Month: September 2011

Al Mohler Chimes In

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I am going to be continuing our look at this Geisler/Licona debate as now Al Mohler has chimed in. As I have stated prior, I am the son-in-law of Mike Licona. I say this to admit possible bias upfront. However, I ask the reader to consider my arguments. Seeing as I am not sure I agree with Licona’s interpretation yet, that should be sufficient to show I do not follow blindly. I am certain, however, that the views of Mohler and Geisler are not only inaccurate, but harmful to the church and to inerrancy.

What is inerrancy? Well that’s a good question and right now, the debate going on is starting to get some people to wonder. In the blogosphere, there is talk from some evangelicals that they do not want to be a member of the ETS if this is the kind of reception they can expect to have. To turn off the upcoming generation of future scholars from evangelicalism cannot be good for evangelicalism.

Unfortunately, Al Mohler has the same approach that will do just that in his review of the Geisler/Licona debate which I will put a link to at the end of this article. Mohler starts off praising Licona for the following:

The 700-page volume is nothing less than a masterful defense of the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Licona is a gifted scholar who has done what other evangelical scholars have not yet done — he has gone right into the arena of modern historiographical research to do comprehensive battle with those who reject the historical nature of Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

Bravo Licona! Bravo! Keep up the good work! In fact, we know about Licona’s expertise with the following quote:

In making his case, Licona demonstrates his knowledge of modern historiography, the philosophy of history, and the work of modern historians. He confronts head-on the arguments against the historicity of the resurrection put forth by scholars ranging from Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann to John Dominic Crossan.

Yes Licona. You are certainly well read in historiography and the philosophy of history. You confront the arguments against the historicity of the resurrection by leading deniers of the resurrection today. Not just leading deniers but deniers who happen to be scholars! Ah the pictures looks so good, until we get to this line.

But, even as Licona dissects arguments against the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact, he then makes a shocking and disastrous argument of his own. Writing about Matthew 27:51-54, Licona suggests that he finds material that is not to be understood as historical fact.

Suddenly a dark cloud is on the horizon. Licona is “dehistoricizing” the text.

Or is he?

Once again, Mohler has made the same mistake that Geisler has. The idea is The text must ipso facto be accepted as historical. Licona does not take it as historical. Therefore, since the text is obviously historical, then we can be sure that Licona is not affirming inerrancy.

How did Geisler counter this? Well Geisler chose to counter it by giving the reasons why he believes it is historical. Since he has those reasons and those reasons are convincing and Licona disagrees, then obviously since the text must be historical, then Licona is denying inerrancy.

Let’s think about this a little bit. Do Geisler and Mohler really think that if a sound case was made to Licona that the event described is historical that he would say “Sorry guys. I just have to say it isn’t. I’m not trusting in the evidence.”? Does anyone really think this?

Then you have the opinion found at AOMin.org that Licona has made a concession to liberalism. Which concession would that be? Would it be the concession that miracles aren’t possible? That’s rather hard to believe considering he has a whole chapter in defense of miracles. Is it that resurrections can’t happen? That’s also hard to believe considering he’s written a whole book defending the resurrection. Could it be that the Bible is not reliable in matters of history? Also doubtful considering that he looks at the gospels and epistles to show how reliable they in fact are.

Let us consider how things might have begun if Geisler instead of choosing to attack Licona’s view as unorthodox had said the following:

To Mike Licona,

I have recently read your latest book and I do have a disagreement with you concerning your view on the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27. While it is certainly in the bounds of orthodoxy, I do not think it is accurate and I have a number of reasons for thinking it to be historical. I would like to get to discuss these reasons with you.

Instead, we got a message of threatening, which sadly Mohler is repeating. Let’s keep going through Mohler’s post. While Mohler is troubled by the word “legend”, I believe the Triablogue accurately interpreted what Licona means.

On 185-86 of his book, Licona uses the word “legend.” Needless to say, “Legend” is a hot-button word. But in context, I don’t think Licona was classifying the Matthean pericope as a legend. Rather, that’s part of his inference-to-the-best explanation methodology. He’s listing a range of logically possible options; then, by process of elimination, zeroing in on the most probable explanation. He mentions the “legendary” explanation to eliminate that alternative as a less likely explanation.

Note that this work is not a popular level work but a scholarly work, in fact based on Licona’s PH.D. In being a good scholar, you have to make room for all possible explanations and then show why the explanations of the opposition fail and yours does not. Licona is just being a good scholar in this. Could it be that Mohler and Geisler find scholarship troubling?

Mohler goes on to say:

Licona then refers to various classical parallels in ancient literature and to the Bible’s use of apocalyptic language and, after his historical survey, states: “it seems to me that an understanding of the language in Matthew 27:52-53 as ’special effects’ with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible.”

Mohler does not like the term special effects, and I do think a better term could have been used, but Licona is simply saying that apocalyptic imagery was used at the time that was not to be seen as a literal description of events but as the way the event would have been seen from a “God’s-eye” perspective. It would have been a message of judgment through the earthquake, a message of shame through darkness, a message that the old way of the Law was done through the tearing of the temple curtain, and a message that resurrection can now be a reality, through the description of the resurrected saints.

Mohler has his great concern about what has happened, especially since the question can be raised “Well why can’t Jesus’s death be seen the same way?” Mohler says:

This is exactly the right question, and Licona’s proposed answers to his own question are disappointing in the extreme. In his treatment of this passage, Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon — the concession that some of the material reported by Matthew in the very chapter in which he reports the resurrection of Christ simply did not happen and should be understood as merely “poetic device” and “special effects.”

What are these answers? Well we’re not told. However, they are disappointing. Let it be noted something however that all of Licona’s critics are missing. One reason that we can be sure that Licona can show why Jesus’s death cannot be interpreted that way is that this debate over Matthew 27 takes place in nearly 650 pages of material telling us why the death and resurrection of Jesus is historical.

Seriously. Licona has built up the evidence and given a massive historical argument as even Mohler admits and yet based on his interpretation of this one passage, does Mohler really think that by saying that that everything Licona has said about the resurrection of Jesus is refuted?

Keep in mind Mohler has pointed to Licona’s knowledge of historiography. Is this the attitude that though Licona knows what he’s doing, he really needs to be called into question here? Perhaps his historiography isn’t as good as he thinks it is.

Now comes Mohler’s pointing to Geisler who says Licona is dehistoricizing the text. Note what that assumes.

