Bumby Bible Questions 4

Introduction

Well, good morning. It’s that time again. We start with a piece of advice this morning. Uh, and that is if you want your month to fly by, schedule a question and answer on one Sunday of the month. It just seems like it gets here much quicker than it ought to. Uh but that’s not a bad thing, not to mean we dread it. We looking, we look forward to it. And we want to say, Greg, and I want to say how much we appreciate your participation in this. We’ve received a lot of questions, a lot of good questions, and we appreciate that. And I need to say one word about that. Is that one negative about this, if we could call it a negative, is when you get a number of questions which we have and which we want, that means it may be a while before we get to your question, though.

1. The Many Saints Raised at the Death of Jesus

Uh if we do three or four questions a month, you do the math, it takes a while to get through twenty or thirty questions. And so we say that to say, if you’ve submitted a question and we haven’t answered it yet, uh, please be patient. We’ll get to it. Uh we have them on our list. We’re trying to go through them as we’ve received them pretty much. And some of the questions we’re going to do just the entire sermons on because there’s just so much material there. Uh but again, we appreciate the questions, we appreciate the positive feedback, and solicit more questions. Keep them coming. We we certainly appreciate that. All right, that gets the introduction out of the way. How about question number one? Please explain the passage about the many saints who are raised from the dead at the death of Jesus.

So, of course, if you look in Matthew chapter 27, a little talked-about part of the resurrection and crucifixion story of Jesus. Involves Matthew chapter 27, beginning in verse 50. And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. So our question is about that last part in verse 52 and 53 in particular. What is the story of those resurrected saints? Of those many saints who had fallen asleep.

One is when you see many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. The word many is important because it does not mean all.

Here. Coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Of course, by reading verse 50 first, we see that Jesus had cried out with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. He had just died. And of course, we know his resurrection was not immediate, it was three days later. So the question becomes, when were these many saints raised? Well, if you look at verse 53 and just kind of take it at face value, they were raised after his resurrection. Not only is that what the text plainly says, it would go with the idea of Jesus being raised from the dead as well. If Jesus can conquer death, then now, because of that, we can, saints can too.

Jesus had to be first, both for the grammar of the verse and also for the meaning of the inverse of the verses. The impact that’s to be had is to recognize that it was many and that they left the tomb after the resurrection. So, of course, then the question is what do we do with this passage is kind of weird, kind of unique. Yeah, and as Greg said, the timing of this, we don’t know exactly all the mechanics or the logistics of what had happened, but we might could speculate that that earthquake that happened at the cross possibly opened the tombs. Remember, the tombs in these days would have been above-ground tombs, not burial sites like we normally think of today. And so maybe that earthquake at his death opened up some of those tombs, and then on that third day when Jesus was resurrected, then some of those, many of those saints, were resurrected as well.

And then again, as Greg said, according to verse 53, coming out of the tombs after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many. A couple things about that appearance of these dead saints. Can you imagine? I don’t know that we can’t imagine what that would have been like to have seen these saints. Now, were these recently dead saints? Are we talking about Old Testament saints? Again, we don’t know. But either one would have been absolutely astounding. And remember that this is really just a miracle. And it would have accomplished what other miracles accomplished. It would have raised questions. What is this? Who did this? How is this possible? What is the meaning of this? And certainly, like the other events that happened at the death of Christ, it would have been to produce faith and draw attention to the message that was going to shortly be preached about the death, burial, and the resurrection of Christ.

And so to kind of sum it up, it seems that those were raised after, not just the death, but at the resurrection of Christ, and it would have been an awe-inspiring event. And like many texts, though, there’s a lot about this we don’t know. We don’t know again exactly all the timing, all of the logistics of this. We don’t know what would have happened to these saints after they were raised. We assume that at some point they would have gone back to the tomb where they resided. But it shows, as Greg said, the power of his death and certainly the powerful impact of his resurrection. And that would have been an attention-getting point that certainly those in the first century would have seen. One other thing to point out before we transition into another question and to set up a future question this morning.

Imagine the impact this would have on those who lived in that area. Imagine the confirmation that this would show that when the apostles went out and preached, they weren’t even only preaching the resurrection of Jesus, but that these people in this area at this time saw other saints resurrected, people they knew, people they loved. This was a strong testimony that the apostles and the first century teachers would not only have been around for, but would have had to answer for if this was made up. So this is a powerful statement that really puts them out on a ledge. If it’s not true, it would debunk what they’re teaching. And if it was, it would be that powerful truth and that revelation of what they were teaching and yes, what they were writing as well.

