Episode 6: Pastor Reflection on Elihu and Interpolations with Dr. Brad Johnson

[Music] hello and welcome to another edition of I didn't learn that in Sunday School uh I'm Brad Spencer and I'm here with my uh Pastor Brad Johnson um and we are going to be talking about the episode on Elli who and interpolations so welcome Brad nice to have you back so appreciate having you back um and again for our for our listeners that uh haven't um introduced to you just a short couple sentences of uh who you are and uh sure what you're doing um just retired three years ago from 40 Years of ministry in Evangelical Free churches and um I've got two masters and a doctorate and I've got four four kids and seven grandkids and a wife and uh I keep plenty busy in retirement because I got two part-time jobs I'm a pastoral care director for the New England District of the Free Church so I got about 100 pastors I'm supposed to be contacting with and helping with uh any personal issues that they may have and I'm a part-time chaplain at a small company I go in twice a month and just meet with employees so uh that plus my um my I have a 1930 Ford Model A um that I've done a lot of work to and I take to different tours and I'm president of the local Minute Man club with 12 members and I'm one of the few that only has one model A so all of that keeps me pretty busy sure enough well I sure appreciate you taking the the time to to meet and talk with me once once again um on these uh um interesting and uh esoteric topics that we're diving into pull pulling out that you uh in your pastoral work don't don't always get to dive into um right AB as I'm finding out so um yeah so that so you had a chance to to watch the episode on uh Ellie who um and interpolations in in general and and those questions I wanted to start out by just asking you um your uh history background with the the Book of Job um have you enjoyed it preached on it a lot like what's uh talk to us about that for a you know I um I I've never preached through it I'm pretty sure I preached through chapters one and two you know the common Pros part um I have distinct memories of uh when I was at Moody Bible Institute somebody um preaching on the the book of Jo J and uh giving me the sense of here's the theme and the theme that I've always remembered is that even a righteous man needs to be humble before God um I have taught the book of job as a whole um probably 10 times as I've taught an overview of the Old Testament so when I've got to the Book of Job and that's primarily the teenagers a couple times i' I've taught adults that um so I've I've taught the overall book um I've I've done a read through the Bible every year for about the last 15 years so I read through job and every year it's left me with the same kind of [Music] um un somewhat uneasiness that I almost like what the three friends say but then I feel like well I can't do that because God condemns them you know and so but I feel like gee they're saying some true stuff about job and yes job is called this righteous man but man his attitude is he says stuff I never could find myself saying to God so I've always been a little uneasy about it and I think I've noticed before and just sort of looked over it of um this elq portion you know and I've never noticed some of the things that you brought out I thought wow how could I have missed that the number of times I've read through job you know um so I guess that's sort of my background with the book um gotcha and so before we get into the issues with Eli who um one of the thing just the past Sunday or two uh one of our pastors was preaching uh and um cited one of job's a a passage you know from one of job's friends just as a kind of passing you know as they Bounce from verse to verse and making making their their point um and it just I I I kind of had this kind of cringe feeling of well are are you recognizing that this is a person like you said who's who's making an argument that is then being um kind of criticized by and and the whole point of the the book right is uh a um dialogue with that with the the theology I think that you get in Proverbs and Deuteronomy of you know you do good stuff and good things are going to come to you you do bad stuff and bad things are going to come to you and the retribution principle yeah yeah right the Theology of Retribution exactly uh of uh um and and that the Book of Job kind of uh takes a a smack at that and says y the life does not work that way all always um and and and you can't certainly can't take that principle too far um and and I'm just just curious you know in in preaching um I if if you're preaching and and you come across you know hey I I I want to make a uh support my my argument where where does where where does um the the idea of where where I'm pulling these passages from come into uh in in C in sermon preparation uh in terms of if if something is in one of job's friends mouth but it's a it it sounds great to you sounds like a a great comment I don't know the answer to this it just struck me as a as an interesting question that I thought thought I'd ask because I have you here um well I guess I would say all truth is God's truth and so there are plenty of times where truthful statements come out of wrong people and that's even you know totally separate from scripture um you know I I think the the whole idea of was there anything that