First off, it assumes that the text is historical to begin with.
Second, it assumes that it can be demonstrated that Matthew meant that.
Third, it assumes that Licona knows this.
Fourth, it assumes that Licona is thus telling Matthew that he was wrong.

Those are some powerful assumptions. If anything, only the second one has had any arguments put forward in its favor. I have no problem with that. If someone believes that, they should put forward the argument. However, showing that the text is historical is not the same as showing that Licona is denying inerrancy. It must be shown that it is to be seen as historical to Licona’s satisfaction. If he still really believes that Matthew did not mean that, then he is not denying inerrancy.

After introducing Geisler, Mohler reminds us of Gundry seeing as Geisler’s viewpoint was “Affirm the historicity or follow the same path as Gundry.” This is the area where major concern begins. Could it be that back in that case, the ETS shot itself in the foot by such an action as dismissing Gundry?

What does inerrancy mean?

Does it mean literalism? Does it mean that we can never propose an alternate way of reading the text? If that is the case, many are wondering about whether they want to be involved. What do we do with Genesis 1 and 2? What do we do with Matthew 24? What about the book of Revelation? What about the long day in Joshua 10? What about statements in Exodus about God changing His mind?

If being an inerrantist means I have to interpret all of those passages X way, do I really want to consider myself one?

Don’t think that’s not happening? Surf the blogosphere yourself and see it happening, most vividly it is happening at NearEmmaus.com.

Note what Mohler goes on to tell us:

Scholars including D. A. Carson and Darrell Bock argued, in response, that Matthew was not writing midrash and that his first readers would never have assumed him to have done so. Scholars also noted that Gundry’s approach was doctrinally disastrous. Gundry had argued that Matthew “edited the story of Jesus’ baptism so as to emphasize the Trinity.” Thus, Matthew was not reporting truthfully what had happened in terms of historical fact, but what he wanted to report in order to serve his theological purpose. Gundry had suggested that Matthew changed Luke’s infancy narrative by changing shepherds into Magi and the manger into a house. As one evangelical scholar retorted: “For Gundry, then, the nonexistent house was where the nonpersons called Magi found Jesus on the occasion of their nonvisit to Bethlehem.”

Let’s look at some key words.

“Scholars or scholar” are said three times.

Bock and Carson are cited as scholars who disagreed. (Interestingly, Moo is left out.) Then we have a reference to one evangelical scholar. Thanks to a friend for tracking down as I wrote that it was Robert Thomas who said it. Let it be noted that this time, the danger was what the scholars were warning about. We need to listen to the scholars.

What about Licona? Well he had a list of scholars who had signed his statement. What came of that? Nothing. No attention was paid to them. At least, none by Geisler. The rest of the world paid attention. Note that Moo was one of those who signed the document and he was there at Gundry, knew the issues well, and says Licona is not a repeat of Gundry. Note that two of the others are signers of the ICBI statement, namely Moreland and Yamauchi.

But this time, well what the scholars say doesn’t matter.

In commenting on Licona’s response, minus the scholars, we have this incredible statement from Mohler:

That is not a retraction. Further, he says that his slight change of view on the issue came after research in the Greco-Roman literature. As the Chicago Statement would advise us to ask: What could one possibly find in the Greco-Roman literature that would either validate or invalidate the status of this report as historical fact?

The mind boggles that such a statement is made. What possible benefit can we get then from studying ancient creation narratives. Surely Moses would not write in a fashion creation narratives were written. What value could come from studying ancient Greco-Roman epistles? Surely Paul did not follow similar writing styles. Why? Well no reason is given, but it could be just because this is supposed to be the Bible that is readily accessible to everyone.

Which would again be an assertion.

Mohler seems to write-off without consideration the idea of studying ancient biographies to study the gospels, you know, those works that are ancient biographies. Does Mohler really think that studying the way the ancients wrote can tell us nothing about an ancient writing? Is this the position he really wants to advocate?

Mohler goes on to say:

In his book, he asked precisely the right question, but then he gave the wrong answer. We must all hope that he will ask himself that question again and answer in a way that affirms without reservation that all of Matthew’s report is historical. If not, Licona has not only violated the inerrancy of Scripture, but he has blown a massive hole into his own masterful defense of the resurrection.

No. Licona has not done that. However, I fear that in fact Geisler and Mohler have done that. Let us consider what can be said.

Christian witnessing to atheist friend: You should really read this great new book by Mike Licona defending the resurrection.

Atheist: Is that the book your own evangelical scholars have already said is unorthodox? If they don’t accept it, why should I?

Note in fact also the attitude that is being built up here. What is the message? Beware of scholarship. Geisler even said to not be an Athenian. Is this the message that we want to give? When Licona lists the scholars who side with him, we are told it doesn’t matter. Licona is violating the plain literal sense of Scripture.

Thus, the advice is to retreat from the academy and modern scholarship.

Let us consider how well this has helped us in other areas. When we make a retreat from evolution, does it really help us? Note that I am not saying I affirm macroevolution, but let us suppose we had this attitude instead.

“Well Darwin, you have an interesting theory here. We might have to change the way we interpret Genesis, but if the facts are with your theory, they’re with your theory.”

Would it not have been nice if we had been more open to the Galileo incident the same way?

Instead, we are going into a debate saying “The facts are this. Now we’ll look at your evidence otherwise.” Instead, we can say “We do believe the Bible to be fully true and if your scholarship is sound and the facts are there, it will not change the truth of Scripture.”

The retreat method instead gets us to the idea that we must avoid scholarship. The Bible has to be protected from these modern ideas and if you are espousing something contrary to what we believe Scripture says, well that will be unallowable. You’ll just have to forgo scholarship and sign on the dotted line. You’ll do that won’t you brother?

Thus, we have argument by force and guilt by association as Marc Cortez pointed out at Nearemmaus.com. What we do not have is argument by scholarship and this is an issue for the scholars.

While it might be Geisler’s belief that inerrancy is under attack and he can save inerrancy, what is really happening would lead more to the destruction of inerrancy in America. Already, the next generation of scholars is watching this and wondering if they really want to sign on the dotted line.

Do they really want to be evangelical scholars if this is the way debate is handled in the evangelical world?

