Note: I wrote this review against a hyper preterist book as a hyper preterist. This was right around the time when I was beginning to question things. While there may be a few changes I would make to reflect my rejection of “preterism” (hyper preterism), I believe this criticism is still valid in the main, and I wanted to archive it here.
Jeff Vaughn, co-author of Beyond Creation Science, has recently confessed something that is rather startling: [emphasis mine – jason]
So after 7 years of calling me an empiricist, are you finally conceding that I am not? Page 383? Let’s see. Chapter 19, The Test of Truth, starts on page 363. We spent 12 pages developing Biblical epistemology, the wise use of multiple witnesses. We showed how this standard worked in practice and how this standard has changed the world. We then demonstrated the failure of the Church 1600th century church because it ignored the Biblical standard and relied on a single witness, authority. This was followed by a section on the failure of 19th century liberalism because it ignored the Biblical standard and relied on a single witness, science. Then a section on the failure of 20th century fundamentalism because it ignored the Biblical standard and relied on a single witness, interpreted Scripture.
A point of clarification may be in order here. No one can use Scripture as a witness or authority. All we have are various interpretations of Scripture. Admittedly, some are better than others. Scripture itself, is not able to make its meaning known. The changes in doctrine during the Reformation are ample evidence of this. Was the Church wrong for 1500 years on soteriology? Some witnesses say, “Yes.” Some say, “No.” Both of these groups believe Scripture supports their respective views.
At this point in the book, by implication, we have demonstrated that Clarkian epistemology does not meet God’s standard. It is also a single witness view. It denies the validity of all other witnesses except for interpreted Scripture. You’ve not argued against this conclusion. Have you conceded?
After 20 pages, we have a section for the purpose of demonstrating that Genesis assumes the standard we presented. That is, God’s standard for epistemology, is known separately from Scripture. It is part of God’s Law written on our hearts so to speak. {Source}
This deserves some comment. It also deserves to be rejected. I would like to explain why by examining the comments above and the contents of Chapter 19.
Chapter 19 is entitled “The Test of Truth”; hence the title of this article. Why an epistemology chapter isn’t introduced until p. 363 is beyond me, but there it is. This should have been chapter 1, because the question of how we come to know anything logically precedes what we purport to know. I believe that BCS is attempting to force the creation account into a specific theory in order to make room for old earth creationism. And while that may not be obvious at the start, this chapter not only confirms that but explains why and how they do it.
The chapter consists of nine sections. After establishing how truth is known in the first 3 sections, 4-7 get into how this “test of truth” changed the world, and what happened when it was lost sight of. I don’t care to spend much time on sections 4-7 because the validity of their historical analysis is only as good as the validity of the “test of truth” they are analyzing with. Sections 8 and 9 end the chapter with an explanation of the “source” for the “test of truth” and a charge to embrace such standard and march forward. The meat of my response will deal with 1-3, 8, and 9.
Before BCS explains what the “Biblical Standard for Truth” (Sec. 2) is, it sets the stage with a proposed dilemma on p. 363-364, using a quote from author John Davis:
The tension between biblical revelation and scientific empiricism shows no sign of decreasing. On one hand, one does not want to reject obvious empirical evidence, and on the other, one must never make all truth subject to the scientific method, which is incapable of verifying essential, supernatural events.
We are told that the “goal of this chapter is to solve this apparent problem.” {p. 364} More specifically,
“Modern Christians face a problem. Either the universe is less than 1o,ooo years old, or it is significantly older. The truth is either one or the other. It cannot be both. The question now becomes: How can we know? By what standard can we find the truth?”
It should be noted here that Tim and Jeff are appealing to the law of excluded middle, one of the three fundamental laws of logic. The irony here is that it is very common among Covenant Creationists to decry the use of logic. “Logic”, they tell us, “is Greek thinking. We shouldn’t try to marry Aristotle with Jesus or Moses. A Hebrew mind does not work that way.” Take note: this whole dilemma would not exist apart from logic; for we could just say that the world can be younger than 1o,ooo years and be older than 1o,ooo years and call it a day. No one, in their right mind, would go along with this though. Why? Logic.
Appealing to logic, Tim and Jeff express the problem then give an immediate solution that begins section 1:
Our basic conclusion is that the Bible does not give us a scientific description of God’s creation of the universe…In some respects the current debate over the Bible and the age of the earth is based on mistaken assumptions.” {p. 364}
In other words, if you open Genesis in order to find an answer to the question, “how old is the universe?”, you will not get a direct answer because the Bible is not concerned with such a question. You’ll have to find the “truth” elsewhere.