2. What Is a Christian Worldview?

And certainly it teaches for us today that it’s, as Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 points out, that our bodily resurrection is based upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And so his resurrection wasn’t just a singular event. It had an effect upon others and will obviously have a tremendous effect upon all of us on that day when we’ll be raised from the dead. Alright, good question. Question number two is what are people referring to when they talk about a Christian world view? Now, my observation, this is a relatively new phrase that’s out there, not a new concept, but a new phrase when you hear people talk about that this person has a Christian worldview or they’re viewing things through that Christian worldview lens. And so the questioner simply wants to know what that means and what’s being talked about there.

We’re going to look at a couple different passages. One of them is in Colossians chapter 3. Colossians chapter 3, the first two verses. If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things that are above, not on things that are on the earth. Of course, some of you even have another passage that kind of gives the other side of the equation. Yeah, the distinction between really the two worldviews, the Christian worldview, and then the worldly worldview. First John 2, verses 15 through 17 says, Do not love the world are the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

For all that is in the world, the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, and whoever does the will of God abides forever. So in those two verses, we kind of see two different views, if you will, of life. And so the question on what is a Christian worldview could go a million directions. But the direction we are going to take it is what would the Bible teach? What would the Bible reveal about the necessity of and even the definition of a Christian worldview? So this is not how it will be used politically speaking, it is not how it will be used by people who are against Christians.

Just what would it mean to have a biblical or Christian worldview? And from those verses, we see it would be to view the world and to make everyday decisions with the mindset of, first and foremost, and arguably only to please God. A Christian worldview is to please Christ, to please the Father who created us, who made us, the God and the Jesus who were involved in raising Christians from the dead, who worked miracles, who are working for and allowing us to live for that future resurrection. One other passage to look at on this, I think is in 2 Corinthians chapter 5. If there was one passage that gave the positive idea in a little bit more lengthy span than Colossians, it’d be in 2 Corinthians chapter 5.

If you look beginning in verse 6 in particular, 2 Corinthians chapter 5 and verse 6. So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body, we are away from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

So a Christian worldview is not even just simply pleasing God, putting him first, but a longing and a desire to please and to be with that creator, that maker. That’s a very different mindset than somebody who goes in the world and kind of does what they would like. Living every morning, living every afternoon, every evening, thinking, what does God want me to do with my time? How does God want me to view this current event? How can I be most pleasing to God and beneficial to his will today? That’s very different than a go with the flow, non-Christian worldview. That Ken’s going to kind of give a little bit more information on. Yeah, the other side of that would be, as we said, what we might call a worldly worldview or an evolution evolutionistic or humanistic worldview that starts with the assumption that there is no God.

If we start with that assumption, that changes everything about the way we view life, the way we treat one another, the way we conduct our own life. We saw there in 1 John chapter 2, the love of the world that stands in opposition to the love of God to that Christian worldview, taints and changes everything. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride or the vainglory of life, that’s going to be our worldview. That’s going to be the kind of the assumption that we begin with. And so we really have two different worldviews or two different ways of looking at the world. And both of them start with a foundation or really with an assumption based upon our faith. We either believe there’s a God who created everything and expects and demands certain things of us.

And if that’s our view, then that’s going to affect the way we see things and the way we conduct our lives. But if we begin with the assumption, again, still based on faith, that there is no God, and that life began just as chance, and when we die, that’s it. It’s over. Obviously, that’s going to change our worldview. And if I can insert a little commentary here, I think we see the results of that in our world. Whether we’re talking about a school shooting, whether we’re talking about abortion, whether we’re talking about crime and hate, it all stems from people not having this, what we might call a Christian worldview, not having the love of the Father in us. And so there’s hopefully a good explanation, or at least an explanation, of what a Christian worldview is and why we should have it.