Is the message to be sent out to be taken as “Don’t be a scholar. If you wish to be one, at least make sure you fall within the party lines.” Do we want the non-believing world to say “Well of course we know a Christian scholar will believe that. They have to affirm that. We know what happened to Licona. He wasn’t accepted in the evangelical world for his opinion and since you have to walk that line in the evangelical world, there’s obviously that bias so we disregard what is said.”

Or should we evangelicals have the opinion instead of “Bring us your ideas and your theories! Let us examine them! If they are with the truth, we will have no problem and will accept them. If our way of reading passage X has been wrong and can be shown to be wrong, we will accept it.”

Would that we had done this when Galileo came questioning interpretation, but at the time, the interpretation was seen to be inerrant. If one believes the Scriptures are inerrant, then they should surely be willing to test that and be open to a new way of reading the text. If scholarship comes out and shows that the way doesn’t work, oh well. If it shows that it does, then we are wise to be on the cutting edge accepting it.

What can we pray? Let us not pray for recanting and falling in line. That is not what is needed. Let us pray for real scholarly genuine debate rather than threats and guilt by association.

Mohler’s article can be found here: http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/09/14/the-devil-is-in-the-details-biblical-inerrancy-and-the-licona-controversy/

The website nearemmmaus with several updates on this can be found here: http://nearemmaus.com/

We Don’t Need No Higher Learning

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’ve been looking at inerrancy and talking about the research done into a text which raises a question that often comes when I’ve been discussing this on the blogosphere. Do we really need all these scholars to understand the Bible? Do we need higher learning?

Yes.

We shall continue next time….

No no no. Of course I’m not going to leave it at that. The objection is that isn’t it possible for simple and ordinary people to understand the gospel and be saved by reading the Bible?

Well, yeah. I have no problem, but that’s also like saying you can at least understand the plot of Romeo and Juliet by reading the play. You can, but in order to fully appreciate the work of the Bard, you will need to be trained in the literature of the time.

But can’t we all just pick up our Bibles and let the Holy Spirit teach us?

There are a number of attitudes I think that are behind this kind of question a lot of times when one is confronted with the idea of higher learning. The first is pride. The idea is that one is capable enough to understand the Bible without the guidance of others. Charles Spurgeon once even warned his students to not be so arrogant as to think they are the only ones the Holy Spirit has ever spoken to.

The second attitude is laziness. We don’t want to really work at studying something. Even as an apologist, this is something I still can struggle with. There are times that book being read can seem so boring and that other thing I’m wanting to do is more enjoyable. Of course, there are times one does need to take a break from the reading in order to think about matters or to just play. However, to work at times for all of us takes effort.

It is amazing that we would condemn a child when the child instead of wanting to work out the answers to the math questions chooses to look in the back of the book. We do not approve of the student who when needing to do research looks up Wikipedia or goes to Yahoo Answers or some other format like that.

Yet somehow, when we come to Bible Study, this is suddenly a virtue.

But it’s the Word of God!

And?

Because it’s of God, it should be easy?

Seriously. When has that ever been the case?

I would think it would be just the opposite. God is not the easiest topic to understand. There is a whole subject of theology and it is known as the queen of the sciences. Paul in a passage like Romans 11:33-36 writes out in praise the wonder of God and how he is beyond understanding.

But hey, it’s his Word, so it should be simple.

No.

Job compared wisdom to a mine where choice metals are dug for. If you want wisdom, you have to work for it. If you are a disciple of Christ, there is some activity to be required on your part. You are not just to be someone passive. You are to be seeking the truth as much as you are receiving it.

But we’ve got the Holy Spirit!

Yes. You do have the Holy Spirit and do you think He caters to laziness? The Bible celebrates the value of hard work. Are we to think that it celebrates that in all areas, except where it comes to the study of God Himself and His Scripture. In that case, hard work is to be avoided. Just be passive.

It’s amazing that these same people want to teach us that we don’t need teaching.

If you really believed you don’t need to be taught, don’t go to church. There’s no need to hear what the preacher has to say. There’s no need to read any books on the Bible either. You can get that on your own. No need to study Greek or Hebrew. If God wants you to know something, he’ll make sure he transcends the language gap.

Just sit back, do nothing, and let God beam all the knowledge into your head.

Of course, you’ll also have to deal with your neighbor across the street who has the Holy Spirit as well but is obviously living in sin or something since he disagrees with you.

It is a shame that we have reached a point in the life of the church where higher learning is discouraged and we think God should spoon-feed us everything.

“Well I guess everyone has to be a scholar!”

No. Not at all.

But everyone should be thankful for the scholarly community. If you want to grow in the knowledge of God, you’ll have to do your part. Read good books. These are books that will challenge you. Read also books that you disagree with. There are people who have the Holy Spirit just like you and think you’re wrong. See why they do.

If you want to, by all means go to a Bible College or Seminary. Even if you don’t want to enroll in classes, many schools have programs where you can audit a course. You can just sit in on the courses and hear what the professor has to say. If you can’t do that route, and you have a portable device like an IPhone or IPod, go to ITunes and find ITunes U and download podcasts from Seminaries. These are free. While you’re driving, put in your headphones and listen. When you walk the dog or take out the garbage, listen. You can also find a wealth of material at various websites. For apologetics, I highly recommend the apologetics315 blogspot.

Also, argue. Find people you disagree with and argue with them. There are places online this can be done, but mine that I do a lot at is TheologyWeb.com, where I debate under the name of ApologiaPhoenix. I also debate on Facebook under my real name, Nick Peters.

Get a blog of your own also. The blog is the personal way to reach the world today. It is your message board to everyone else to share what you’re thinking and what you’re learning and let other people come and comment on what it is that you’re saying. The discussion of great ideas will foster good thinking in you.

It will take work and you will always be learning. You will never reach a point where you cease study, but that’s what also makes it fun. There’s always something new. As it stands right now, I have a number of reading projects lined up.

If you want to be a scholar, excellent. However, while you do not have to be one to understand the Bible, you should readily avail yourself of their works. They are there for your building up and edification.

We shall continue next time.

9-11

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’m taking a break today from looking at Inerrancy and the Geisler/Licona debate to remember what happened a decade ago. Certainly for many in my age group, it is the great event of our lives politically that we remember, along the lines of what the assassination of JFK was for people a generation ago.

I don’t know what you all did for church, but my pastor did a sermon where he utilized both the Koran and the Bible to make a contrast of the two. (None of that Chrislam stuff for us.) We also had a presentation on Islam and what Muslims believe. All churches wanting to speak to the events of that day should be aware of the beliefs of Muslims.