the the three friends said that was right God himself you know when he speaks says okay come on I you know I dare to job tell me where you were you know you're you're speaking as a foolish man I find that in in essence that's what the three friends were trying to get him to to say now they were saying there's got to be some secret sin in your life so that as far as we know is not what was going on I mean the you know one and two talks talks about how righteous the guy was he was doing he was even doing sacrifices for his son and you know his kids in case they did something wrong right right yeah um so he really was a righteous man but you know Pride to me is at the root of all sin that's what Eve went through when she was in the garden she goes wow this looks good to eat and it's good for knowledge and I'm going to do it my way not the way God said and so I I just think at at the root of all sin is our pride so obviously job's not a perfect person nobody is except for Jesus so you know where would I go in in preaching I would have no problem quoting something that I think you know one of job's friends was saying the right thing um because you know I'm I'm preaching and I'm a sinful man and I hope I'm saying the right thing so um I guess that would be some of my thought you know it's it's interesting because there's so many passages of the Old Testament that seems to present the someone you know blessed is a man who's you know he's he's like the the the righteous man because he's sitting in the he's like a tree planted by the rivers of water you know but the man the unjust man the wrong the he's the evil man he's the opposite you know and is that always the way it is right if you're comfortable quoting Deuteronomy or Proverbs you should be comfortable quoting Do's friend that that makes sense yeah yeah yeah yeah so so yeah so uh and uh just to recap the um idea of el Who and the concerns with with El who so um so you watch the the episode you what what what are some of the things that you you learned and maybe I'll I'll just supplement uh any anything but but but some things that you you feel like you you know now that you didn't know before about ell who or his speeches or um yeah I have in my in my educational background I've rebelled a little bit against what what I understand as textual criticism um and you know we blame the Germans for it there were others um and as I was first listening I'm thinking how can you how can you criticize the text of something that's thousands of years old somehow you know we're so smart we can say that you know um you know there's no way that the gospels are are you know really the story of Jesus there's maybe one thing that he said that was the the the Jesus um I forget what the name of it was that was back in I think the the 70s and 80s the Jesus seminar Jesus seminar thank you um you know and and so that was my some of my initial thinking however I thought you you I I wrote These down you talked about um interpreting the flow language vocabulary words that are different style of writing the ideas that are theologically different you know and what you called the cut test so those are just the quick notes that I wrote down as far as what you were talking about and I was I was thinking I can't argue with you that the speech in chapters 32 to 37 of U is I mean that's that's that's it doesn't meet any of those tests and so um so I'm just thinking boy it sure does seem like even the the you mentioned that there's no genealogy stuff in the other in the three and and there is for him in a typical Jewish you know style right and I'm I'm just thinking yeah it just makes sense that some scribe added that later on because God never mentions him God there's job it skips right over him I mean all the things that you described I just think it makes sense and you you convinced me when I didn't want you to that maybe it's something that was added afterwards and that bothers some of the years of both teaching and study and preaching that I've had MH um but you know even just as we've dialogued you know the Old Testament Canon New Testament Canyon Canon what do we have for manuscripts and you know how does that all fit in you know and so I'm I'm I'm left hoping that somebody else much greater than me will be able to give the answer that I'll go ah right um because I'm I'm concerned with where it leads if we start saying that was added later that was added later how does that fit with at least my view of inherency and infallibility of scripture and um sure and and God's hand upon it the fact that inherency is actually to me a worthless Doctrine if we don't believe that God has protected so that we can trust what we have today um so um that's my my general response to your hour plus um right that you know I couldn't argue with but I wish I could yeah yeah and because we're friends I can say that BR yeah yeah no and and to to pick up so to to just clarify a couple of things that you mentioned you you mentioned the the cut test so that was um if we take so the El who speeches start in chapter 32 they go through the end of 37 if we cut that out and we read job without it yep do we lose anything does it flow smoothly and the answer in in that in this case is uh not only does it flow smoothly when we remove it a lot of things make a lot more sense fit a lot fit the structure better um it it becomes a better