The Amazing Truth of the Bible

Selected Scriptures

     Now, in recent weeks we have stated clearly and with great confidence the belief that the Bible is God's revealed inspired Word.  The historic Christian faith is built upon the confidence that this Book is God-breathed.  And that particular point we have endeavored to establish now for several weeks.

     It is infallible.  That is, it does not lead to error.  It does not lead to wrong conclusions.  It does not teach erroneous doctrine.  It is also inerrant.  That means in the smallest part, each word, there is no error in the original manuscript.  And it is authoritative.  That means what it says is binding on the lives of all.

     And I'd like to add to that that it is trustworthy.  The Bible is believable.  The strongest objective support for Biblical inspiration and authority is the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.  That's the strongest objective testimony.  The greatest witness to the truth of the Bible that ever lived was Jesus Christ.  If Jesus said it's true, it's true.  That's the greatest support.  There can be no more reliable witness to the nature of Scripture than the one who died and rose to be the Savior, Jesus Christ.  The Lord Jesus Christ rules His church by His Spirit and by His Word.  This is the divine authority.  He Himself has said so.

     And recently, though, there has been a rather destructive heresy that has crept into Christianity, and that is the heresy that says the Bible contains errors.  If something is taught in Scripture, they tell us, it may or may not be true.  It may be true, but, then again, it may not be true.  In other words, Scripture isn't really a basis for believing anything.  It just might be a basis.  And, as we've said in the last several weeks, if you say that there are some things that aren't true, then who judges what is and what isn't?  And once you've let the cat out of the bag, you're finished, because then men become the arbitrary deciders of what's in and what's out.

     You see, in history past, we had an interesting thing.  You study the history of the church, for the most part, and you find this, that in the history of the church in the past years, it was the skeptics versus the Christians.  I mean, it was pretty clearly drawn.  The skeptics said, "The Bible's not true.  It contains errors."  The Christians said, "It is true.  It does not contain errors." 

     But recently it's the Christians against the Christians.  And I use the word "Christian" in one sense, at least, advisedly.  It's the so-called Christians against the true Christians.  And maybe some critics of Biblical inerrancy are really born again.  That even adds greater dimension to the miracle of the new birth.  But today we not only have to fight the skeptics outside theology, we've got to fight people who call themselves Christians and go around propagating the fact that the Bible has errors. 

     The very integrity of Jesus Christ rests on the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration, that is, that in total, this is the inspired Word of God, and in every word it is the inspired Word of God.  That is the doctrine that Jesus believed in.  And if Jesus believed it, His integrity is at stake.  We either have a divine Savior and an infallible Bible, or neither.  Not a divine Savior and an errant Bible, because He said it was without error.

     Now, the critics of inspiration usually bring up three areas of problems, and we're going to look at the Word of God and see if we can answer them.  Number one, they say the Bible is not inspired because it disclaims inspiration.  In other words, at places in the Scripture it denies that it is inspired.  They say there are passages which clearly disdain inspiration. 

     You say, "What passage?"  The one they always point to is I Corinthians 7.  Let's look at it, and let's see whether it disclaims inspiration.  I Corinthians, chapter 7.  Now, here, Paul the apostle distinguishes between his instruction and the Lord's instruction.  And, at first glance, he seems to be perhaps saying that some of his writings are not inspired.  But as you look closer, you're going to find that just the reverse is true.  Look at I Corinthians 7, verse 6. 

     I Corinthians 7:6, and here's one of the disclaimers that the critics and modernists use.  Paul says, "But I speak this by permission, not by commandment."  They say, "Now, you see, there Paul is saying that this is not something that comes authoritatively from God, that here he's giving his opinion.  It's just a matter of his opinion.  It is not anything that's inspired of God."  Is that what he's saying? 

     Well, look what he's saying.  "I speak this by way of permission," is the literal translation, "not by commandment."  Now, what he's saying is simply this.  "I am permitting you to do something, but I am not," what?  "Commanding you to do it."  Now, that seems very simple.  "I am speaking to you by way of permission, not of commandment.  I am not commanding you to do something.  I am simply allowing you to do it."  What is the something?  Being married is the something. 