As I look back on that day a decade ago after all, I remember that my Bible College I was attending had chapel from 9-10 in the morning. Before the chapel started, someone came and notified us that one of the twin towers had been hit by a plane. I wouldn’t say we thought nothing of it, but I do not think an attack was in our minds. It was a terrible tragedy and what pilot was so horrible a pilot that he flew a plane into a building? Other older people might have thought about the time that a plane flew into the Empire State Building.

It was only after the sermon was over that we learned that the second tower had been hit by a plane.

No one was thinking accident then.

We gathered in the lobby watching the flames rising on the buildings wandering what would happen. Then one building fell. Shortly after, the other building fell. In the midst of this at one point, we all prayed. I remember the rest of the day walking around campus and realizing no planes were in the air. I also remember contacting friends on the net who lived in the area and making sure they were okay.

They were, but some people weren’t.

I think of the story my pastor told about a young Christian who was leaving and he recalled at one point being face-to-face with a fireman who was racing up the building, and no doubt racing to certain death.

He didn’t make it out okay.

Did he have a family? Did he get to tell his wife and children good-bye? Did he leave thinking that he would see them again? Did he leave with them thinking they would see him that night? What plans did this person have for the future that were forever destroyed due to the evil in the hearts of the terrorists?

Now America did flock to the churches, but as I look back, did we give them what they needed? Or, did we give them pop feel good psychology with a little bit of Christianity thrown in? Did we give them reasons for the hope that we have within us? Did we explain to them the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and how we know it happened? (And at a time when death was so vividly in our minds, would that not have been excellent?) Did we educate them on Islam?

I remember my dismay when within a few years, some people had already decided that what we needed was to be more tolerant and understanding.

I suppose in a sense that’s true.

I have no problem with being tolerant of the rights of Muslims to believe as they see fit, and I think we should understand why they do, but I do not think for a moment that we should tolerate beliefs that are wrong. We can love the people who hold them, but to the degree that a belief is distant from the truth, we should not love it. What we need to be doing is what was done at my church this morning, seeking to understand Islam and how to evangelize to Muslims, not acting like we are all accepting and ready to be best friends and that one belief is just as good as another.

One belief system flew the planes into buildings killing thousands.

One belief system has flown planes to other countries delivering medicine, food, and other such goods providing for thousands.

The teachings of Muhammad and the teachings of Christ are not the same. Calling them the same does not change it. I have heard that Abraham Lincoln once asked “How many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg?” Answer? 4. Counting the tail as a leg does not make it a leg.

Perhaps if we had actually been educating people more, things would have been different. Of course, I am not against the time that was spent in emotional healing. That needs to be done and sometimes, that needs to be done before one is ready to learn, but has the church been reduced to nothing more than a quick stop place one goes to for emotional healing? Have we reached the point where it is no longer seen as a bastion of learning?

I fear the answer to both is yes.

Yet a decade later, people are still asking questions and let us be ready to answer them. However, let us not just do that. Let us be out there raising the questions. We have no excuse to sit around and wait for the people to come to us asking the hard questions. We need to go to the people asking them the hard questions as well.

9-11 should have taught us that we are not invincible. A lot of people seem to think that America is unstoppable. We’re not. To my fellow Christians, don’t make the mistake of thinking America can’t fall because it is too important to the plans of God. I’m certain several Jews around 70 A.D. thought the same thing about Jerusalem. I’m sure after Constantine some thought the same about the Roman Empire.

The gospel has outlived all nations and peoples thus far and it does not depend on any of them for its survival. It is strong in several other countries and if America falls, the gospel will not fall with it, but you can be sure that America will fall ultimately if it does not have the gospel. The gospel does not need America, but America needs the gospel.

If you think your country is worth fighting for, then by all means stand up for it, but more importantly, if you think your faith is worth fighting for, then stand up for that as well.

We live in a day and age where we have the greatest means at our disposal to do much for the Kingdom. Let us do so. What shall we say to our God on the day of judgment when we have not been faithful with all that he has given us. Will we succeed in all we do? Who knows. He has not called us to be successful however. He has called us to be faithful. Let us be so.

A Response to AOMin.org

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, I’m going to respond to what was recently stated at AOMin.org on the question of Licona’s inerrancy. As I’ve stated, I am the son-in-law of Licona, but I try to be as objective as I can. The fact that at this point I cannot say with certainty that I agree with Licona’s position should show that some. I do not however in anyway agree with the contention of Geisler and others that Licona is violating inerrancy.

To his credit, looking at the source that Jamin Hubner points to to indicate James White’s thought, White does not attribute the argument directly to Licona of “Well this is just in one gospel.” Indeed, if that was Licona’s only reason for thinking the text is not historical, we would be having some issues.

Also, the reason that Licona is taking the position he has is not because he doubts the power of God. This is especially evident in his debate with Stephen Patterson where he talks about how he had a friend who was miraculously healed and he definitely attributes that to God. (It’s a fascinating story to read or hear about. I highly recommend you do so.)

The sad reality is that most people will not read Licona’s book to know his arguments. Again, to his credit, White does not use these arguments directly on Licona, but Hubner seems to think that they apply. Now it could be that Licona is entirely wrong in his position, but it is certainly the case that Hubner is entirely wrong on why Licona takes the position that he takes.

Licona’s reasons for thinking this come from his reading of Greco-Roman biographies. Keep in mind that this is someone taking the time to read the biographies that are of the same genre as that of the gospels in an attempt to better understand the gospels. This is someone who really wants to know the writing of the time.

This is in no way a concession to liberalism. Were it so, Licona would be giving the arguments such as one gospel recording it or the problems of miracles. He is not. Instead, he is saying that he has read numerous such accounts in the deaths of great kings in the Greco-Roman world.

At that is a question for his accusers. Were you to read such an account, would you conclude that the historian was ignorant? This was not just in secular historians as well. Josephus records a number of strange signs and wonders. Does he intend all of them to be literal? Did all such Roman historians?

Well if the account is not historical, why state it?

You know, isn’t it about time someone asked that question?

From my understanding, what Licona is saying is that these events not only were written as apocalyptic descriptions of the death of a great king, but also to show in such imagery what the effects were of the death of Christ. The temple being torn would show that the barrier that allowed entrance into the Holy of Holies had been torn and now all could freely enter the presence of YHWH. The darkness and earthquake would both be seen as a symbol of judgment. What about the resurrection?