book almost um if I if I may say that uh without um blaspheming um right but it feels so so that cut test is can't if if we remove this thing that's suspected as an interpolation what happens if we just remove it entirely the other um things that you mentioned that this idea that God doesn't respond to job in fact no one interacts with job and and I made the interacts with ell who I'm sorry ell who yes my my my mistake um ell who um is this figure that is akin to um the um uh the movie the six sense and um the main character um in their uh Bruce Willis Bruce Willis's character right in in the six sense where uh he is a um a big part of the story and it it's sort of you can watch the the movie up to the the reveal and and you feel like he's interacting you you feel like it it's part of it right and then you get to this reveal and you and then you go back and then you rewatch it which you may have done as as I shared this with about Ellie who you go back to the introduction and you say wait no it was just three friends that are mentioned in the introduction it's just job and his three friends no mention of el who J job doesn't interact with with El who God doesn't interact with El who the in the epilog there's no mention you know God rebukes the three friends God you know talks to job no mention of el who whatsoever and so there's this this kind of strange absence that that's there um and uh yeah several several other features one a couple of the features that um I I wanted to mention that I didn't bring out in the the hourong discussion that that are are further um the this this monologue of Ellie who is commentary like and that he he h these chapters have a bird's eye view of the book and will quote and make illusion to every part of the book from the beginning from job's comments uh not to the prologue and epilog but um from job's comments um Ellie Who quotes job frequently quotes other or makes very similar comments to what the friends are are saying um but then when it gets weird is that towards the end of his speech he starts quoting God in God's response that hasn't happened yet or uh stating things that God will state that make absolute sense coming from God and he he anticipates the argument almost takes the wind out of God's sails in in in in one way but it's it it's this um this perspective of commenting on the text that feels very literary as opposed to uh that that you have the book in in front of you and are as an object that you are commenting on as opposed to um just writing out the book that that that doesn't happen in any of these other uh cases right you don't have job then going back and commenting on a speech from be before that has happened two speeches before you know you don't have uh him anticipating things coming up you don't have any of this the friends quoting job in his response to one of his other friends it it just this type of thing that we see in ellieo doesn't happen the other thing is I don't think we're supposed to like ellieo not not only is he described as young and and Brash and some of our interpreters have talked about you know how annoying he you know he has these he's very long- winded and there there are specific comments that he he talks about you know being kind of a um an airbag um full full of wind um but there are two features in in the Hebrew um that uh I I again didn't didn't mention last time but that um where he comes off uh very disrespectful to job so so one uh Hebrew has two different words for the uh to say I uh you can say it with Ani or Ani and for years and years people said you know these are just variations they they may be kind of an abbreviated form or something but they're just kind of used um by we we see them throughout the history of Hebrew um one form starts to get more popular later on and and on the the short form becomes the form that that they use in M but and Beyond but um for the most part it it kind of interchanges what what they use but there was a scholar um named uh revel revel uh at the University of Toronto uh in the 80s and he wrote an an article on this uh distinction and pointed out that interestingly if you look at the speakers and their social position compared to the person that they're talking to and are they a superior or are they an inferior uh in and who they're talking to um and he noted that uh the use of um anoy is used by everybody and is kind of the this is the default you just use ano key uh I talking about I and and everybody uses this term but the on form the short form is pulling rank the short form is the person who has the more Authority God often uses Ani uh in in his speeches um whereas an when he uses ano Kei the idea would be to you know Hey I'm um showing more um camaraderie with the person that I'm talking with uh and and this has been demonstrated uh um throughout the Hebrew Bible not looking at this case specifically I'm taking it and applying it to this P case specifically Scholars have noted that elih who's use of ani is way more than any other of the friends um using job uses Ani continually and and seems to be a high status person that that's the way the story describes him um but this young man using Ani um would be seen as trying to pull rank when he doesn't have any it it it would be very disrespectful um and it's a it's a subtle thing in the Hebrew that um you again you have you have to know the the the