“However, the Bible can help us answer the question of the age of the earth by another way.” {p. 364}
“The key to solve the debate lies in how the Bible teaches us to find the truth.” {p. 365}
How truth can be found is what section 2 reveals:
“…God tells his people through Moses how to know something is true: ‘A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ (Deut. 19:15 NIV)”
We are then told that “Paul agreed and told the early Church the same thing:
‘Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ (2 Cor. 13:1 NIV)”
Is that what Moses and Paul were really saying? Were they making an epistemological statement regarding all truth claims? Ironically, a book that emphasizes context and attempts to localize what has been often understood as global, now rips these verses from their immediate context and attempts to globalize, so to speak, what is in actuality limited. First, Moses: (ESV)
This is the provision for the manslayer, who by fleeing there may save his life. If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally without having hated him in the past— as when someone goes into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down a tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he may flee to one of these cities and live, lest the avenger of blood in hot anger pursue the manslayer and overtake him, because the way is long, and strike him fatally, though the man did not deserve to die, since he had not hated his neighbor in the past. Therefore I command you, You shall set apart three cities. And if the Lord your God enlarges your territory, as he has sworn to your fathers, and gives you all the land that he promised to give to your fathers— provided you are careful to keep all this commandment, which I command you today, by loving the Lord your God and by walking ever in his ways—then you shall add three other cities to these three, lest innocent blood be shed in your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, and so the guilt of bloodshed be upon you.
But if anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies, and he flees into one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there, and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die. Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, so that it may be well with you.
You shall not move your neighbor’s landmark, which the men of old have set, in the inheritance that you will hold in the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess.
A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
What is the context here? Is Moses telling us that any and every claim to truth can be established on the evidence of two or three witnesses? Is Moses writing an epistemological treatise on how to answer questions about the age of the earth, preterism, or any other theological curiosity? NO! The “matter” that must be established are matters of crime charges ~ nothing more!
Are we expected to believe that Moses was saying something to the effect that, “Hey, if think you have proven the age of the earth, your evidence will not be established until you bring two or more buddies with you who agree”? Such a notion would be absurd, for it would throw the doors open to all kinds of ridiculous claims. That is simply not the context.
Tim and Jeff rightly note the judicial nature of this context and how it formed the basis for “our modern legal system.” The problem however is that they do not leave it in that context, but instead make this some universal principal that applies to any and all matters. The quote from 2 Corinthians confirms this limited context:
For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced. This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them— since you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.
Again, Paul is not dealing with questions of creation, fulfilled eschatology, or any other curiosities. The context is regarding charges of “sin.” Paul feared that when he came again to them, he would find them not as he wished, but involved in fighting, slander, gossip, and so on. He was afraid that instead of coming to rejoice, he would “have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented…” Paul was hoping for “restoration” {13.9,11}, with what were charges established against the church. This was, in effect, Paul making the same plea Moses did in Deut. 19; “purge the evil from your midst.” If Paul visits again and they have not settled these matters, he would be “severe” in his “use of authority”.
I’ll add two more parallel OT texts concerning witnesses and evidences that i believe make my case. De 17.6 and Nu 35.30: (ESV)
If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose. And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. {De 17}
If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death. And you shall accept no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the high priest.” {Nu 35}
The context here is the same as that of De 19. This law was put in place to offer protection from charges against persons for “crime” or “killing” based on the charge of a single person. Even so, this requirement is not the end all, be all. If you think about it, two or three people are just as capable of lying together as one person is. Evidence can be planted, and so on. In fact, the day after we interviewed Ward Fenley on RCM, testimonies from multiple covenant creationists were floating around the net, charging Sam and I of manipulating the audio; and all because they came to the site and didn’t see the audio posted right away. At least 5 witnesses went around the net charging me of this, and every single one of them was wrong. In actuality, none of them had witnessed anything. It started with one made up rumor, and the rest of the crowd went along with it. I would argue, therefore, that even this law has its limits in its proper context. As a matter of fact, it does not decide anything in and of itself. All that Moses is saying is that there is a minimum requirement of the number of witnesses for a case to be considered. If you are going to approach the courts with your single testimony, don’t even bother. If you can bring other witnesses, then we’ll take a look. But you’ll still be examined. “The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accursed his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother.” {De 19.18-19} Yes, evidences and witnesses can be false. No where in any of these contexts is there any mention or hint that any and every claim to truth is to be established by the evidence of witnesses. Not only does the text not say that, but if one actually attempts to apply such a test, the absurdity of it would be quickly revealed.
For example, how does one go about testing the “test of truth”?