It’s noteworthy that the text says the people entered the city after Christ’s resurrection. The idea would be that since Christ was raised, saints would be raised as well.

There are some people who do see that but think that in addition to that, God could have really done a game of one-upmanship on the leaders in Jerusalem by making what was just imagery for the deaths of those great kings be an actual historical event in this case.

Now the question can be “You know, this is a fascinating idea! Is there any way we can determine if this is the case?”

Why yes there is.

It’s called research.

We don’t just dismiss the idea. We study it and see the writing techniques of the time and decide what the case is based on the evidence. We don’t decide what we are to believe based on force. When Licona is told to just get in line and believe what we believe, it is hardly a convincing argument. (If someone wanted to impugn him further, they could just say that if he changed his mind that he really didn’t do that. He was just doing that to maintain his reputation.)

I don’t know about you all, but I’m certainly interested in seeing this researched. Put the finest minds in evangelicalism out there we can find and study it. If they come back and say “Licona. We did the research. Here’s why it looks like your hypothesis while interesting is wrong” and they list the reasons and Licona accepts them, then fair enough. He will do so knowing it was researched.

The question is what would his critics say to such research? Would they just dismiss it or not?

Do we want to be committed to our ideal of what the text should say or what it is that the author intended to say?

I hope that in response to this White will himself engage with Licona’s arguments. I know White has a large following as well. While I have not been impressed in the past, perhaps I might be pleasantly surprised this time.

Inerrancy and the future

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, I’m going to continue our look at inerrancy based on something that someone just emailed me looking at the whole Licona/Geisler debate going on and wondering what this means for the future of apologetics.

Despite what some people think, I do have hope.

To begin with, I do believe the Bible is true and it will stand till the end. It has survived all the attacks of its critics and will continue to survive. In that regards, I think we should open up the Bible more to the critics. I think we should be gladly telling them to come and face the text and feel forward to bring their objections. Naturally, we will have to do our part in studying, but when we study, I do believe we will find answers to supposed contradictions.

What we need to avoid is what I see going on in the current climate with a pre-set idea of what areas are and aren’t acceptable to study. I fear that there are many avenues of study that could be missed out on because we are holding to a certain approach to the text that unfortunately we could be putting above the text itself.

The Bible was not written in our time, place, and age. It should be no surprise then that it is a difficult book to understand and when we say otherwise, we do great harm to ourselves and lower Scripture. How many an atheist has said that Jesus taught poor values since he said we are to hate our father and mother? Yet when you explain to them that in the culture of the time Jesus was using hyperbolic language and explaining that discipleship to him was so stringent that it meant that all other priorities, including those of family which were utmost, are to be put secondary, get the reply of “But I thought the Bible was supposed to be easy to understand.”

It has happened to me numerous times. A number of atheists think all they need to do is sit down, read the Bible, find something they don’t like, and well that settles it. There is no need to do further research. If the Bible says slavery, well it means what went on in the Civil War. If the Bible says bats are birds, well it means what we mean by modern taxonomical standards today.

Of course, keep in mind for many of these atheists, you must be read in science to speak on science. Of course, I am of the opinion that that is true. If you wish to argue on science, you should study science. Hence the reason I do not argue on science. I do not study it. I will gladly comment on the philosophy of science, but not science qua science.

As long as we keep up this kind of standard, we are giving atheists more fodder to use. Not only that, we are hurting our own people. Our people are getting the idea that they do not need to study the Bible except for just reading it privately. There is no need to read scholars on the topics. Such a Christian is just a sitting duck when the new atheists come along, who frankly do not have good arguments against the Bible.

Instead, we need to present the Bible as we are as Scripture of God, but much more. It is a rich and vast work of literature and to study this literature, we need to do far more study than we would to learn Shakespeare, Plato, Virgil, or any other work. The great treasure that is within will only come to the one who is willing to dig.

What this means is an openness to be willing to dig and accept that. We must be willing to accept avenues that might have seemed threatening. Of course, this does not mean a full denial of the faith. However, if someone presents a worthy objection, we must be prepared to look into it. Suppose someone comes up with a new persuasive argument that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Let us not run from it! Instead, let us say “Bring your idea and let us study it and we are sure the truth of the resurrection will win out!” If someone challenges the Trinity, we are to say, “Bring your challenge and let us study it!” We who hold to orthodoxy affirm these things and being sure of these things, we should be willing to look into challenges to them. We would want to know if we are wrong, although for those of us who have spent years studying, we are quite sure we are not.

That certainty is also just fine to have. The certainty we have is not based on blind hope. At least, it should not be. The certainty is based on the years of study we have done. When I read the Summa Theologica for instance, and I see the objections raised, I can picture Aquinas saying to his students “I want you to go out and study what we believe and see if you can come up with the toughest objections to it!” I can imagine the students gathering together testing each other to see if they could try to “Stump the master” and find out each time that their master knew the objections and was able to answer them.

It is because Aquinas had that certainty based on years of study that I believe he could have indeed made such a claim to his students and done so without fear and in fact done so knowing it would boost their confidence in the end. Why? Because if you see the toughest objections you can come up with to a view can be answered, it makes you far more prone to trust that view.

If someone presents a view that is wrong, that is only determined by research and study and not by a fiat decision. Someone might ask about Nicea. Nicea was also based on research and study and they did discuss the creed and find out how many were willing to agree to it beforehand. This was also on matters that if these truths were denied, then Christianity itself was denied. It was not on peripheral issues.

That also means we will really have to ask what battles are worth fighting over. I happen to have friends who take opposite sides on a number of secondary issues and I gladly fellowship with them. I do not hesitate to call them my brother or sister in Christ, even though I am sure they are wrong on those issues. On the other hand, I would be happy to be a friend with a Mormon or JW, but I would not think of them for a second as a brother or sister in Christ.

I think the future could be good for this. We do not need to deny inerrancy. We can easily affirm the truth of God and if we are sure the Bible is that truth (Or at least some that God has chosen to reveal. I believe all in Scripture is the truth but not all the truth is in Scripture) then let us say to its critics without “Bring your objections” and to doubters within “Let us allay your fears!”