language to to pick it up um but it it comes through really strong the other uh study that's been done um by Stuart Foster at the University of Stellenbosch uh in South Africa um he looked at the use of job's name and so in Hebrew it's very odd to call someone by their name and say hey Brad I I want to talk to you about such and such um different uh cultures uh throughout the world use um names in in different ways but in some cultures using someone's name is a way of um it's it's disrespectful it's talking hey you it's it's talking down to them um and El who uses job's name in this kind of hey job we're listen listen to me um uses it multiple times I think nine times or something like that um but but again both of these features are are just there little nuances in the in the Hebrew that suggest that this this is not a character that we're supposed to be particularly fond of or to to view um in in in high esteem that that that he kind of the the book itself presents him as uh this this guy is is really Gren on on everyone's nerves okay so anyway I I just thought that was a I I feel like I could almost get just from the English translation you know where it talks about hey I'm he says I'm going to speak now because you guys really messed up you know you and I know I'm younger and that's why I kept quiet you know and I'd always pictured that well yeah it mentions just the three but there may have been a crowd of his friends that were around was was sort of my thinking and yet it does say so specifically that it was just the three friends that came you know so him appearing and and being so um really putting down the other guys you know and and saying to job job you know listen you haven't learned and and so um so some of that comes across even in just the English translation oh yeah you know which is part of why I just felt like everything that you're saying about this makes sense to me um right so yeah so yeah so that's that's the the um short version of the the the background of what we're talking about and uh one of the other things that I I noted so to put this in um context the way that we would view this is that the way it makes sense um all of the all of these features I I think are most uh they just fall into place if you say this is a WR the the person who wrote the El who speeches is a writer who is has before him uh The Book of Job with without the Elie speeches um and is for some reason feels like it's incomplete for some reason feels like there there's something that I need to say here whether it's I don't know that there's a Jewish view I don't know whether that the there there's a view that needs to be um hammered against uh and and and really taken taken down a Peg and so I I need to put a view in here that uh needs to be be wrestled with um whatever it is the the the writer um views this text as uh set in stone the the writer unlike other cases where you say well it's an editor that's gone through or or even the same writer that has done a redraft right he's written it and said ah I I need to actually rewrite this and and and we do get the these cases where you know every everybody that that writes knows you know you write something then you're like oh well I I need to add add this this would really help um but uh if that were the case it would be no problem to add a reference in the prologue to Ellie who right uh job and and and Ellie who was standing at the you know in the back the the three friends come to um or or uh a reference from from God to but this idea that uh nobody interacts with um El who that that these uh passages are all lumped together that they're not they're not put many have argued that um these speeches that or that this long monologue that is broken together with some um uh structural uh elements into several speeches it is intended to go in different parts of the the book and that the reader is supposed to say oh okay because uh he's referencing these speeches from elif Faz this should go after this and because this is this particular second speech is referencing these statements from from job this should go at after this um but uh idea is that whoever is writing this sees the The Book of Job that exists as I I can't change the text the the text is fixed and and the only thing I can do is add something and add something to whole cloth um and uh we see so we see examples of these interpolations uh the most famous example I think um is in joh the Gospel of John where we have uh the woman caught in adultery uh and and the manuscript evidence is very clear very straightforward any modern uh translation English translation will mark it in Brackets uh and will note that the ancient manuscripts do not have this um and so there we we have um we have not only do we have a theory of what could have happened we we see this in in manuscript development and in um as manuscripts get copied and and someone comes along and and adds something um so we know it happens and this so so the phenomenon is known and then to say well does this explain the situation with El who I as I said there are uh many many articles and books that have been written trying to say oh well this is how Eli who could make sense and they'll make sense of one or two of the issues never all of them every solution deals with okay this particular aspect is troubling and and let's address that and so it'll address one issue