3. Are There Books Missing From Our Bibles?

So our big time-taking question this morning is: are there books missing? Notice that that is in quotation marks from our Bibles. Are there books missing from our Bibles? This question again could go a million directions, and this time we’re going to indulge that a little bit and go a few of those different directions. But keep in mind that in our Old Testament and New Testament, it’s a very different story and very different discussion of do we have all of the Old Testament books? And we’ll talk about that. And do we have all of the New Testament books? And we will certainly talk about that. But the question is when I look at my Bible and I see these 66 books or the canon, do I have everything that God intended for me to have?

And if not, why not? And perhaps most to the point, why do some people, like those who generally are in a practicing Catholic faith, have a different list of books in what they call their Bible? What do we do about those quote-unquote missing books? Maybe a good place to start here is with some definitions. There are some words that we may use in our discussion this morning, or that you might read if you read some material on this, and it’s always good to kind of have some definitions. And some of these are words, probably all of these are words that you don’t use on a regular basis, and some of them are kind of difficult. The first, and Greg’s already used this word, is the word canon.

Canon is used here to simply means the recognized books of the Bible. Whether that’s done on an individual basis or whether some group of people have gotten together and say, this, our Bible has 66 books. We recognize these 66 books and none other as being the inspired word of God. So the canon just simply means those recognized books are the books that we have collected in our Bible. Then there’s two words that are many times used of the books that are not included in our Bible. One word is the word apocryphal. You’ll hear about the apocryphal books. In fact, some of the books that the Catholic books that the Catholics have in their Old Testament that would not be in your Old Testament are of these apocryphal books.

And apocryphal simply means of doubtful or questionable authenticity. That means we don’t really know that they’re real. We don’t really know if, in fact, we strongly believe, based upon the evidence, that they are not the inspired Word of God. In fact, they may not even have been written when they claim to have been written. And those are what we refer to as apocryphal books. The other category that’s really a subset of apocryphal is the pseudopigraphal. A pseudopigrapha simply means an ascription of a false authorship to a book. That’s a lot of big words there. It simply means that somebody wrote a book and claimed they were someone else. For example, if if if I wrote a book that said my life by Greg Klein, and I made up some stuff about Greg’s childhood, about Greg’s life, and I signed the book, Greg Klein, that would be a pseudo pigrapha, a false authorship.

I claim to be somebody and have some knowledge that I didn’t have. And many times these books that are so-called missing or rejected from the canon fall into this category that they they claim to be somebody, but the evidence, the overwhelming evidence, is you’re not really that person. You wrote a book claiming to be that person, but you’re really not. And so those are some terms that we see that I think maybe will be helpful in understanding these so-called missing books of the Bible. If we think about why, why are there 66 books in our Bible and not 67 or 68 or 75? Why is the canon what it is? I think we can really narrow it down to three compelling reasons. There may be more, but but in our opinion, three big reasons to accept the Bible as we have it in our hands right now, to accept these 66 books and to reject any others that might be out there that might be claiming or not claiming to be the inspired word of God.

4. Faith in God’s Providential Care

The first reason is kind of a big picture reason, and that is that I think we have a faith in God’s providential care. That if God went to such great lengths to inspire these prophets and apostles to write down with precision the very words of God, would he not also exercise the same care in making sure that that work has been preserved and is not corrupted by material that simply shouldn’t be there? If we look at some passages of Scripture that talk about this kind of providential care, I think a good place to start is in the book of Isaiah. This passage is quoted in the New Testament to talk about God’s care for his word. But in Isaiah chapter 40 and in verse 8, notice the statement there.

Actually, let’s back up to verse 7. Isaiah chapter 40, and in verse 7 says, the grass withers, the flower fades, because the breath of the Lord blows upon it. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever. Now the prophet may be talking about what God says is true, and it’s going to stand as true, but surely there’s an application there also that God is going to preserve his word. If his word is true, and those words are life to us, is God not going to see to it through his providential care that that word would endure throughout generations. If we look in the New Testament at Matthew chapter 24, the words of Jesus. Matthew chapter 24 and in verse uh 35.

Notice what our Lord says. Of his own words, he says, Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away. Again, surely Jesus is saying, My words are true, what I’m saying will come to pass. But surely also there’s a meaning there is that my words are going to endure. Uh, and God is going to see to it that they endure. And of course, we’re all familiar with the passage that of Paul’s uh instructions to Timothy in 2 Timothy chapter 3 and verses 16 and 17 that the the scriptures are inspired, or God breathe, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness’ sake. And again, if that’s the case, will God not see to it that those words uncorrupted would be preserved to 2018 so that you and I can know the will of God, that we can be instructed and corrected and reproved in his word.