That future depends on you and I however and on our educating the church more on these matters and not only have our members in the church simply filling pews but also engaging in the matters themselves and learning. They need to be confronted with hard issues regularly and introduced to what is going on in the world of academia. The church in America has more power to be a force for evangelicalism I believe than any other church and frankly, we are not. Is it not the fault of the material. It is not the fault of the message. It is the fault of the people and mostly, the fault of those of us who are leaders. Let us do better. We can be assured that the message will get out somehow without us. I don’t know about you, but while that is true, I want it to be that when I meet my God I can know I played a part in relaying his truth to the world. Don’t you?

Mike Licona Replies

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Recently, I’ve written my thoughts on the Licona/Geisler situation. Again, to state why some might want to dismiss this, I am Mike Licona’s son-in-law. Some have used that as an excuse to disregard what I say, which is a sad situation. Look at the arguments instead of possible reasons for arguments.

To begin with, an open letter has been issued to Norman Geisler:

An Open Response to Norman Geisler
Norman Geisler has taken issue with a portion of my recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, in which I proposed that the story of the raised saints in Matthew 27:52-53 should probably be interpreted as apocalyptic imagery rather than literal history. In response, Dr. Geisler has offered strong criticisms in two Open Letters to me on the Internet. Until now I have been unable to comment because I have multiple writing deadlines, two September debates in South Africa for which to prepare, and, consequently, no time to be drawn into what would probably turn into an endless debate. I shared these first two reasons with Dr. Geisler in an email several weeks ago. Yet he insisted that I “give careful and immediate attention” to the matter. I simply could not do this and fulfill the pressing obligations of my ministry, which is my higher priority before the Lord.

Dr. Geisler questions whether I still hold to biblical inerrancy. I want to be clear that I continue to affirm this evangelical distinctive. My conclusion in reference to the raised saints in Matthew 27 was based upon my analysis of the genre of the text. This was not an attempt to wiggle out from under the burden of an inerrant text; it was an attempt to respect the text by seeking to learn what Matthew was trying to communicate. This is responsible hermeneutical practice. Any reasonable doctrine of biblical inerrancy must respect authorial intent rather than predetermine it.

When writing a sizable book, there will always be portions in which one could have articulated a matter more appropriately. And those portions, I suppose, will often be located outside the primary thesis of the book, such as the one on which Dr. Geisler has chosen to focus. When writing my book, I always regarded the entirety of Matthew 27 as historical narrative containing apocalyptic allusions. I selected the term “poetic” in order to allude to similar phenomena in the Greco-Roman literature in general and Virgil in particular. However, since Matthew is a Jew writing to Jews, “apocalyptic” may be the most appropriate technical term, while “special effects” communicates the gist on a popular level.

Further research over the last year in the Greco-Roman literature has led me to reexamine the position I took in my book. Although additional research certainly remains, at present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative of the raised saints in Matthew 27 as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol. It may also be a report of a real event described partially in apocalyptic terms. I will be pleased to revise the relevant section in a future edition of my book.

Michael R. Licona, Ph.D.
August 31, 2011

We the undersigned are aware of the above stated position by Dr. Michael Licona, including his present position pertaining to the report of the raised saints in Matthew 27: He proposes that the report may refer to a literal/historical event, a real event partially described in apocalyptic terms, or an apocalyptic symbol. Though most of us do not hold Licona’s proposal, we are in firm agreement that it is compatible with biblical inerrancy, despite objections to the contrary. We are encouraged to see the confluence of biblical scholars, historians, and philosophers in this question.

W. David Beck, Ph.D.
Craig Blomberg, Ph.D.
James Chancellor, Ph.D.
William Lane Craig, D.Theol., Ph.D.
Jeremy A. Evans, Ph.D.
Gary R. Habermas, Ph.D.
Craig S. Keener, Ph.D.
Douglas J. Moo, Ph.D.
J. P. Moreland, Ph.D.
Heath A. Thomas, Ph.D.
Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.
William Warren, Ph.D.
Edwin M. Yamauchi, Ph.D.

Now my personal reply:

I have been quite disappointed throughout this whole ordeal. I am a firm believer in inerrancy. I and numerous other evangelicals read this book and did not bat an eye at that part. My thinking on it was that it was a neat suggestion and was worthy of further research, but I wasn’t ready to sign on the dotted line. Still I have kept it as a possible interpretation.

Unfortunately, all that changed when Geisler read the book, nearly a year after it had been published.

From that day on, we have been in a constant situation with how to deal with this. As said above, Licona did not respond immediately due to more pressing deadlines. Unfortunately, that wasn’t enough.

It is now known that he no longer has his position at NAMB, but anyone who thinks that he was fired should avoid saying such. Licona left the company on good terms and with a severance package which does not happen when one is fired.

I never had seen any reason given also as to why Mike’s interpretation violated inerrancy. I saw reasons why some thought it was wrong, and that is entirely fine. Had Geisler simply written that, none of us would have had a problem. Instead it was charged that Licona was violating inerrancy.

But if Licona is taking the text the way he honestly believes based on research that the author intended it to be taken, how can that be a violation of inerrancy? He could be wrong on the intention of the author, but he cannot be wrong in thinking that that is what he believes at the time.

I have had discussions with friends that have been a source of concern to me. I do not mind disagreements with friends, but I do mind when it seems we are on opposing sides on an issue that some see as more important than it really is. I have seen a pastor who is no doubt to me an example of many who has not even read Licona’s book or seen his arguments AFAIK at the time of this writing (And I know he had not for he told me himself) but yet, because Geisler says that it’s unorthodox and violates inerrancy, well that settles it.

Even if I believed Geisler was entirely right in his charge, let us be aware that this is a dangerous position and one James wants us to be careful about as well as Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5. We have at that point simply an argument from authority without knowing the reasons why and are letting someone else do our thinking for us. Geisler can be right or wrong about any issue and is not an infallible Pope. Do we really want to attack another Christian’s livelihood without first hearing what they have to say in their defense?

I have also seen that on Vital Signs that the blogger there had put up a post based on what Geisler said. The post asked if we can trust the Bible. The answer was that from an SBC professor, sometimes we cannot. Then it was stated that Licona is selecting what details of the text he denies in an arbitrary fashion.