and so you say okay you've solved that issue but you still have this issue and this issue there yeah um well and uh I think it raises for me um the issue of where does that leave us with scripture um how how far can you go if if you say that all right maybe this was added how much has been added where does where does God's uh protection of scripture to to bring us to a word that we can trust today um what do we do with I guess you know you and I briefly dialogued about the difference between the New Testament and the Old Testament um and what we have for manuscripts that support and where the Dead Sea Scrolls helped us out but that's still you know hundreds thousands of years after the events if not the writings you know and so um I'm left with where does this leave us when you maybe have convinced me about this PO this portion of job is it still I mean I don't mean anything sacrilegious here but it did God intend to later on edit what somebody else wrote for Joe and so he breathed through some Jewish writer which it seems that it's a Jewish perspective as compared to the rest of it um you know and where does that where do we end up with what is the Old Testament Canon really mean to us and you know and I I want to come down on because of my beliefs I want to come down on that it's an errant it's the word of God it's without error in the original writings very Evangelical that just happens to be you know where I'm coming from and that's what gives me my foundation and my meaning I mean I've I've always said if you start doing what Jefferson did or Ben Franklin did I forget which it was you know ripping parts of the Bible out that they didn't like forget it you're writing your own you don't need the Bible go ahead and write your own Bible you know and and that's what so many people are trying to do even if they're not writing their own Bible they're trying to live life based on well this is what I believe and look how that's working for us as a world as a world so that's where I'm left without you know and I'm not I don't think I'm asking a clear answer of you I feel like you're simply presenting what's there and I've listened and I'm not always convinced at arguments I hear this particular one I'm fairly convinced at what you've said that it makes sense because I've always been uneasy when I've read through um but I it's not a where does it leave us yeah it's not a crisis of Faith it's more a matter of wait a minute I I'd love to have a a good clear answer that I ah you know now maybe it would be helpful for our listeners to walk through um walk through step by step so if we if we take for for a second um the case in John with the case of the the the woman caught in adultery um and I I think this is an issue that you've you've looked at before um and H have come to terms with in in some way uh in a way that you haven't with the Ellie who is isues am am I right in in thinking that or or no I I would think that's true and I I mean I would take the end of Mark as maybe a little bit more extreme that I just really question whether that should be there you know I don't believe in serpents and poison and and right right you know so with John I kind of feel like well sure it's within the character of Jesus what happens I've always wondered if it's if it's true uh you know which I'm I I lean towards that it's true um you know what was Jesus writing that's always you know caused me to wonder where was the guy how come they just brought the woman you know you if if she was caught in it you know hey that takes two so I've wondered those things about it but I don't think I would ever you know if well like the mark passage I wouldn't base any theology off from that right I don't base any theology off from the woman at the caught in adultery other than the principle is true or or the the character of Jesus that it presents I feel like is true so how do I transer now in that case I have manuscript support for my questions right I I remember you specifically saying that there's not evidence of the manuscripts for this question of Joe yes exact exactly and that so so that leads me with a much more of a tendency to say no I'm going to leave it there I'm gonna I'm G to keep it there and I realized there's some questions but um you know and that's where you know us evangelicals we say well God knows and I'll I'll maybe someday I'll find out if it's important right right which which is sticking my hand head in the sand I understand and that's what theologians do as compared to you great Scholars who really dig into it you know and I don't even really consider myself that much of a theologian so go ahead yeah yeah no but it's uh the the state of you know Old Testament text criticism and um it is still in its infancy um and so uh how it it's not not only the problem that it's in its infancy it's that the the difference in day that we have right in the case of the Old Testament versus in the case of the New Testament so in the New Testament because we have so many Greek manuscripts before we even have to look at the Latin translation or the um uh Coptic translation of of the New Testament right uh we we can look at the Greek manuscripts that are still in the the language um and and have a very clear text critical picture of what's going on um and there has been so much work that has been done over the past Century um on Tech New Testament text