If every and all matters are to be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses, then how do we test the proposition that “all truth claims are to be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses”? Is De 19.15 true? How do we know? Moses received this law from the Lord, so we are told. Was Moses supposed to test it before he passed it on to Israel? How do we know God even spoke to Moses to begin with? BCS never attempts to “test” this “truth” of “many witnesses”, but merely presupposes it! But isn’t that what Clarkian presuppositionalism does, of which they criticize?
Let me put it this way: If “Scripture itself, is not able to make its meaning known”, then how does the Scripture “every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses” make its meaning known? According to Jeff, it can’t; yet, they claim to know its meaning and use it as a “test of truth.” If they were consistent, they would require some other witness to testify of De 19′s veracity. Ok, where is this witness? Under rocks and trees? lol. This is absurd.
Like empiricism, this epistemology fails to get off of the starting blocks. Well, actually, it is empiricism with a little Scripture thrown in.Does that mean that all of what BCS has to offer is wrong? No. Some Covenant Creationists have charged us with saying that, but i do not know a single person who has said such a thing. However, what this does demonstrate is that Covenant Creationism is a house built on sand. It fails at its very foundation. It is hard enough building walls and a roof; why in the world would i attempt to do such on a weak and sinking foundation?
Furthermore, i am not the only witness that has brought evidence against the absurdity of BCS epistemology. Would Jeff Vaughn and Tim Martin accept these multiple witnesses against their claims? Nope. Instead, they just dismiss it by telling people that we have not actually read the book. Such a test is so absurd that it is not even practiced by those who push it.
BCS goes on to claim:
Even Jesus appealed to the testimony of many witnesses to establish the legitimacy of his message. Jesus did not say, ‘Believe me because I told you to believe me.’ That would have been out of character with the biblical test for truth. The Christian faith never calls for faith in spite of the evidence or faith without any evidence. Jesus said his testimony about himself alone could not establish the truth of his teaching:
“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid. You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth.” (John 5:31-33 NIV)
Jesus gave John the Baptist as a witness. But Jesus did not rely upon John’s lone witness. Later in the gospel of John, Jesus added two more witnesses as evidence for the truth of his claims and teaching:
“Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going…I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.” (John 8:14, 16-18 NIV)” {p. 366-367}
First of all, notice that BCS ends the quote of John 5 at v. 33. Interesting…because if you keep reading, you’ll find this at v. 34:
Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.
Right after saying that he sent John to testify to the truth, Jesus states quite plainly that he receives no testimony from man. Red flag number one.
Secondly, notice that if we compare Jo 5.31 to Jo 8.14, we would have what appears to be a contradiction:
If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid ~ Ἐὰν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἡ μαρτυρία μου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής
if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid ~ κὰν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία μου
Red flag number two.
Now, i’m no Greek expert. But i don’t think it takes a PhD to look at the Greek above and see the parallels between these two statements and the difference of “not” (οὐκ). In one place, Jesus says that if he testifies about himself, his testimony is not valid. In another place, he says that if he testifies about himself, his testimony is valid. Now, either we have a contradiction, or something else is going on.
Let’s go back and expand both contexts a bit: (ESV)
I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not deemed true. There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? {Jo 5}
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” So the Pharisees said to him, “You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.” Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come. {Jo 8}
It is here that once again, BCS’ lack of sound exegesis rears its ugly head. Not only does Jesus’ words not support Tim and Jeff’s theory, but He explicitly condemns their test against his testimony! There are a number of observations we could make, but let’s first go back to the probable contradiction. Again, we would have a direct contradiction if Jesus is saying that bearing witness of himself is {ch. 8} and is not acceptable {ch. 5}. It can’t be both. So what is going on?
Before we get to chapters 5 and 8, i want to point out a few things leading up to these texts. Notice, for example, that Jesus starts off our quote above with, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” John had spoken before of “light” and “life” in chapter 1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Observations:
1) Jesus is God. As God, all things are dependent upon Him. He made the world, He gives life. He is the source. He is creator. We are dependent upon Him.
2) John, though a witness, was not the light. He merely pointed people to the light.
3) The true light, Christ, enlightens everyone, including John. Again, John’s light is dependent upon Christ’s light. If Christ don’t enlighten, people don’t get lit.
4) Children of God are born, not of the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God.
This alone refutes BCS’ epistemology. Truth’s validity cannot possibly rest on the testimony of men. Men do not add to it. Men do not validate it. God doesn’t throw something out there for consideration, waiting on his creatures to come and establish the matter with evidences. Truth is outside of ourselves. Truth exists apart from us. Truth is there; truth exists whether we accept/acknowledge it or not. Even when the “world did not know him”, none of that changed the reality of who Christ was and is. How in the world could we add or validate that from which we derive our very existence? This is akin to those who argue against preterists that we would not have the Bible if it were not for the church. John Owens argued against this “Papist” doctrine by pointing out that the church derives its authority from the word of God, “upon which it depends in its very being”! “Can it give the church a power to communicate authority to it, and yet have no authority hitherto itself?” {Source} Nay, say i. Nay. We may ask the same question of BCS: Do the testimonies of men validate or make true the testimony of He in whom truth originated, apart from us? These points are important because they will be brought out again in Jo 5 and 8.