Rather one agrees or disagrees with Licona, he is not taking his position arbitrarily but is really wrestling with the text trying to take it as Matthew wanted. It can be said that Licona is going against the “plain sense” but do we really want to always say that is the correct sense? From such a reading, would we be able to answer the skeptics who state that the Bible says bats are birds for instance? Does this mean that everyone who interprets Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation in a non-literal sense is denying inerrancy?

Once again, Geisler is being taken without reference to the other side, and people’s reputations are being called into question.

Licona wrote an excellent book on the resurrection of Jesus backed by Gary Habermas, who has for years been the authority on the resurrection, something I’m sure even Geisler would agree with. He does not see this as a violation of inerrancy and as his name is on the list of signers, we can tell despite the second open letter of Geisler what position he takes, along with Craig who said the exact same thing on this passage in a debate with Avalos.

However, because of a supposed attack on inerrancy, several in the church who might have read Licona’s book won’t take the time to read it. Several who could have listened to his audio files or any other information will say “Nope. He’s a heretic,” and move on, never knowing the truth.

What is concerning also is the way this looks to a watching world. The new atheists love it I’m sure when we start slinging mud at one another and going after each other. It keeps us from going after our common opponent. All this time could have been spent focusing not on the denial of the resurrection of the saints, which Licona says he’s now open to, but focusing on the denial of the resurrection of Christ.

What needs to be asked now is if Christians are willing to come together and be open to ideas that are new to their paradigm. If we believe the Bible is true, we need not panic over a false interpretation. We need to respond to it. If it seems that a Christian brother or sister is the one guilty, let us first give the benefit of the doubt. Does the person really deny inerrancy?

Suppose they say “I have always believed inerrancy, but I am having questions.” This is not, of course, the position of Licona but I state it for the sake of argument. What to do with such a person? We seek to find out what they are struggling with. If they have a view of the text that seems different, we study the text. We also study material relevant to it, such as the social world of the time of the writing and the language that it was written in.

In the end, we should all want to be on the side of the truth. Because we think an interpretation is wrong, that is not sufficient reason for thinking that the author is denying inerrancy. We need more than a wrong interpretation. We need a wrong interpretation knowing that the author intended otherwise. Every argument against Licona’s interpretation could have been correct and it would not have shown that he was denying inerrancy.

I urge all of us to put this issue behind us and realize who we are in Christ and that it would be better for us to go after the wolves outside the flock than the sheep within.

Inerrancy: Paraphrase

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we were diving into the ocean of truth. We’re looking at the topic of Inerrancy tonight. Were going to wrap up our look at ways of interpreting Scripture by looking at the topic of paraphrase.

There are some Christians out there who would despise a translation like the NLT which is a paraphrase. After all, we want to know what it was that Jesus said. The problem is that if that’s your attitude, you’re going to be sunk in many areas. Consider the case of Jesus asking the disciples the question of “Who do men say that I am?”

Three gospels record this question. Three gospels have Peter answering differently. I do not believe they all have the exact words Peter said. One of them could. However, I think they all did record what Peter said. They didn’t record it word for word. They recorded a paraphrase. What mattered was they got the content of the message if they did not get the exact wording.

In recording the speeches given at the time, this was entirely acceptable. One could give a summary of what was said or put in words the speaker did not exactly say but carry the content of his message. For instance, do we really think that for the former that when Peter preached his great sermon in Acts 2 that led to the conversion of 3,000 that it really lasted such a short time that we can read it in two minutes today? (Of course, if it did, we have great cause then to tell pastors to shorten their sermons.)

It is quite likely we do not have everything the prophets said in the OT. We have what God wanted us to have. These people spent many years in ministry and no doubt gave many sermons and such. Their most important messages are the ones that have been written for us.

Even if we compare the Ten Commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy, there are some differences in the wording. These are minor and do not affect the commandments, but they are different. This was how Moses was handling the very words of God and he didn’t have a problem with that.

The danger is that if we think we have to have the exact wording every time we’re going to get into a kind of fundamentalism that sees the first example used tonight as if it was a biblical contradiction. Instead, we as Christians should trust that God had written down for us what it was that we needed to know for the sake of our salvation.

What does this say about Bible Translations? Of course not all paraphrases are created equal and if one wanted to do serious study of a passage of Scripture, I would not recommend they use something like the NLT. If one is going outside doing evangelism however, I would generally not have a problem with that. The people on the street need to know the content but not necessarily the exact wording.

Paraphrase is not a dirty word. Don’t treat it like one.

Inerrancy: Allegory

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Having offered my two cents on a debate going on in the evangelical world at the moment, I am continuing a look at inerrancy and the art of interpretation, otherwise known as hermeneutics. Tonight, I’d like to look at allegory.

Yes. Many of us know about allegory. This is that time when the church fathers looked at the parables of Jesus and saw many many symbols that quite likely, Jesus never intended there to be. We can think of Origen especially. Didn’t this all get out of hand? The text could come to mean pretty much anything?

Certainly there is a great danger with over-allegorizing, but let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. After all, Paul in Galatians 4 draws an allegory out of Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, and Ishmael. If this can be done in inspired Scripture then perhaps we can learn something from it.

In fact, we’ve all done it to an extent. Who has not looked at the story of Abraham offering his son upon the altar and thought that there were images of Christ there? Look at how Isaac laid himself on the altar and how there just happened to be a ram, a male lamb, with its head caught in the thorns!

The great danger with the method of allegory is that one can lose sight of the original text and what it was intended to mean. I certainly think there’s something to the idea of Abraham and Isaac being a foreshadowing of the coming sacrifice of Christ, but let us make sure as we look at the text with our New Testament lenses that we also look at the text with our Old Testament lenses. This story did not have to wait 2,000 years for it to have meaning. It had meaning when it was written and as it was being passed down.

We can see Abraham as faithful to the promise knowing that God had specifically said that through Isaac and not Ishmael or some Isaac-2 in the future that Abraham’s offspring would be reckoned, and so even at this point Abraham had faith in a future resurrection or one that could happen presently. Keep in mind miracles had not been common in those days and there had certainly been no resurrections yet. We can see the willing and sacrificial spirit of Isaac. We can see the faithfulness of God in providing another sacrifice.

Yes. We can look forward and see the coming Christ, and indeed we should, but let us not miss what is right there at the moment.

The same can be said of the parables of Jesus in the New Testament. Sure. The two coins in the parable of the Good Samaritan could be the Old and New Testaments, but it’s not likely that Jesus’s audience would have grasped something like that. Instead, let’s look at the main point and see them as two coins.

