Some Thoughts on Old Testament Scholarship - Part 1 (E J Young)

Edward Joseph Young, or E J Young, was Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary from 1936 till his untimely death in 1968 at the age of 60. He was one of the first students at the seminary where he taught. An expert on Hebrew and the Semitic languages, he wrote many articles and several books, mostly on the Old Testament. He was also the General Editor of the Eerdman's New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Young came to my attention in the 1970s, when I stumbled upon his book, Thy Word is Truth. In it he argued for the inerrancy of Scripture and dealt skilfully with how that was consistent with the fact that it was authored by human writers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I was pleasantly surprised how simply he wrote despite the gravity of the subject and, to say the least, I was hooked. Then, while training for the pastoral ministry, I bought a copy of his book, My Servants the Prophets. It was, and still is, for me the best introduction to the subject of Old Testament prophets and prophecy. Soon after that I bought his 3-volume Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. It is, together with Alec Motyer's Commentary on Isaiah, the most enriching commentaries on Isaiah I have read. Not many modern scholars will hold Young in the same esteem largely because of his conservative views about Scripture and the Old Testament. And yet, in his day, Young was well respected even by those who disagreed with his views. This was because Young was a scholar of the highest calibre and he possessed scholarly "integrity". Professor H H Rowley once said that unlike many conservative scholars, Young was ready to admit to difficulties which he could not solve. This, Rowley commented, was "preferable to the bogus solutions so often put forward."

I have posted this excellent article by Young here because it spells out what his own personal convictions are as a biblical scholar. It also highlights what marked his scholarly integrity. We do live in times where far too many Christian scholars, unfortunately, have lost that same integrity. I trust this article by Young will serve as a timely reminder to those who, like me, are engaged in preaching and teaching God's people through His Word.

This is the first part of the article. The second will follow in due course. This article was first published as E. J. Young, “Some Thoughts on Old Testament Scholarship,” Faith & Thought 93.2 (1963): 74-87.

______________________________

One who reads the Book of Psalms attentively must be struck with the strong emphasis that is found therein on the study of the law. The righteous man is characterised in the first Psalm as one who meditates in the Law of God day and night. Application to the Scriptures is stressed in the longest of the Psalms, the one hundred and nineteenth. That the man who would live godly in Christ Jesus must be well versed in the Scriptures goes without saying.

It soon becomes apparent, however, that mere cursory reading of the Bible will not meet the needs of the Church nor of the individual Christian. There must be a more careful and painstaking study of the Bible. The Bible is written in Greek and Hebrew, and the study of these languages raises many problems. What does the Bible say? What is the relation of the Bible to the many recent discoveries? All these questions and many more simply point up the need for Christian scholarship.

We shall be concerned in this brief article with the philosophy that underlies Christian scholarship. What is a Christian scholar, and what is Christian scholarship? Questions such as these will occupy our attention and we shall even engage in some apologetic for Christian scholarship.

THE BASIS OF CHRISTIAN SCHOLARSHIP

Christian scholarship must approach its task with certain presuppositions. It cannot agree with those who insist that their only desire in research is without any preconceived biases to follow the facts whereever they lead. There is a type of scholarship which prides itself upon its objectivity. It has no desire to be guided by any presuppositions; it has no bias or prejudice. Rather, it will follow the facts wherever they may go. It treats the Bible like any other book, fully confident that in so doing it is able to explain the Bible. Above all it wishes to reject any presuppositions upon which its research is to be based. Theology is not to guide study, it says, for it desires to be purely objective. Facts and facts alone are its only concern. Wherever they point, it will follow, irrespective of the consequences. Its only desire is objectivity, a disinterested, dispassionate search for truth. Truth, and truth alone, is its concern.

Now this sounds quite commendable. What could be more admirable than a disinterested following of the facts, with no theories or preconceived notions of our own to get in the way? Admirable as this sounds, however, it is not admirable at all, and the reason why it is not admirable is that it paints a false picture of the situation. It might indeed seem at first blush that a truly objective method of research would divest itself of all theories or presuppositions and simply plunge in after the facts, boldly following them to whatever consequences they might bring. As a matter of fact, however, such a method is not objective. It is a method deluged with presupposition. It is a method which has already erected a presupposition which is to guide its research. That presupposition is simply that it will reject all presuppositions and follow facts. It presupposes, apparently without realising that it is so doing, that it is perfectly capable in its own strength and ability not only of meeting and recognising the facts but also of interpreting them correctly. It has, in other words, itself adopted certain presuppositions, and these govern its investigation. Those who follow such a method of study never come to the conclusion that the Bible is a special revelation from God, for they have already ruled out the view that the Bible differs from other books. Even this type of study, then, which seems to be objective, is in reality not objective at all. It too has its presuppositions, and they guide it in its procedures.