In ch.3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that “unless one is born again (or born from above), he cannot see the kingdom of God.” {v. 3} Jesus later tells Nicodemus that “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” {v. 13-15} ”Whoever does not believe is condemned already…” {v. 18} ”For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” {v. 20} Again, this will all come out in 5 and 8.
John the Baptist tells his buddies throughout v. 31-36 that Jesus “who comes from above is above all….whoever receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true….whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life…”
Note that in all of this, there is no middle ground. Neither Jesus nor John merely throw the Gospel out there as a possible option, at which point men stand on neutral ground, weighing the facts through evidences and witnesses. There is no half-lit ground, with full light in one direction and darkness in the other. If you do not accept the testimony of Christ, you are condemned already; you are IN THE DARK already! Jesus was no postmodernist. Either you are for him or you are against him. Either you are abiding in the word/light and loving God – or – you are not abiding by the word/light and are therefore in the dark and stand condemned, at enmity with God.
Now, we come to chapter 5. Notice that what we have said above is confirmed in v. 21-29. Jesus does as his Father does. “All judgment” has been “given” “to the Son.” “Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” In fact, his union with the Father is such that the “Son can do nothing of his own accord…” The Son “gives life to whom he will.” “Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life.” “And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.”
These claims of raising the dead at will, executing judgment, and so forth, were understood as prerogatives of Yahweh; thus, Jesus is declaring Himself equal to the Father. With that in mind, and with what has been pointed out above from earlier chapters, we must ask this question: Do we honestly expect at this point for Jesus to now argue that his words are not true until they are validated by the testimony of his creatures? Surely not! As i have pointed out above, Jesus stated in v.34 that he does not receive testimony from man. So what does he mean here in Jo 5.31?
If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
At this point, i would like to offer up some commentary from Kistemaker and Hendricksen: [emphasis mine – jason]
Jesus has made majestic claims. But who is he to make them? It does not surprise us, therefore, that in the present paragraph the claims are supported by testimonies regarding himself. The Lord begins by saying, If I testify concerning myself, my testimony is not true. Commentators agree, of course, that these words cannot be taken literally, as if he meant that what he said with reference to himself was not true to fact. If that were the correct interpretation, Jesus would cease to be the sinless One. Other attempts to explain these words are as follows:
1. The meaning is, “If I should be testifying concerning myself, my testimony would not be true.” Objection: a glance at the form of these words in the original immediately shows that this cannot be correct, for we do not have a contrary-to-fact conditional sentence here, but one that belongs to group III B 1.
2. What Jesus means is, “If I present lone, unsupported testimony concerning myself, my testimony is not true.” But if that be the meaning here, then why should we not give the same interpretation to the same words in 8:14, “Even though I do testify concerning myself, my testimony is true”? Jesus says nothing about lone, unsupported testimony.
3. The word true has a different meaning here. The sense of the passage is, “If I testify concerning myself, my testimony is not admissible in a court of law (usually with an appeal to Matt. 18:16; II Cor. 13:1; I Tim. 5:19). But this reasoning would imply that in 8:14 Jesus states that such testimony regarding oneself is admissible in a law-court. Hence, we would have a flat contradiction.
The true solution, as we see it, will be found when we realize that Jesus is speaking the language of the people, the vernacular. One of the characteristics of this type of discourse is that it is marked by figures of speech, abbreviated expressions, allusions, overtones, implications which the hearers will immediately catch, etc. We should never lose sight of the fact that those to whom these words were addressed not only heard the actual words, but also saw our Lord’s eyes, and took notice of his tone of voice and of the words on which he placed the accent. Bearing all this in mind, we believe that from a certain point of view the situation in which our Lord finds himself as he utters these words can be compared with that of someone who today is addressing a group of people who are not too friendly toward the speaker. Let us say that the latter is an enthusiastic Republican and that he is talking to a group of Democrats. He might address them as follows, “If I tell you that Mr. E. (Republican candidate for President) is the best man this country could ever elect as President, then, of course, I’m a liar.” The hearers would then immediately interpret his words to mean this: “If I tell you that Mr. E is the best man the country could ever elect as President, then, of course, I’m a liar in your estimation.”