Now we can say “We are in no danger here surely! We do not allegorize the parables that way!”

Perhaps we don’t, but do we take the time to see the parables as more than just lessons on how we ought to live? There is great theology going on. Look at the Good Samaritan. The lawyer asking the question to Jesus that sparks the parable skips past loving God. That one seems pretty cut and dry. Who is my neighbor?

Jesus instead gives a parable turning the question not to “Who is my neighbor?” but “Who is a neighbor?” The lawyer was looking at the people he ought to love. He was not looking at how he ought to love people. Jesus takes an incredibly despised person, a Samaritan, and makes him a hero, while making the local heroes, the priests and Levites, villains. Imagine telling a Jew that they ought not be like the priest and/or Levite but instead should be like the Samaritan.

In doing that, he’s not just doing ethics, he’s giving insight into his own self and into God. He is the ultimate Samaritan as he comes to those who are in the worst need and is more concerned with their well-being than ceremonial cleanliness. (Keep in mind Jesus would have been seen as defiling himself for entering Zacchaeus’s household for instance)

If that is the case, Jesus is making quite a statement about God as well in that God loves all people and cares about that far more than ritual cleanliness. The kind of ritual that kept people from loving their neighbor as themselves went against all that YHWH desired for His people.

Yes. A lot of allegorizers made a mistake, but we can make a mistake as well.

Still, allegory should be considered and when we read the Old Testament, we often use it. The main point we should get however is that an allegory can help us see the text in a new light, but let it never go against the way that the text was originally intended for the original audience.

We shall continue next time.

The Geisler/Licona Debate

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, I’d like to take a look at a reason for writing on inerrancy, and that is the Geisler/Licona exchange going on right now. Let me state a reason at the start people might think I have a possible bias. I do happen to be Licona’s son-in-law as I am blessed to have his daughter as my wife. However, I do try to be objective in all that I do, even in this case. Licona does know the areas of interpretation where I do disagree with him on. (Keep that in mind fellow apologists. You are allowed to disagree with those you do not doubt know far more than you in the field. No one is infallible in their interpretations) I ask people to look at the reasons for my belief rather than a possible motive.

To begin with, the charge is that Licona is denying the historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27. What are we to make of this?

To begin with, before we ask if it is denying inerrancy, we must ask a question. Did Matthew intend for the writing to be taken as historical? Did he intend for us to think that a mass resurrection had literally taken place or did he intend for us to see this as an apocalyptic image of what the effects of Jesus dying on the cross were?

In fact, that seems to be the question that no one is really asking. Now someone might say that we can never get to authorial intent. Perhaps we cannot do so perfectly, but at the same time, we know it influences a message. I can say something sarcastic to a friend and rather than their being insulted, they will smile and laugh often because they know that that is my personality type and I do not really mean to say something negative about them to tear them down.

With my own wife, I can say an area to her that I think she lacks in. Knowing me, she realizes that what I say I say out of love. I do not mean to imply that because she needs to improve in this area, she is a failure or less of a person, although someone else saying the exact same thing could be meaning just that. Intent certainly does matter.

Now let’s consider what is going on in this debate and how Licona is interpreting the text. Let’s put the view up this way.

Matthew intended the event in Matthew 27 to be seen as apocalyptic and not a historical description.
Licona sees the event as apocalyptic and not a historical description.
Licona takes the text as the author intended.

Question. Can you take the text as the author intended really and be denying inerrancy? It would seem odd to say that a text is not meant to be taken as historical but the only way to affirm inerrancy is to take it as historical.

But let us change the message above.

Matthew intended the event in Matthew 27 to be seen as historical and not an apocalyptic description.
Licona sees the event as apocalyptic and not a historical description.
Licona does not take the text as the author intended.

Is Licona denying inerrancy on this one? Not necessarily. Let’s consider a text like Matthew 24.

Let’s suppose Preterists are right and Jesus intended the events he spoke about to be seen as apocalyptic descriptions and not literal descriptions. Does that mean that if someone is a Dispensationalist, then they are denying Inerrancy? No. It means that they are misinterpreting the text.

Let’s suppose Dispensationalists are right and Jesus intended the events he spoke about to be seen as literal descriptions and not apocalyptic ones. Does that mean that Preterists are denying Inerrancy? Again, no. It just means that the text is being misinterpreted. If simply not taking the text as the author intended meant denying Inerrancy, all of us would be denying Inerrancy since none of us have perfect interpretations. Inerrancy refers to the context of the text and not our interpretations.

Now let’s change the scenario of Licona above to see how it could deny inerrancy.

Matthew intended for the event in Matthew 27 to be seen as historical.
Licona realizes this, but believes that it is not historical.
Licona is knowingly denying the intent of the author.

In that case, then Licona would certainly be going against Inerrancy and I would be siding with Geisler on this case. However, Licona has examined the evidence and honestly believes what he believes right now.

But we cannot know the intent of the author!

Okay. Suppose we can’t. What’s the best method to do? Be as charitable as we can. To charge someone with believing something unorthodox is quite a serious charge. Before we do such, let’s make sure we have examined every possible option exhaustively. If we cannot know for sure, then let us say “Well that might be his intent and if that was his intent, then we will accept it until further data shows otherwise.”

Meanwhile, consider what an avenue we have open for NT research. We could study this kind of writing and see if it shows up elsewhere in the gospels and if that could illuminate our understanding of the text. In no way does this mean we deny the actual death, burial, and miraculous resurrection of Jesus. As an evangelical, I think we should study the text and try to see where our modern views could be going against the way people in the past wrote.

If we are people of truth, then we should be seeking it. This means examining all options. It also means we can look at scholarship without fear. If we believe in the Bible, we can say to its critics “Bring your charges and accusations. We will face them all!” If we believe Jesus rose from the dead, we believe that will hold out in the face of the strongest opposition.

Let’s remember that is what we agree on. Jesus did rise. That is the message that needs to be given to the world. Let us unite together rather than tearing one another apart. I have no doubt that despite what one might think about how Licona has handled this text, he has done a valuable work for the church by publishing his book “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.” If you think he’s absolutely right, or even if you think he’s unorthodox, you owe it to yourself if you’re interested in resurrection studies to interact with what he says still and that should not be overlooked.

If someone can show that Licona is denying Inerrancy, then we will have a problem, but thus far, I have not seen it shown.