And so one of the compelling reasons, the big picture compelling reason, is surely God is involved in preserving and keeping his word intact for us today. And that reason really cuts through any type of argument or discussion on what book should or shouldn’t be included, because it doesn’t matter what group of people or what scholar would do it if you trust that God’s providential hand is guiding the process. And if his hand was significant enough to move the Israelites throughout all their history to move all the New Testament writers to write their New Testament books as inspired by God, then there’s no reason to believe God couldn’t work through anybody he so chose to. And so any explanation that’s given, as long as you accept that God is God and providentially could take care of his word, that stands.

5. Already Acceptance by Early Believers

But we are going to go a little bit deeper and try to see at least some compelling reasons to accept the books, and not just that God would guide them, which is the overarching most important fundamental point. But also when it comes to, for example, the New Testament, we can see that there was already acceptance by early believers. Pretty much any good authentic type of dating of the New Testament works says they were all completed by 100 AD. And to some people that’s even way later than they would give, maybe maybe even by a few decades. But many think John’s works were done in the 80s and 90s A.D. But even with that given, that means the New Testament was written in its completion by 100 AD.

There’s a couple of important reasons for us to look at that fact and to take it to heart. One of those is when other books come along and claim to be part of the New Testament, but they were written 50 to 100 to 200 years later, it doesn’t rule them out. But do you see why that would cast some doubt? If all 27 books were written by 100 AD, possibly earlier, and then this one book or these two books come along a hundred or two hundred years later, the question would be, why were they needed? Did they contain something the first century Christians and saints didn’t need? Does it contain something they didn’t know? And also, why would God work in that way? Again, it doesn’t disprove it, but it does begin to cast some doubt.

And by the way, let me stop for a moment here and say, while we’re addressing the New Testament, there’s a strong reason for that. When it comes to the Old Testament, and you certainly read in the New Testament, how many of the apostles constantly, and Paul in particular, constantly are quoting from the Old Testament? The Jews had an accepted canon of what we call the Old Testament that was comprised of, depending on what number you pull, 22 or 24 books. And all of a sudden warning signs go off, right? Well, we have 39. Why did the Jews have 22? Why did they have 24? Well, they would combine books in a way that would still amount to our 39. The quickest example I can give is if you look in your Old Testament or you look at the table of contents, you’ll see Ezra and Nehemiah as separate books.

But the Jews considered Ezra and Nehemiah one book. And so when in the first century, the apostles like Paul and Peter are quoting from the Old Testament scriptures. They are quoting from the same Old Testament collection or canon that we have in our Bibles today. The Old Testament is a much more open and shut case because the question becomes do you trust third, fourth, fifth century Christians who are compiling the Old Testament? Or do you trust the Jews to have compiled the Jewish Old Testament or the Hebrew law? It becomes pretty obvious based on those who were living in the first century what they used. And secondly, who would you trust with the Hebrew Old Testament? The Hebrews. It makes sense that the Old Testament’s a little more open and shut.

So we’re going to kind of key in at this point a little bit more on some New Testament books. And the question becomes what about all these different councils that met? The Council of Hippo, the Council of Carthage, that happened third, fourth, fifth century? Were they making the 27 books of the New Testament canon? Or is there any evidence that points to, we already kind of understood what the canon was. And the good news is, as the slide above us says, you see where Ken and I stand on this, that there was evidence as early as kind of 150 to 190 or so A.D. that there was canon recognized. And let me say two things about that. First of all, that there was canon recognized at all, tells us that anybody who comes along 100 years later, 2,000 years later, if they say that something’s true, what can you check it against?

The evidence that’s already written. You can’t go back any race history, although some people try to do that in arguments. We have some evidence that says there was already a canon being formed and in complete formation by even 200 AD. And of course, some people will come back and they’ll say, well, they really had 26 books or 25 books in the New Testament. Keep in mind that today, if you went to Barnes and Noble and picked up a Bible off the shelf, if you grabbed a Bible like I’m holding, and then your next grab was a Catholic Bible, they would not have the same amount of books. So if you judge by today’s standards, you’d say, in 2018, they didn’t know how many books should go in the Bible.