The same, as we see it, holds with respect to our present passage (5:31). Jesus simply means, “If I testify concerning myself, my testimony is not true in your estimation.” In other words, “You will then immediately raise the objection, ‘You are testifying concerning yourself; hence, your testimony is not true.’ ” This interpretation is certainly supported by the fact that this very thing happened a little later, as indicated in 8:12, 13. There Jesus is recorded as testifying concerning himself, and saying, “I am the light of the world.” Immediately the Pharisees shout their objection, “You are testifying concerning yourself; your testimony is not true.” {Source}
With a little bit of tweaking, that is how i understand this passage. The ESV even words it in such a way so as to suggest this as well:
If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not deemed true.
It’s not deemed true. Deemed by who? THEM! In their estimation, witnessing of himself would not have been accepted. Jesus is not stating an epistemological principle here (per BCS), but is exposing their rebellion. Jesus then goes on to mention multiple witnesses in this chapter; John the Baptist, the Father, his works, the Scriptures, and Moses. He is not bringing all this up in order to submit his “majestic claims” to their demand for multiple witnesses, but is using all these to further their condemnation. He even goes so far as to state:
Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?
The words of one man, Moses, were sufficient to accuse them before God! Why is that? Well, i believe it is because of the category, if you will, of his writings. Moses’ words were “God breathed” and as such, were not subject to the testing of empirical evidences of men. Such testing would not make it past the first verse:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth
Really, Moses? You were there? You witnessed all this? This wasn’t witnessed by any man, but revealed. Likewise, John tells us that the logos (Jesus) was there in the beginning with God, and was God, and that all things were made through him. I don’t care what creation view you want to take, at some point all of us in this discussion would have to concede that we are told things in Scripture that NO man can validate with the evidences of two or three witnesses. Show me one scientific experiment, one natural revelation, that validates the truth that the second person of the Trinity was there all along, creating with the Father.
Just as a sidenote, now that i am thinking about revelation that could never be validated via the means BCS proposes: how in the world would the original audience have tested some of Moses’ prophecies that would not be fulfilled until hundreds of years beyond their lifetime? It would have been impossible. As preterists, we often point out how convenient it is that some of these last days “prophets” argue dates for the return of Christ that are just outside of their life expectancy. They conveniently argue for a return of Christ in 3010, knowing that at the current age of 65, they won’t be around to be held accountable. It is easy for us to see it now, but what about the original audience? What about claims that have no dates? Take this one for example, from Mt 24:
For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.
Never will be? How do we know that? How would we even begin to “test” this claim? I challenge anyone to provide “empirical evidence” that a great tribulation, such as happened in ad70, will NEVER occur again. We don’t accept and know this truth by empirical evidences. We know it via revelation, based on the authority of Jesus! End of sidenote.
While there are other things that can be said about Jo 5, let’s move on to 8.
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” So the Pharisees said to him, “You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.
This is why i spent the time on ch 1 that i did. Here, the “light” of Christ is brought up again. As in ch.1, the claim of deity (thus the authority of Jesus) is brought to the surface. To which, the pharisees charged as false and for the very reason Jesus said they would do back in ch. 5. This is followed by what is an epistemological principle:
Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.
Here, Jesus claims that he could do exactly what BCS says he can’t! Granted, Jesus never conceded that he testified alone, but here he is clearly arguing that even if he did, his testimony would still be valid. Why? “For I know where I came from and where I am going.” In most of the commentaries that i have read, this is just another way of saying that Jesus was in a category (and by extension, his word) all of his own. I like what John Calvin had to say here:
Christ replies, that his testimony possesses sufficient credit and authority, because he is not a private person belonging to the great body of men, but holds a very different station. For when he says, that he knoweth whence he came, and whither he goeth, he thus excludes himself from the ordinary rank of men. The meaning therefore is, that every man is heard with suspicion in his own cause, and it is provided by the laws, that no man shall be believed, when he speaks for his own advantage. But this does not apply to the Son of God, who holds a rank above the whole world; for he is not reckoned as belonging to the rank of men, but has received from his Father this privilege, to reduce all men to obedience to him by a single word. {Source}
Excellent! This confirms what we have noted in ch.1 about Christ as God. Christ, who is truth, does not depend upon the testimony of men to validate his truth. It is true because he says it is true! God is not on the dock, awaiting the validation of men.
In BCS, both Jo 5 and Jo 8 are quoted to support the same meaning that Jesus could not establish the truth of his teaching on his own. Yet, one text says he can, the other says he can’t. Unless we are going to accept a blatant contradiction, one would need to explain how one text actually carries a different meaning than the other. BCS does not do this. It just glosses over it, looking for keywords to prove some sort of witness test to test God.