     Now, he's talking here about marriage.  He says in verse 2, "Let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband."  Now, if it stopped there, we'd be in trouble, because all the single people in the church would be living in open disobedience.  So he says a little further down, "Now, folks, I want you to know that God wants to permit you to be married, but it isn't something that you have to do." 

     In fact, he kind of even backs off of it a little ways.  It's kind of interesting.  He says, "I would that all men were even like I am, but every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner and another after that.  I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, it's good for them if they abide even as I." 

     And Paul was single.  You know, for him it was an advantage.  Can you imagine if he had a wife at this point?  He may have at one time, but the poor woman would've been driven to distraction by his absence.  I mean, and she would have been worried to death, because he was forever in a particularly difficult problem.

     So he said, "If you're unmarried or a widow, that's great.  Stay that way.  But if they can't have self-control, let them marry.  For it's better to marry than to burn."  Now, you can argue about what the "burn" means.  I think the interpretation is to burn with passion.  Some of us have to get married, or we get in trouble.  In other words, we're made with needs that demand a partner.

     So all Paul is saying in this passage is, "Look, when I said in verse 2, 'Let every man have his own wife,' and then went on to talk about marriage, I am merely saying that this God allows, but it is not that I am commanding this, because if you're single and God has that gift for you, terrific.  You can be like I am, and you won't have the encumbrances of life that a married person has.  But, if you can't have self-control, get married."  That's practical.  But if you look at it in the context, is it a disclaimer to inspiration?  It has nothing to do with that.

     They pull another one out of here, too.  I Corinthians 7:10, "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord."  Now look at verse 12.  "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."  Now the critics say, "You see?  In one verse he says it's the Lord.  In another verse he says it's not the Lord, it's just plain old me talking.  So, you see, there are parts of Scripture that are not inspired."

     Now, if Paul laid a disclaimer on inspiration in verse 12, how do we know that that isn't true of other places where he just gives his opinion?  Now, do you want to know why it is that, for example, in major denominations they can bypass all of the passages about women elders?  There is no such thing as a woman elder, incidentally, because an elder has to be the husband of one wife, so there couldn't be a woman elder.  But there are in some churches.  You say, "Well, how do they allow for a woman elder?"  It's very simple.  That was Paul's opinion.

     I mean, if Paul gave his opinion in I Corinthians 7, he gave his opinion somewhere else, we'll just take it as opinion and chuck it.  Now, you see how convenient that is?  You see, once you give in the ground here and agree that this is an opinion and not a commandment of God, or that this is something less than inspiration, then you've really opened the door, and every time they don't want to buy something, they just say it's an opinion.

     Why is it that in some of the major denominations you have some of the greatest movements of women to try to usurp authority in the church?  Women priests, arguing and hassling about whether they have the right to preach and perform communion, etc., etc.  You say, "Well, what do they do with the passages that say that that's for a man, and a woman is not to usurp authority?"  "That's an opinion.  That's Paul's opinion."

     See, once you allow for that, then it's gone.  And then you can say, "Well, that's his opinion.  Well, that's his opinion."  Pretty soon you've opinionized the Bible away.  And then all you've got left is the words of Jesus, and when He offers an opinion, it's binding.

     But what does it say?  You say, "You keep talking, MacArthur, but you don't tell me what it means."  All right, I'll tell you what it means.  I Corinthians 7:10, "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband."  What is he referring to?  He's saying that, "I am telling you something that didn't originate with me, it originated with the Lord.  I'm quoting Jesus."  And he quotes right out of Matthew 5:31-32.  "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband."

     And, of course, the statement of Jesus in Matthew 5:31-32 is what he refers to.  And what is the statement?  I'll read it to you.  Jesus simply said, "It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement, but I say unto you that whosoever shall put away his wife except for the cause of fornication causes her to commit adultery," etc.  In other words, Jesus said, "Stay together."  And apparently it even was broader than that.  And Paul is saying here, "I'm not telling you anything new.  I'm merely restating to you what Jesus said.  Stay married."