No scholarship can be without presuppositions. What kind of book is the Bible, and how is the Bible to be studied? In answering these questions, scholarship may appeal to the human mind as the ultimate and final basis of predication, or it may declare that wisdom and knowledge belong to God. If scholarship assumes the intimacy of the human mind it will never come to the conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God, for it has already made the human mind capable of judging God. Christian scholarship indeed has its presuppositions; it believes that this is God’s world, and that He is the Creator of all things. It regards the Scriptures as unique. They are unlike all other books, for they are the revelation of God Himself. How does the Christian scholar come to this knowledge? He comes to it, for God himself has made it known that the Bible is His Word. Christian scholarship believes that man’s final persuasion of the divinity of the Bible lies in the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. In other words, it is God who testifies to His word, and the renewed soul receives the Scriptures as God-given. Christian scholarship, therefore, believes the Bible to be the Word of God, and seeks to think God’s thoughts after Him as they are made known in the Bible.

In thus describing the basic presupposition of Christian scholarship we would point out that not all Christian scholars are consistent. Not all follow their presuppositions as they should. In particular, elements of anti-theism may enter into a man’s thinking when at one point or another he becomes inconsistent. The man who is willing to assert the presence of historical errors in the Bible, for example, is one who, whether consciously or not, has set himself above the statement of Christ. ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ and the express declaration that all Scripture is God-breathed. There are many Christian scholars who do not exhibit a consistently Christian method of study, for at one point or another they depart from the position required by genuine Christian theism. A truly Christian scholarship, however, is based upon the assumption that God is the Creator and that in His written Word He has spoken in a special way.

Christian scholarship therefore is not ashamed of its presuppositions. In fact it glories in them, for it knows well enough that all approaches have presuppositions, whether consciously or unconsciously adopted. Christian scholarship knows where it stands and what it is seeking to accomplish. It understands that there is really but one alternative to the position which it has adopted. If it does not proceed upon the assumption that God is the ultimate source of meaning in life, and hence the ultimate point of predication, it knows that the only alternative is to believe and assert the ultimacy of the human mind. The human mind, however, is something created and finite, and from a finite source knowledge of the ultimate meaning of life can never come.

Christian scholarship therefore, if it is to be truly Christian, will, in consistency with its basic presupposition, acknowledge the Bible to be the Word of God. To discover in what sense the Bible is God’s Word it will turn to the Bible and allow the Bible to speak for itself. What the Bible has to say about itself, Christian scholarship will willingly accept. In other words the Bible is the norm which must guide genuine Christian scholarship. For that matter the true Christian scholar will be guided by what the Bible has to say on all subjects. An illustration will make this clear.

The nineteenth century witnessed a continual production of theories concerning the origin of the Pentateuch. These theories were interesting, and some of them were ingenious, but they all had this in common, that they were willing to contradict explicit statements of the Bible. In the Pentateuch we often read that Moses spake, but these theories were perfectly willing to assert that he did not speak. When in the book of Deuteronomy, to take an example, we read that the Lord spake unto Moses, the theories we are now considering had no hesitation in asserting that Deuteronomy was produced in the seventh century B.C. If it was a work of the seventh century B.C., however, it would follow that the Lord did not speak to Moses, as Deuteronomy claims. Hence, whatever else may be said of these theories, they were not Christian. They were willing to assume that their originators had a better knowledge of the situation than did the Scripture itself. And that is a bold assumption. This is not to say that the men who advanced these theories were themselves not Christians. On that point no man can judge, God alone is able to pass judgment upon the human heart, and we are not for a moment saying that the advocates of the positions which we are now discussing were not Christians. But, if they were Christians, in advocating these theories, they were acting in a manner quite inconsistent with their Christian beliefs. And whether the men themselves were Christians or not, their theories were not Christian theories, for they went contrary to express statements of the Bible.