But i don’t want to stop just yet. After asserting his authority and rank, Jesus states:
You judge according to the flesh…
What does he mean when he says that they judge according to the flesh? I have to admit, this threw me for a loop. Even Calvin offers two explanations, which didn’t help much.
Well, for starters, we know this can’t be a good thing. Secondly, this follows Jesus telling them that they “do not know” where Jesus came from or where he was going, which again, appears to be another claim to deity/authority. Thirdly, Jesus brings up their “Law” and the whole deal about the “testimony of two men”. Lastly, we noted above that the Pharisees had already declared Jesus’ word as false. And if we go even further back, we can bring to mind that men who are not abiding in God’s word were already in darkness, and thus could not “see” the kingdom until they were born from above, which comes not of the will of man or of the flesh, but of God.
There is something about the law and the manner in which they were using it to judge Jesus, that resulted in them wrongly charging him with falsehood, which in turn implies that they misunderstood the law’s application in this regard. And i believe the key lies in the phrase, “according to the flesh.” Hmmmm…..
What “law” were they using? Jesus tells us in v. 17, and we heard it from them in v. 13:
So the Pharisees said to him, “You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true. {v 13}
In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. {v 17}
Could it be that the Pharisees had the same erroneous understanding of De 19′s application as BCS does and were using this “test of truth” on Christ? That appears to be exactly what they were doing!
They were taking a “law” regarding charges of sin, crime, and murder that applied to men and turning that around as a “test” against the Lord Christ Jesus! Even though Calvin does not make that connection here, his comments above on v.14 fit: “The meaning therefore is, that every man is heard with suspicion in his own cause, and it is provided by the laws, that no man shall be believed, when he speaks for his own advantage. But this does not apply to the Son of God,”
Let me put it this way: The Pharisees were attempting to judge Jesus (God), the light who came from above and is above all, based on a law that could not, nor was never meant, to be used to “test” God. They were attempting to hold Christ and His word, of which were “of the Spirit” from the world “above”, accountable to a standard “according to the flesh”. They were making judgments using a principle that could not possibly speak to the “majestic claims” of Christ. Jesus was speaking of things according to the Spirit, and the Pharisees were judging these claims by a standard “according to the flesh”. De 19 was NEVER meant to be used this way! I believe that the Pharisees, the “rulers of this age” {1 Co 2} were doing EXACTLY what was pointed out in my last blog ~ Judged by No One.
You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also. {v19}
If they had known who it was that was standing before them, they would not dare have the audacity to hold He is above all to their judgment!
Let’s take it a step further. Since we know that Christ is God, let’s read De 19 again:
A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
The “Lord” here, and by extension Christ, is the JUDGE with whom the parties were to appear before! How in the world then can you take this Law and use it against the Lord? What…was the creator, the logos, he who was with God and is God, supposed to appear before himself for judgment?! Was he who is the standard to appear before himself, who is the standard? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The pharisees, who were not born from above and thus did not know God, were attempting to bring God (Christ) into judgment as a mere man…”according to the flesh”.
Now, let me be clear here. I am not saying that Jeff Vaughn and Tim Martin are pharisees. I am not questioning their salvation. However, what i believe i have demonstrated above is that due to a horrible misunderstanding and misuse of the law, these men are actually doing the very same thing the pharisees had attempted, of which they were rebuked. They, like them, are attempting to “test” the testimony of God via a “standard” that cannot possibly work in this regard, nor was that ever the law’s intent. They are doing exactly what Paul said can’t be done. Again, see Judged by No One.
I am not asking any one to shun Tim and Jeff. But i want to be frank here: this “test of truth” should be shunned. It is sheer nonsense. It not only puts God on the dock, (i cringe just thinking about the thought), but ultimately would destroy their own attempts at trying to explain Genesis; for how could a so-called Biblically-derived “Covenant Creation” view come from that which “is not able to make its meaning known”? Total nonsense.
Before moving on to sections 8 and 9, i wish to point out a couple of more scriptures that allude to the law of De 19:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. {Mt 18}
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. {1 Ti 5}
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. {He 10}
In each case, as was the case with the examples mentioned above, the context is dealing with charges of sin. In the first, charges against a brother; in the second, charges against elders; in the third, Hebrews points out how death came as a result of setting aside the law (sin), on the evidence of two or three witnesses. No where do i find this law being used as some sort of epistemological “test of truth” for testing God and for issues like discovering the age of the earth, whether Christ came back, learning how to fly, learning how to cure cancer, or any other “truth” seeking adventure Tim and Jeff want to plug into it.
I now turn to the last sections of 8 and 9.
One objection at this point may be that we have argued for the test for truth from the Bible. The astute reader may ask, ‘Is is not a self-contradition to argue for the test of truth from the Bible when the test for truth says it is unbiblical to use the Bible alone as the sole authority to determine a matter? {p.383}
They answer “No”.