     You see, in the Old Testament, a divorce was relatively easy.  And Jesus came along and said, "I'm telling you that if you allow for a divorce under any other grounds than adultery, you cause the wife to commit adultery," and so forth.  And Paul's saying, "Now, when I say to you, 'Stay married,' it's not just me, but it's the Lord who commanded it."  Do you see what he's saying?

     Now, when you go to verse 12, "The rest speak I, not the Lord."  Now he says, "I'm no longer quoting Jesus.  I'm speaking."  It is not that he's saying, "I'm not inspired."  He is just saying, "I'm not quoting Jesus."  Jesus had already taught that marriage was to be permanent.  Divorce was permitted only for adultery.  And now, beginning in verse 12, Paul adds his own inspired teaching to the teaching that Jesus had already given.  He doesn't say, "I'm just gonna throw in my opinion."  He says, "No, the Lord taught that.  Now, let me add to what the Lord said."

     Friends, not only is he not minimizing his teaching.  He's putting it on an equal basis with the teaching of whom?  Of Jesus Himself.  Paul said, "The Lord commanded that.  Now I'm gonna tell you something.  This isn't something the Lord said.  This is new revelation."  "If a brother has a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.  And the woman who hath an husband that believeth not, if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him."  This is something Jesus never talked about. 

     What happens when one member of the family gets saved?  Paul says, "Stay together."  "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.  Else were your children unclean, but now they're holy.  But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart.  A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases." 

     Now, there's a potent statement.  Jesus said, "You will not be allowed to be divorced on any other grounds than," what?  Adultery.  Did you realize that Paul added another ground?  If an unbeliever wants out, let him what?  Depart.  You're not in bondage in such cases.

     You say, "You mean Paul added to the words of Jesus?  You mean Jesus made a qualification and Paul added to it another qualification on an equal basis?"  Absolutely.  There are two grounds for divorce in the New Testament, adultery and an unbeliever who will not live with a believer, who wants out.  He has the freedom to go, and you're not under bondage in such cases.  Because God has called us to peace.  God knows that if you're a Christian and there's no way that that partner is going to come to Christ, and he makes your life brutally miserable, that it's better for you to be separated, because God has called you to what?  Peace.  And so Paul actually adds a word to the word of Christ Himself. 

     And, incidentally, I'll say something else.  Do you know that in the Old Testament, in Ezra 10:11, in Ezra 10:11, the Scripture said, "Separate yourselves from foreign wives"?  Did you know that it said that in Ezra 10:11?  That the Jews were commanded at that point to separate from foreign wives?  Now, Paul, here, is stating something totally opposite, isn't he?  It's a new dispensation.  It's progressive revelation.  And Paul is saying, "I'm telling you, stay with an unbeliever unless that unbeliever absolutely rejects and wants out of the relationship.  If he departs, let him go."  So Paul actually reverses a statement in the Old Testament and adds to a statement of Jesus.

     Friends, this is not...this is not minimizing Paul's opinion.  This is putting his opinion on an equal basis with all Scripture, Old Testament and the word of Christ Himself.  So rather than disclaiming divine authority, he actually places his own commands on an equal basis with Old Testament Scripture and equal to the words of Jesus.  And you have to remember that things are qualified as we go through the Scripture.  It's progressively revealed.

     Let me give you another one.  Look at verse 25.  And here again they say the same thing.  "Well, see, here's his opinion."  "Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment."  And you say, "See, he's just giving his opinion again."  That is not his opinion.  He is simply saying, "Jesus didn't say anything about this area, but I will speak.  I don't hesitate to speak.  Though Jesus never said a word about it, I hasten to give my judgment." 

     You say, "It's just your opinion."  Look at verse 40, the end of the verse.  He concludes this whole discussion with this statement.  "I think also that I have," what?  "The Spirit of God."  This is not opinion, friends.  This is divine revelation.  Paul does not give his opinion.  He reveals the will and the mind of the Holy Spirit.  And he concludes the whole section with that statement. 

     So the disclaimers are not disclaimers at all.  They are actually the opposite.  And instead of disclaiming inspiration, Paul puts his own statements on an equal level with Old Testament Scripture, even superseding the principle of the Old Testament in Ezra 10:11 and on equal basis with Jesus Christ, even adding to the qualifications for divorce that our Lord Himself gave.

