matthew, Mark, and John reported Jesus’ anointing at Bethany, but only Luke recorded an earlier anointing by a repentant prostitute (Luke 7:36-50).[23] Matthew reported Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:1-7:29), and Luke corroborated Jesus’ central teachings by documenting that He preached a similar message at another location (i.e., “on the plain,” Luke 6:17-49).[24] And Jesus also performed similar but different healings: healings of lepers, healings of the blind, healings of the deaf, healings of the mute, and healings of the demon-possessed. One need not conclude that all these multiple accounts of similar events are only redacted fabrications of a few events, or that they are the product of conflated or confused oral traditions. Since the Gospel writers showed a propensity to corroborate the practices of Jesus by reporting other similar events, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus commissioned the Twelve on more than one occasion, and the evidence for this conclusion is found in chronologies provided by the Synoptic writers, not to mention the different instructions given by Jesus before each mission.[25]

No Absolute Contradiction Concerning Staff-Bearing

This solution to an apparent contradiction will not satisfy everyone, and the most ardent skeptics will probably find it too simplistic to accept. However, that does not prove that an absolute contradiction exists with respect to Jesus’ instructions about the practice of staff-bearing. Moreover, there is indisputable evidence that Jesus did in fact send His disciples out on more than one mission (Luke 10:1-12). What is especially remarkable is that both Matthew and Luke chose to document Jesus’ first commissioning of the Twelve, knowing that their version of His instructions for that particular mission differed slightly from His instructions found in Mark’s Gospel. Some might think it would have been much easier for them to “redact” their traditions so that they “harmonized” with Mark’s record.[26] They did not, however, take the easier path. Instead it was far more important to them to record the facts accurately. Thus they did not fear the possibility of presenting a supposed contradiction. Recording the differences in Jesus’ instructions presented no problem to them simply because they probably assumed that a comparison of their records would inevitably reveal that they had in fact documented a similar but different event. They probably never imagined that some would use the differences between their accounts to marginalize their narratives on the life and message of Jesus Christ, much less to reject Christ’s claims altogether.

An important observation concerning the irrelevance of the issue of staff-bearing is found in Luke’s record of the commissioning of the seventy-two (Luke 10:1-4). His record of that event reveals that Jesus made no reference to the matter of staff-bearing at all. Moreover, Luke also recorded that just before His death Jesus reversed many of His prohibitions concerning how His disciples were to travel (Luke 22:35-38). Jesus was not always concerned with whether His followers carried a staff on their respective missions. This was not the most important element of their missionary activities. That Jesus sent His followers out on more than one mission is certain, and before each mission He gave them instructions on how they were to equip themselves and what their message was to be.[27] His instructions were clear, and His reasons for those instructions were equally clear. The most essential element of all three missionary endeavors, however, was the message Jesus commanded His disciples to deliver, not the manner in which they traveled. Using this apparent contradiction to charge that the Bible is not God’s inerrant Word is not well defended; moreover, it is a distraction from the truth concerning Jesus Christ. Regardless of the charges that some level against the Bible, the Scriptures are God’s inerrant Word, and there is no absolute or unassailable contradiction concerning Jesus’ instructions as to whether the Twelve were allowed to carry a staff during their respective missions.