Because of the ultimate source for the test of truth as revealed in Scripture. We deny that the Bible is the ultimate source for the test of truth. The ultimate source for the biblical test of truth is the Trinitarian nature of God himself. {p. 383}
From there they then quote Ge 3.8-13 and argue that the “truth of the disobedient act of Adam and Eve” was “established” by the “two witnesses” (Adam and Eve) that he had “examined”. Their confession established the charge. Again, multiple problems abound in all this.
First of all, how does Tim and JL know that God is Triune? Again, if we were to use their “test of truth”, how in the world would we figure out that God was Triune? Do the stars reveal this? The planets? Plants, rocks, animals? We know that God is Triune because God “revealed” this to us via the Scriptures. I know of no other way to know this; yet, “no one can use Scripture as a witness or authority” and “Scripture itself, is not able to make its meaning known.”
So if Scripture can’t explain the Trinity to me and i can’t use the Scripture as a “witness”, then i ask again, how in the world does Tim and JL know that God is Triune? And when i do appeal to the Scripture, what confidence do i have that the doctrine of the Trinity is what the Bible is teaching to begin with? According to JL, all that we have are people’s interpretations…nothing more. Again folks, this is just complete nonsense. This makes creationism, covenant creationism, preterism, or any other ~ism virtually impossible.
Secondly, did God really need Adam and Eve to “witness” to their sin in order to “establish” that it truly happened? What if Adam and Eve had not confessed their sin; would God’s hands have been tied? Would the Father then have to call the rest of the Trinity: “Adam and Eve aren’t cooperating, thus i cannot establish this matter. My Son and the Spirit, you saw this. Testify to this matter so that judgment may proceed.”
I think i’m going to try the BCS principle the next time i need to get somewhere in a hurry. I’m going to drive 100 mph, having my Eve (Amanda) with me. When the cop pulls me over and charges me, me and my second witness are going to deny the speeding, and thus avoid a ticket. Yep, that’s how it will happen. Riggghhhhtttttttt.
Nowhere in this context did their judgment rest on whether or not their sin could be “established” by “witnesses”. They were judged because they broke a command, pure and simple. And that judgment would have proceeded regardless of whether or not they had confessed their sin; for God assured them from the beginning that they would “surely die” when they ate. He did not say that “you *might* die if i can establish that you ate.” God is not a man, that he needs witnesses to establish his word! See, like i warned above with Christ and the pharisees, this is the dangerous path this principle starts to take us down. God can’t establish truth on his own. It puts God in the dock.
Section 8 ends stating that “Fundamentalism’s single-standard view of truth is implicitly Unitarian….God can and does use a diversity of means to communicate one truth.”{p. 384} Two issues here:
First, how is the Fundy reduced to Unitarianism if their “single-standard” (Bible) teaches Trinitarianism? Does the Bible not teach Trinitarianism? Of course it does…where do you think Tim and Jeff got it from? This makes no sense whatsoever.
Secondly, how does Tim and Jeff know that (1) God created the world and that (2) He created it to reveal truth? Did trees and rocks tell them this? Oh, it gets worse. Covenant Creationists are slowly but surely chipping away at all the “creation” references, turning them into metaphorical and/or symbolic descriptions of jews, gentiles, covenants, and so on. The very “creation” verses that many theologians have used to support “general revelation” are not even about “creation” most of the time, according to the “Covenant Creationists”. So again, how do they know that God is Triune and that this Triune God created the world to reveal truth? And remember, they can’t use the Bible, for “No one can use Scripture as a witness or authority” and “Scripture itself, is not able to make its meaning known.”
Finally, we come to the last section, “The Full Christian Worldview”. Remember the problem we started with?
The tension between biblical revelation and scientific empiricism shows no sign of decreasing. On one hand, one does not want to reject obvious empirical evidence, and on the other, one must never make all truth subject to the scientific method, which is incapable of verifying essential, supernatural events.
It is here that all of this nonsense is brought to a close, and our answer to the dilemma (if you hadn’t figured it out yet) is made plain:
Fundamentalism (now synonymous with young-earth creationism and futurism) refuses to reconcile their biblical interpretation of creation, flood, and prophecy with the observed evidence provided by our physical world….The most biblical thing modern Christians can do is accept the credible evidence that stares them in the face, all of the evidence. {p. 385,386}
So, the Bible is truth, though apparently it can’t be used as a witness or authority and its meaning can’t be known. And, science gives us truth. The evidence for old-earth creationism is so sure, so solid, so in-your-face clear, that Genesis 1, which appears at first to contradict old-earth science, has to be explained away as talking about something other than the creation of the universe….in comes “Covenant Creationism”. Once the “creation of the universe” is removed from the Bible, the claims of science can now continue, with no pressure from Scripture. This “test of truth” chapter is Tim and Jeff’s attempt at justifying the claims of science, by pulling a scripture or two of out its context and turning it into a law that ends up putting God on trial.