criticism um when you get to uh the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament text criticism um and you're looking at a you know know Hebrew manuscripts from 900 1,000 ad of our our area we're looking at okay we we do have the Dead Sea Scrolls now um for some passages not for all of them but quite a number um of passages we now have in in the Dead Sea Scrolls that help us out um and we've got uh the but primarily what we're working with is the translations into the Greek um sepagan which often times has a very different character and we we have to then question okay are these differences the translator is trans is doing something weird or um and being creative or is this do they have a different Hebrew text in front of them that they were translating and this reflects a a much a you know third Century first centur BC uh state of a Hebrew manuscript that differs from the Hebrew manuscript that we have from the 10th Century um and and so the the data is different um and and yet um again with a with a case like this this Ellie who where you're um when you have one angle of of evidence okay uh that that raises the question but when you when you have evidence that's that's coming from so many different angles um you know uh so many different axes that are pointing to the same conclusion um and you know for for me as a as a scholar you know looking at um kind of kind of logic and and following logical conclusions I look at something like this and say okay I I'm compelled to recognize this Theory as one that explains the data in a way that no other Theory does um even as uncomfortable as the theory is to me as uncomfortable as it makes me that okay now I have an an author of the book of Job without El who passages and now I have an author who comes along reads the text of what will be scripture what is scripture and says something's missing here I need to you know and and I'm I'm adding now and then the uh the decisions in the um cannons in the the early uh Church tradition have that addition and have the the full book of job with the El who speeches and say this is Canon this is um but but the getting to that point may have involved multiple different perspectives um and and does that do anything I guess um for the is it is it okay to look at scripture and to say okay um James is saying something different from Paul and they they're they're not just in dialogue they are arguing with one another um that this author of the speeches of Ellie who is has a different perspective than whoever wrote the book of of job and and is is dialoguing with that does does that um enhance our view of scripture does that uh cause problems for our view of scripture what what does that do where and the Chicago State of inherency was very clear that you should not you should never Place one off author as if they are saying something different from another um and and I I struggle with that article honestly um I because I I see so many places where it sure looks like the author just the book of job as a whole that seems to be in dialogue with Deuteronomy and Proverbs and that Theology and saying I see what you're saying you you do make one point but you're you don't have the we we need to see a different perspect it life doesn't always work this way there there is a problem of of pain and suffering that is completely absent sin um that needs to be reconciled so anyway I I don't know what your thoughts are on that I'm not sure if I've thrown out a question at all but well I've had several thoughts as you were talking um one I mean the last chapter of Deuteronomy obviously wasn't WR if you take the view that you know the pentet is written by Moses last chapter actually obviously couldn't be because he's dead you know and so somebody added that chapter at some time well that doesn't bother any of us because we somehow it seems so obvious that that's happened so um how far do we push that to how many places can we begin to start saying oh well you know that was written by somebody else that was written by somebody else I like the fact that you have several principles that you've relied upon in coming to your conclusion that elaho maybe was written at some other time and I like also that you're not saying doesn't belong in there or I mean shouldn't be part of you're not you're not saying that there's just questions about authorship there um and and so I that to me gives a safety net that you you're not just saying oh well gee I don't like you know I don't know what's I don't remember what's in Psalm 72 off the top of my head I don't like Psalm 72 so I think I'll pull that out it's not saying something that I I really like I mean or or the precatory Psalms that you know there's no way that God would would allow all that to be in his word so therefore I'm going to pull those you have some principles that you're applying to um to all of scripture but specifically this this passage in in job um that lead you to at least say it seems like it's a different author um you know how that applies to the New Testament to me is different because you've you got manuscript stuff we don't have manuscripts to support those kinds of statements for the Old Testament so the principles that you shared uh you know as long as you stick with those principles then I I I can I'll listen to you on your next one that you come up with well here are these four