     Let me give you a second area.  The critics secondly say, "Well, the Bible is full of errors because of transmission trouble."  Now, some of you know about transmission trouble, but it isn't this kind.  "The Bible has problems in its transmission.  You see," they might say, "well, you fundamentalists are right, that the original autographs maybe were perfect."  And that's what we're saying.  When we say the Bible is verbally inspired and without error in its words, in every detail, we mean in the original autographs, the original copies. 

     And so they say, "You see, that's fine if you want to say that in the original.  But do you realize that the original was written thousands of years ago, and all down through the years people copied, copied, copied, copied, copied, copied, and there are all kinds of mistakes in there, and we don't know what we've got in this Bible?  I mean, this thing is so far away from the original, it's ridiculous.  What gives us the idea that this is accurate, like the original was?"

     And, incidentally, there are no original manuscripts left.  Do you know why?  Because somebody'd put them up somewhere and bow down to them, believe me.  They're gone.  So the critics say, "We have no accurate manuscripts."  This was a hue and cry a few years back.  "The preservation and circulation of Scriptures cannot be guaranteed.  We don't know whether they are accurate.  How do we know that this Bible we hold in our hands that's written in English has any relationship to the original thousands of years of ago?  Scribes may have messed it up all the way down the line."  That's a good, fair criticism, if it's a criticism, indeed.

     Let me just add a few thoughts to that.  The Bible was written originally by its writers.  Then a process of copying began.  The original scrolls were copied by scribes.  That's what scribes were.  Copiers.  And scribes believed that they were copying the Word of God, and they were super-careful.  They had specially trained and dedicated men, who took on them the copying process.  They had principles of checking and rechecking.  Long and painful work, a demanding, extreme care was their lot for their lifetime.  And they were lifetime scribes.

     It is said of Ezra, who was a scribe, that he could recite the Old Testament word perfect from beginning to end.  And they knew it as God's Holy Word, and they wanted it reproduced as such.  Christian scholars even in the Christian era have taken to the study of manuscripts with as great an intensity, perhaps, in many cases.  The scribes were careful because they believed the very words they dealt with were the words of God.

     Let me add this.  It is exciting to realize that, in the opinion of most scholars today, aside from a few skeptics who haven't checked it out, in the opinion of most scholars, the text that you hold in your hands right now is practically identical to the original.  That's no problem for me.  If God is powerful enough and intelligent enough to write it, He certainly can take care of it.

     Do you realize that your Bible that you hold in your hand, though it is an ancient book, has been established with greater certainty than any other ancient book in existence?  The Bible has more manuscript evidence, and by that I mean this, they have found copies of the Bible on scrolls and parchments and papers all over the place, and the more they find, the more agreement they find. 

     And they have a scribe over here in one century cranking it all out, and they find that parchment.  Here's another one over here in another parchment.  And they bring them together, and they're identical, and out of two different cultures in two different time periods by two different men who never met.  And they say somewhere the source has maintained its purity, because everybody's coming up with the same copies.  That's a powerful point.

     A.T. Robertson, who's a great scholar, said this, and I quote, "There are some 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin, and at least 1,000 for the other early versions.  Add to that 4,000 Greek manuscripts, and we have 13,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament.  And all 13,000 essentially agree."  That's exciting.  God has preserved it.  This shows the pure preservation of Scripture.  Thirteen thousand manuscripts written in different periods, different origins, from all different areas and by all different men in all different periods of time, agree.

     In the New Testament, for example, textual scholars who study all these manuscripts find there are certain areas of human errata.  That means error, mistakes.  And the scribe copying may get a letter wrong, or there may be some kind of an inverted word order or something like that.  They have found that there are certain things.  But it is less than one word in every thousand.  In fact, one out of every 1,580 words in the Old Testament has any kind of configuration that varies with another one in another manuscript.

     Listen to this, quoting from Morris, "Although there are varying readings in the manuscripts, over 99 percent of the variations are spelling."  Spelling.  I mean, we can understand if a guy didn't spell too well.  Over 99 percent of all the errors are spelling mistakes.  Friends, that's exciting.  Less than 1 percent of anything in here is a true error.  And that's after centuries and centuries and centuries.

     What