But that doesn’t mean that nobody knows. It means there’s a difference of opinion. The question is, has it ever been compiled and put together in a reliable way? And the answer is there is evidence that says yes. Just because people disagree or try to go back and leave out these parts of history, doesn’t mean that it’s true. And so when we start seeing this evidence, it becomes more and more compelling that by the close of the second century, even, that there wasn’t just a disputed canon, a close New Testament canon, but one that was pretty well recognized the same way that we would hold it today. And that’s really fascinating because there was a lot of books floating around from that hundred years later, fifty years later period that would have to come up and be analyzed and say, look, is this real?

Is this part of the pseudo epigrapha? Is this a false work? Is this just a good teaching book? And so one of the things we want to think about is what are these missing books and how do we examine them? That becomes crucially important. But first we’re going to look at some evidence that people in the first, second, and third century, how they would view this topic, how they would view this struggle. Here’s a quote from biblical scholar B. F. Westcott, and his here is his uh conclusion, which is the agreed conclusion by many scholars. He says, from the close of the second century, the history of the canon is simple, and it’s proof clear. It’s allowed even by those who have reduced the genuine apostolic works to the narrowest limits, that from the time of Iranius, the New Testament composed essentially of the same books which we receive at the present.

And that they were regarded with the same reverence as is now shown to them. He goes on to say, all the fathers at the close of the second century agree in appealing to the testimony of antiquity as proving the authenticity of the books which they used as Christian scripture. And the appeal was made at a time when it was easy to try its words. Let’s try to break down what he’s saying there is is that he’s saying as early as just a hundred years after the completion of the writing of the books, that it was pretty much settled as to which books would have been accepted. Now we don’t accept them because they accept them necessarily, but what great evidence that here’s somebody that’s just maybe one generation away from the Apostle John, who says, that is an inspired work of God.

Those people who maybe some of them were actually students of John and some of these later apostles that were saying these are the books that are the books of the recognized books of the canon of the New Testament. That’s again, not we don’t base our faith upon their opinion, but that’s pretty compelling evidence that those so closely related to the scene and the actual eyewitnesses accepted those same books that we accept today. So when it comes to evidence, as we’re going through these three compelling reasons, again, the one that undergirds them all, the foundational principle that we have to know and believe is that God can take care of his word. And if that’s true, then when we start putting together evidence that we see, again, it doesn’t necessitate that it was right or necessitate that our Bible is 100% right, but you start seeing the odds and probability go much higher.

6. Missing Books Show Why They Are Missing

I liken it often to the idea of flipping a coin. How many times in a row do you feel comfortable flipping a coin and getting head every single time? Eventually, as the evidence mounts, it becomes more and more unavoidable to reach certain conclusions. And so the question then is no longer, why did we come up with the books we did. The question is, what about those quote unquote missing books that are out there for the New Testament canon? Something like the Gospel of Thomas, for example. And we’ll see that there’s compelling reasons to reject them, and the first and perhaps most important point we can make this morning is that an examination of those missing books shows why they are missing. That’s a critically important idea.

Because if you’re going to say there are missing books out there, don’t ever be wiped off your feet or knocked down if somebody says, Well, why don’t you have the Gospel of Thomas? Or why don’t you have these gospels? The question is not why don’t we have these books? The question is why would we? What is the evidence that says this work that’s out there is authentic, is inspired, and was always viewed a necessity and a necessary part of our New Testament canon. What says that it belongs here? I don’t have to prove why it doesn’t. Someone else has to first prove why it does belong. That’s a critical distinction because it gets you off of defense, off of offense, excuse me, and then on to just defense.

Then you can say, please, if you think this is an inspired work, let me read it. And when you do, you’re going to see that there’s a lot of problems with that. And what some of those problems, just to name a few, are blatant errors, blatant biblical contradictions, and many different anachronisms, different things that were said out of their time, out of what would be logical for when it was written. And again, you go back, for example, with the Gospel of Thomas being written in around 150 to 200 AD. Why would that one gospel book be written 50 to 100 years later? Why wasn’t it added for all these years? You start flipping the coin, right? Why was it so late? Why did no one accept it?