principle or five principles they apply to this passage too you know and and I'll at least listen um you know so those were some of the things I was thinking of as you were talking there was something else but I I feel like it it's slipped from my mind um but you know I I think there are other places in the Old Testament where we say either we don't know the author or tradition says it's this author but it's obviously somebody different that's put some of these together and of course you know the the Hebrew Bible puts you know Kings and and puts first second Kings together it's all one book so you know where did some of these kinds of things happen that we just accept um you know we're taught well I I'm taught these things from Bible school on so all right I guess that makes sense I shouldn't be questioning that and I feel like you're saying wait a minute there are a few of these things we ought to at least talk about and we shouldn't be scared we shouldn't be scared to talk about it so my my random thinking to your random thinking where do you want to go and and does uh does this butt up against anything I in the um episode talking about this I brought up several different uh articles from the uh Chicago statement on inherency and the I think also the Chicago statement on um biblical hermeneutics that I thought perhaps th this butts up against again they're they're mainly um questions but I I wonder you know is um do do we feel like we're somehow um in in a in in a different camp with the is is there is there anything that where we're saying um this uh put put you out of the um what is the uh Society of um Evangelical um Evangelical theological Society yes right right I I can't answer you there and I'm um I mean I would have said that I agree with the Chicago statements um you know some of the ones that you mentioned I think well that is that a little bit of an overstatement um in some ways I guess it reminds me of um the denomination I'm a part of uh was the the Swedish Evangelical Free Church and the Norwegian Danish Evangelical Free Church and they finally realized hey there are a lot of like and in 1950 it became the Evangelical Free Church of America so that statement stood until um 2008 um it was updated and we took 12 statements and turned it into 10 and frankly my view is that we strengthened the things that were there and added things that are more um were more current and contemporary that needed for instance open theology um uh so so they addressed that I imagine if if God doesn't come back if Jesus doesn't come back you know in 50 years the Free Church will probably say listen we need another update of of the doctrinal statement because doctrinal statements are human ways of trying to express what we believe the Bible States and are often reactions to certain things going on Chicago statement of of inherency my understanding was having been at Chicago during the writing of it because I was at Moody then and you know it was it was the reaction against the early 1900s and the struggle with inarc and the movement away from um the Bible is our you know our foundation we're going to believe out the Bible what we want to and to me the end result was that Jesus becomes a good guy um and and that just deeply concerns me yes he's a good guy but he came to solve the real problem of the world so I wonder if that's those statements since they're human statements yeah I'm not going to get that bothered if I disagree with one or two of them unless people start calling me a heretic and then I guess I feel like well I'm retired so right maybe I shouldn't bother about about it um I guess my my ordination certificate could be revoked if I become a heretic but frankly I'm I'm 70 now so it's mine for life according to um the guys I've talked with at the home office so I I guess that's kind of my thought of the Chicago statements they're they were they're good they're valuable they were for a purpose right right for a purpose many years later now are we look at it and saying let's let's be the problem with the problem with Christianity is we the problem with people we just like black and white give me a black and white yes yes give me a yes or no you know and and there's so much subjectiveness about [Music] got to be cautious about some things some things are subjective sure sure there's I'm a firm believer in absolute truth yeah um but yeah I think in the first session we talked about meat offered to Idols as an example of um hey may be perfectly okay for me but not okay for you for me it's not sin for you it's sin you know I I think there are other things like I for for some people I know to drink alcohol it would be sin I choose not to drink alcohol generally speaking if I drank it it's not sin for me I don't believe because I believe it's perfectly okay so I think we have to be careful because sometimes subjective things just get pushed too far you know I could hear I could hear lots of people taking what we're talking about right now and saying oh see there's parts of the Bible that really probably shouldn't even be there and so now you're going to tear apart the Bible and they're either going to come down on see the Bible can't be trusted or you shouldn't do what you're doing because you know this is this is really bad for the you know God's Foundation I'd like to think it's okay to talk about right right you know um and it