Notes

1. An “absolute” contradiction should be distinguished from an “apparent” or “alleged” contradiction. An absolute contradiction involves diametrically contrary descriptions of the same event that cannot be resolved under any circumstances. Concerning the conflict in Jesus’ instructions on staff bearing, Craig L. Blomberg called this a possible “unassailable contradiction” (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1987], 145), and Barnabas Ahern described this discrepancy as “a striking contradiction” (“Staff or No Staff,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 5 [1943]: 332). An apparent contradiction, however, is one in which there appears to be a discrepancy between two accounts in the Scriptures, but a reasonable explanation either harmonizes or resolves the differences.
2. Robert Stein, Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2008), 293.
3. Ahern, “Staff or No Staff,” 332-37. Ahern gives a brief list of resolutions for this apparent contraction, all of which involve verbal harmonization. He concluded that this discrepancy is resolved by any of the theories he discussed; however, he did not promote any one specific theory as superior to the others.
4. Robert France, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 248. Leon Morris also suggested this explanation (The Gospel according to Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 248).
5. France, The Gospel of Mark, 249.
6. Stephen F. Davis, The Debate about the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 106.
7. Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 1994), 814-16. Views 1-5 and 7 are based on six views discussed by Walter L. Liefeld, “Luke,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:919-20; and in Tremper Longman and David E. Garland, “Luke-Acts,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 10:170.
8. Ibid., 815.
9. Ibid., 816. Also John D. Grassmick writes that “the disciples were not to acquire additional staffs . . . but to use the ones they already had” (“Mark,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996], 128).
10. The word for “staff” (ῥάβδον) is singular. Jesus did not say, “Do not take ‘staffs,’ “which might imply that the disciples were not to take an extra staff in addition to what they already had. They were not to take “coats” (lit., “tunics,” plural) or “sandals” (plural), but not a single staff.
11. John A. Martin suggested that one of the reasons additional supplies were not allowed for the mission recorded by Luke (and Matthew) was because of the “brevity” of that particular mission (“Luke,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, 228). Martin, however, believed that all three Synoptics record the same event.
12. This article does not address the possible existence of Q or any other Q-like tradition. For an exceptional explanation of the relationship between the synoptic Gospels see Robert H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001). See also D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 77-127.
13. Matthew included some material in his chronology of this period of Jesus’ ministry that is not included in Mark and Luke. For example Matthew included Jesus’ exhortation for prayer for the harvest in 9:35-38. Luke documented that Jesus gave a similar exhortation at His commissioning of the seventy-two (Luke 10.2). Matthew also documented a host of ministry activities of Jesus, as well as conflicts involving Him in Matthew chapters 11-13. A profitable study might investigate whether Matthew recorded these conflicts using a chronological timeline or whether he grouped them thematically, or had a combination of the two. Most scholars recognize that at times the Gospel writers grouped their materials thematically rather than recording them in precise linear timelines. This practice, perhaps frustrating for some modern readers, was apparently better received by ancient audiences. Regardless of why Matthew arranged his material the way he did, his narrative gives the impression that much time elapsed between Jesus’ first commissioning of the Twelve (Matt. 10) and His visit to Nazareth (13:53-58).
14. Bock argued that Jesus’ visit to Nazareth recorded in Luke 4:14-30 is the same event described by Matthew (Matt. 13:53-58) and Mark (Mark 6:1-6) (Luke 1:1-9:50, 394-98). However, William L. Lane viewed these visits as separate events (The Gospel of Mark [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 201). While Bock’s discussion is thorough, his position is largely based on the mention of Capernaum by the people of Nazareth (Luke 4:23). Luke documented, however, that Jesus had already begun His ministry in the region of Galilee before going to Nazareth (Luke 4:14-15). So there is nothing that demands that Jesus did not visit Capernaum early in His ministry and perform miracles there before visiting His hometown. Luke even said that Jesus’ reputation was widespread before His initial visit to Nazareth (4:15).
15. For a discussion on why Luke valued this particular visit see Walter L. Liefeld, “Luke,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 866.
16. Since this was a different mission, it required a different set of travel instructions. Thus there are no contradictions between the instructions recorded by Mark and those recorded by Matthew and Luke. They are simply different instructions for different missions.
17. These suggestions also explain why Jesus allowed sandals for this mission (cf. Mark 6:9 with Matt. 10:10). While modern audiences might find Jesus’ prohibition against wearing sandals strange, Luke confirms that at times this was not an unusual requirement of Jesus (cf. Luke 10:4; 22:35).
18. One assumes that Matthew wrote from his own recollections, and that Luke possessed knowledge of Matthew’s Gospel and chose to follow his tradition.
19. Matthew Black commented on what may have been the “original” tradition in Aramaic. He concluded that “it is likewise possible that Mark is here giving a purely Greek version of the saying, influenced, it may be, by the staff and sandals of the wandering Sophist. At any rate, what we have in Mark is not literal translation nor ignorant mistranslation, but probably considered interpretation, the work, not of a translator, but of a Greek writer” (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1967], 217). Bock observed, however, that this explanation “fails by merely blaming the tradition for the problem” (Luke 1:1-9:50, 815).