Why are there all these anachronisms in it? How many times do you feel comfortable flipping a coin and landing on heads? The evidence begins to be overwhelming, that there is a reason not only that they aren’t included, but that they might not even be responsible works. And keep in mind that just like with the Old Testament, even with the New Testament, even if a book is good, has good, true information, and is helpful, does not mean it’s inspired by God. There are many workbooks we use as a congregation in our Bible classes all the time that contain much good information. But that doesn’t mean they’re inspired by God. They are tools for help. That’s where we see a lot of problems in the Old Testament distinction.

Is this a good religious commentary or is it inspired by God? That’s an incredibly high bar to reach. For somebody to prove that a book is inspired by God, it would have to be perfect. It perhaps would have that claim, and it would by no means be full of errors, contradictions, or anachronisms. We’re going to look at a couple quotes that kind of illustrate Greg’s point there. But before we do, let’s make this point that the New Testament books, this could be said at the Old Testament as well, but focusing now upon the New Testament. The New Testament books didn’t become authoritative or a part of our canon because they were formerly included in the canon. They were included in the canon because they were regarded as inspired.

Let me explain that a little bit. We don’t accept these books because somebody else said they’re in there. They’re in there because they were compelling reasons for them to be in there. And we don’t reject those so called missing books, which, by the way, they’re not really missing, they’re just not included in our Bible. We don’t reject them because somebody else has rejected them. We reject them the same reason somebody else rejected them. It’s because they just didn’t pass the test. And I’m going to use a big scholarly term here. If we look at those non-canonical books, like the Gospel of Thomas, for instance, if you just it’s one thing to say that ought to be in our Bible. It’s another thing to actually read the book.

And when you do that, again, here’s this deep theological technical term I’m going to use here. When you do that, they really just don’t pass the smell test. You look at them, you read them, and you go, okay, I see why that’s not in our Bible. And let’s look at a couple quotes from the Gospel of Thomas, one of those so-called missing books or pseudopigraphal, apocryphal books. And we’re just taking two quotes out of, and there’s others that we could include, by the way, from the Gospel of Thomas, that I think we show that just contradict what other statements in the New Testament say and are just plain strange. Here’s a couple quotes from the Gospel of Thomas. Simon Peter said to them, Let Mary, this is Mary Magdalene, let Mary go out from among us because women are not worthy of the life.

Now again, if you read that and you think, does that line up with what we read about in the rest of the New Testament? Where the Apostle Paul says there’s neither male nor female, where Jesus had fellowship with these women and included them in his circle. We go even stranger than that here again, according to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said, See, I shall lead her so that I will make her male, that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven. And so I think those two quotes are sufficient to say, it’s one thing to say, why isn’t that book in our Bible? And I guess our advice would be, okay, you go read it.

And then tell us why it should be in our Bible. And then you’d probably come back and say, okay, I read it and I get it. Those quotes just have absolutely no truth in them. Not because we don’t like them, and we reject them as being strange and sexist, but they don’t have truth in them because they don’t line up with the truth that’s otherwise presented in the New Testament. And that’s just a small glimpse of one of these books, but it really kind of shows a pattern of why it’s almost universally accepted. Those books aren’t inspired. They don’t really belong in our Bibles.

Conclusion

The men were smart enough not to put their hands down. As you see from this study, there’s many compelling reasons, and we just touched the tip of the iceberg. We just want to give an inkling of a reaction so that when somebody brings these questions to you, not so that you have a once-for-all answer, but go back and research this and see that the glory of God and his providence is all over his word. And we can take great confidence in reading and knowing we have what he says, and the challenge left for us is not do we have it, but do we practice what’s in there? Can we say a word of prayer as we begin to dismiss? Sure. Let us pray. Our dear God and Father, we trust your power and your care for us.

And we’re so thankful, Father, that that power and care has been exercised and communicating your will to us. And we believe, Father, that you have preserved that word so that when we read today, that we’re reading your words and your will for our lives. And we thank you and love you for that, Father. We’re so thankful that we have that word that alters our view of this world. That we can see things through the prism of your love and through eternity. We’re so thankful, Father, that we have the hope of the resurrection based upon Christ’s death and resurrection, that we too can hope that our tombs will be opened and that we’ll raise one day to be with you for eternity. Thank you for your love.

Thank you for your care. Thank you for our faith and our hope. Keep us strong. Keep us in your tender care. And keep us in your love. In Christ’s name we pray. Amen.