scares me a little bit of where we might end up because I like my Black and Whites like everybody else sure be so much easier if God hadn't allowed it this way but then I I feel that way about a lot of things in life yeah yeah you know so it's maybe no different than that um again ring thoughts no those are great thoughts you know that that idea that um are um of theological statements statements of of Faith are are updated um and the there has been quite a shift uh even in the Evangelical Comm the um Evangelical scholarship the the number of Evangelical Scholars who um will talk about issues like this who will talk about Ellie who and and now say yes it's probably um a a a different author that is uh Behind These ell who speeches than the the rest of the The Book of Job um I I think when the Chicago statement of inherency was being formed um that was a a big no no you can't can't do that and now um I I think most probably Evangelical Scholars who are writing on on this subject are are saying yeah it's a this is a possibility they they may take a position that you know I I'm arguing for a single author for this and this this reason but I can see I can see why you would make okay you know I can I can respect th those Scholars those Evangelical Scholars who would disagree with me right I wonder what the biblical Scholars said that were at that Chicago meaning you know I guess you know we we again we briefly talked about that but I I just I I wonder if um what they had to say if they just kind of you know Ms the word you know sure sure is it yeah because there there were a Biblical scholar one of the things that we talked about before here is that uh there there were um conservative Evangelical Hebrew Bible scholars who knew their stuff they they know their stuff they they um were top of the field that in in that day um and would would have been familiar with the you know the thing many of the things that I'm presenting uh in these podcasts are ideas that are not it's not hey look at what's happening in biblical Scholarship today and right now and Cutting Edge this is stuff that is is just hey this is stuff that we have wrestled with and had in you know um knowledge about and been talking about um for a century now um and yeah let's uh talk about it in and per perhaps uh bring it into the The Wider conversation of the Evangelical Community to be able to to not be um taken back by you know my uh concern is for those you know teenagers who are going off to college who sit in our you know in introductions to the the Old Testament you know who who then have a professor who is talking to them about elih who and showing them the stuff in in the same way that where where you looked at and say wow that's convincing but when you have someone who is then um antithetical to the Bible showing this the same information right to to with with another aim in in mind and so my My Hope Is is to to to be able to kind of strengthen our our minds to strengthen our um interactions with uh the the Bible and be able to wrestle with some of this stuff Eyes Wide Open yeah yeah well I I think um I'm not sure how I would have reacted um 50 55 years ago hearing stuff like this you know I think my mind was much more of a mind of mush go ahead you know fill it you know and whatever you tell me you know I'll I'll believe and had you told me some of these things um I think it would have needed to be done in a very uh careful very um um not sure what the word is but um you can't just kind of say it and run um there would have needed to be a dialogue and here's what some of the implications are and um and so um uh Yeah it's you're right I didn't learn it in Sunday school but even now in retirement um it just causes me to um bristle a little bit think through I've always consider myself a thinking Christian I'm not going to put my head in the sand um and so um that's that's part of our friendship and dialogue over the years has been to to think through and talk through stuff and so um I appreciate it well I certainly appreciate you Brad and appreciate uh talking through this and and I hopefully this is this is helpful for our our audience who are hearing some of these things and again the idea with these Pastor Reflections um is is to say yeah some of this stuff hearing it is is jarring and that doesn't need to be a cause for uh crisis of Faith or a cause for great um con concern in the church but this is things that you know SE seminarians have have known for years have been teaching in seminaries for years uh even even though they haven't uh played out necessarily um in in the pews as as much and uh that that certainly is not necessarily the the place for them but uh to to be familiar with them um and to to be able now that we have um more uh podcasts uh that that are coming out uh from a um with some some negative goals in mind um or or some uh attacks against the the the church um presenting some of this this type of information I I think it's helpful to be able to to to look at it and to to walk through it um again W eyes wide open and uh say saying hey yeah we can we can talk talk through this and and and we still um we still love the Bible we still love Jesus and we we still um believe in our Everlasting hope right good words good words so um well well thank you all and uh we will be be back I'm I'm sure with with another episode um soon so [Music]