That right there is what this whole “Covenant Creationist” deal is about, in a nutshell. Clever, but dangerous.
See, Tim and Jeff make a mistake from the very beginning. Instead of challenging whether the dilemma even exists to begin with, they go along with it. It reminds me of the whole health care debate. Obama wants to do such and such, and many complain that it will create more problems. The neocons show up with their anti-Obama solution, but it doesn’t look much better. Then steps in Ron Paul. Just today i watched a video of Ron Paul who points out that “In the end, both parties will make things worse because both parties still don’t understand that they and their government programs are the problem. Government created the problem.” (paraphrase, of course)
The problem with the quote from John Davis lies in the words “obvious empirical evidence.” It is not obvious. I could write another ten pages on why it isn’t obvious. Perhaps that will be part two. The solution to the problem is not to insist on more “scientific” spending, if you will. The solution to the problem is to rightly understand the LIMITED ROLE science plays. Is science useful? Of course it is. So is government. But science cannot produce “obvious evidence”. Tim and Jeff thanked Sam Frost for his “spirited opposition”, which in turn supposedly created this “thorough and comprehensive” case. Yet, the very thing that we have asked them to prove is totally glossed over. And worse, the Bible, which we are told can’t be used as an authority/witness and can’t make its meaning known, now magically makes itself known in telling us that truth can be established on the evidence of two or three witnesses, with even God’s own word (Ge 1?) now being put to the “test” by the “truth” of “science.” Tim and Jeff ask, “by what standard?” It’s obvious to me now that they are the standard. This is 1 Co 1,2 all over again.
Friends, just stop and think about it for a second. How is that God’s own word can’t make its meaning known, but God through science can speak so clear that the evidence is “staring you in the face”? Does Jeff even believe that the Scripture is the word of God? This does more than level the playing field between scripture and science. It exalts science to the point now that we have to literally go in and revamp the whole thing and sadly, all in the name of preterism. What is “wisdom” and “truth” is regarded by the world as “foolish.” And instead of challenging what is in actuality foolish (truth via science), Tim and Jeff cave in and are now on a path of submitting God’s Word to the “in your face” truths of science.
One more word of clarification here. I am never opposed to Christians keeping their bibles open and constantly examining their interpretations. My interpretation of Genesis 1 is never off limits, in that sense. However, Ge 1 is to be approached with the proper and correct respect towards it that God intended. Scripture is to be received on its own terms; not with an exalted slant on the “wisdom of men” that is then used to make Genesis fit a pre-concieved mold. Tim and Jeff are doing nothing new here. Their answer to the problem is the same answer thousands have taken already. They are basically succumbing to the so-called superiority of science and are now using Preterism as the excuse.
Science is constantly changing. It has to, because it is based on induction. It is always striving, but never arriving. If we in turn are going to keep the Bible in check with this ever changing science, what does that leave us with concerning the Bible? It leaves us with ever changing uncertainty…thus, Jeff’s conclusion: “Scripture itself, is not able to make its meaning known.” Shocking statement, but it makes total sense that Jeff would say such a thing in light of his views on truth and his exalted view of science.
Thousands of interpretations are certainly a problem. But Jeff and Tim do not understand what causes that. The cure is not going to come by continuing to assert a role that science can’t play and then attacking the sufficiency and perspicuity of scripture. That only ends up making any and all interpretations, including Covenant Creationism, meaningless and void. No one could operate with BCS’ standard. In fact, Jeff doesn’t operate by it consistently. For example, he recently said that if the destruction of Jerusalem had never taken place, then he would probably have to go down the path of treating Jesus as a false prophet. Thus, according to Jeff, the historical evidence validates Jesus’ claims, the meaning of which cannot be known on its own. But wait a second….charging Jesus with a false prediction implies that the prediction’s meaning CAN be known, else, Jeff could not say that the nonoccurrence of the destruction satisfied Jesus’ words or not. If we cannot know what the “this generation” of Mt 24.34 means, on its own, then we certainly cannot judge whether the events of ad70 satisfies those words. This reminds me of the atheists who tell us that logic is not necessary, yet they can’t argue against Christianity without it. Logic is used with every word typed.
There is a better way of going about theology. I did not learn preterism this way. I did not learn creationism this way. And I dare not suggest that God learn this way. The meaning of Scripture is not at the mercy of scientific advancement.