20. For a discussion of John’s account of the raising of Lazarus and its relation to the Synoptics see Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 532-36.
21. Blomberg suggested that there is no discrepancy concerning the issue of staff-bearing in the Synoptics because Matthew “telescoped” his tradition concerning the Twelve with Luke’s tradition concerning the seventy-two (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 145-46). The problem with this solution is that Matthew and Luke agree against Mark concerning the prohibition against staff-bearing. Luke never recorded that Jesus allowed His disciples to carry a staff; only Mark reported the lifting of that prohibition. Also Luke corroborated Matthew’s tradition of the commissioning of the Twelve and reported it as a separate event from the commissioning of the seventy-two. Thus Blomberg’s suggestion raises more questions than it answers. (This article does not address whether Jesus commissioned seventy or seventy-two of His disciples in Luke 10:1.) If any “telescoping” has occurred, it involves the Matthean and Lukan seams (Matt. 14:13; Luke 9:10) where both evangelists in a manner similar to that of Mark (Mark 6:30-32) redacted their text in their own styles to bring the disciples back together just before the feeding of the five thousand.
22. D. A. Carson referred to the cleansing accounts in John and the Synoptics as “parallel” (The Gospel according to John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 179). Concerning the view that these are separate events Merrill C. Tenney wrote that John’s “narrative poses a chronological puzzle, for the synoptic Gospels unitedly attach this event to Jesus’ last visit to Jerusalem at the time of his death. . . . Either John is right and the Synoptics mistaken, or the Synoptics are right and John is mistaken, or John has transplanted the account for topical or theological purposes, or there were two such occasions, only one of which was recorded by John and the other by the Synoptics. While each of these theories has been argued with some degree of logic, the last seems the best. The language of John and that of the Synoptics differ strongly” (“John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 9 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981], 33). See also Andreas Köstenberger, John (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 111.
23. For an explanation of why these events should be viewed separately see Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, 689-91. Köstenberger mentions other occasions that involved anointings in ancient literature (John, 361 n. 14). Carson wrote concerning these events that “the discrepancies between Luke’s account and the other three are so large that only unbridled imagination can offer adequate reasons to explain why so many differences would have been invented” (John, 425).
24. For a thorough discussion of the relationship of these two sermons see Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, 548-60, 931-44. See also D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8:122-29. Both rejected the view that Matthew and Luke documented separate but similar sermons. Leon Morris, however, viewed them as separate events (Matthew, 93). Liefeld suggested that “there was one sermon among many that Jesus preached on similar themes that was something like a ‘keynote’ address” (Liefeld, “Luke,” 890). Jesus would not have been the first itinerate preacher or rabbi who gave his favorite message at more than one location.
25. The tendency of the Gospel writers to provide corroboration of specific practices of Jesus by recording other similar events should be recognized as a principle of biblical interpretation known as “corroboration by replication.” Some scholars refer to redundant reports in the Gospels as “doublets.” When using this term, some are suggesting that a Gospel writer reported the same event twice in his Gospel, but that he redacted the event for his specific theological purposes (e.g., the miraculous feedings of Jesus, Mark 6:33-44; 8:1-9). The term “doublets,” however, assumes a context that the Gospel writers did not acknowledge, nor is it supported by an investigation of their narratives. Instead they presented their materials as accurate reports of real events. So their records should be viewed as corroborations of certain ministry practices of Jesus or events involving Him. Of course simple corroboration occurs when a Gospel writer confirmed an event found in another Gospel by reporting that same event in his Gospel (e.g., the feeding of the five thousand, which is reported in all four Gospels). Corroboration by replication is slightly different. It means that just as scientists corroborate physical reactions through replication, so the Gospel writers corroborated certain practices of Jesus and/or miracles involving Him by reporting other similar events. For example John’s account that Jesus cleansed the temple early in His ministry (John 2:13-22) corroborates the report in the Synoptics that He was displeased with the atmosphere at the temple, and thus He also drove the money changers out a second time late in His ministry. Similarly Luke’s report that Jesus raised the widow’s son (Luke 7:11-17) is further corroborated by his later report that Jesus also raised Jarius’s daughter from death (8:40-56).
26. Regarding the possibility that Matthew and Luke harmonized their accounts with Mark, Blomberg wrote that “it is hard to imagine Matthew or Luke editing Mark and rescinding Jesus’ permission to take at least shoes and walking stick” (Blomberg, TheHistorical Reliability of the Gospels, 145).
27. David Turner suggested that Jesus’ instructions on how the Twelve were to travel implies that His disciples were to live a simple lifestyle (Matthew [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 1994], 272).