The same may be said of some of the views that are being presented today, views which are widely acclaimed and even received with favour by some evangelicals. These theories have not the slightest hesitation in overriding express statements of the Bible. For that reason they are not in accord with Christian presuppositions and consequently they may be dismissed as mistaken explanations of Israel’s history and religion. This is not to say that there is no value in them or that they should not be studied. But the unlearned reader who simply reads the Old Testament itself and believes it to be true has a far more profound insight into the truth of Israel’s history and religion than he will find in the positions advocated by some modern scholars. One of the saddest signs of the times is that some evangelicals do not seem to recognise that fact.

May the writer be pardoned for mentioning personal experiences? Every now and then following a lecture, some young student will approach and say something like, ‘Why didn’t you pay more attention to Mowinckel, or, Do you not think that Von Rad’s writings are showing us some exciting new things in Old Testament studies?’ Now, surely, we should pay attention to what modern scholars are writing, and surely we can learn from modern scholars, but when we are making a serious effort to understand the history of Israel and its religion we shall learn far more by a serious exegesis of the Old Testament, an exegesis undertaken in a believing spirit, than we will from the writings of men such as Von Rad and Mowinckel who hold an extremely low view of the Bible. Christian scholarship rejoices in the confines that the infallible Word of God places upon it. It wishes to be true to the Bible.

And this brings us to what is probably the heart of the matter. True Christian scholarship will be characterised by humility. What, however, do we mean in this connexion by humility? We mean simply obedience to God. The humble scholar is the one who is truly obedient to God. But how shall one be obedient to God? The answer is that to be obedient to God means to do His will. We learn of His will, however, in His Word. Hence, we shall follow His Word in all that it says. Even though we may not always understand all the factors involved, we shall, if our desire is truly to be Christian, allow the Word of God to be our guide in all things. Its statements will direct our investigation, and we shall never dare to go contrary to those statements, for we know that they were breathed forth by Him who is truth itself and cannot lie. Christian scholarship then would be bound by the Bible, and rejoice that such is the case.

An objection is likely to rise at this point. Is this not obscurantism, it may be asked, is it not fundamentalism? What about the great gains of nineteenth-century scholarship? Are we to throw them by the board? In answering these questions we would point out that names in themselves are not too important. It matters not if unbelievers call Christian scholarship obscurantist. After all, some of the most obscurantist positions imaginable are those held by the ‘advanced’ scholars of the nineteenth century. What about Wellhausen’s view of Genesis, a view which he claimed was held by all scientific scholars? Can one imagine anything more obscurantist than that view, namely, that from Genesis one could learn nothing concerning the background of the patriarchs? This position, so confidently and almost arrogantly advanced by Wellhausen and others, is now completely shown to be false, and those who today, had they been living in Wellhausen’s time, would probably have gone along with him, are perfectly ready to acknowledge that Genesis does give an accurate picture of the patriarchal background. We who believe the Bible need not fear the term obscurantist.

Nor need we really be afraid of the term fundamentalist. Better to be called a fundamentalist than to be found in the ranks of those who deny the Bible. In the long run the truth will prevail, and if Christian scholarship continues in devotion to God’s Word, it need not fear what man can say. Its purpose in the last analysis is the glory of God, and in seeking to accomplish this purpose it may well expect opprobrium.

It may be thought that what we have written involves too negative an attitude toward that scholarship which is not based upon Christian presuppositions. We must therefore indicate some of the areas where we believe that one can learn from such scholarship. For one thing, unbelieving scholarship is not always consistent with its basic presuppositions. Just as fallen man is not as bad as he can be, so also non-Christian scholarship is not completely consistent with its own basic assumptions. The result is that it often says things which in themselves are good and true. In the writings of Von Rad, for example, although we think that the basic position is wrong, there are nevertheless many fine things that are said. Sometimes in the exegetical sphere, for example, there is at least a formal agreement with what a Bible believing scholar might assert; in this respect one can learn much from Von Rad’s writings, even though, when judged from the Christian position, the basic approach must be regarded as seriously mistaken.

Furthermore, many gifted researchers who may not themselves embrace Christian presuppositions have nevertheless done remarkable service in the fields of archaeology and language. Of course even in these fields, basic presuppositions are important, and the Christian would maintain that only upon theistic positions do these fields of study have meaning. This is true, and yet many gifted men have performed remarkable service in these areas. We may think of the tremendous amount of excavation that has been done, and the extremely difficult work of deciphering the cuneiform languages. For all of this we should of course be profoundly grateful.

It must be recognised that if non-theistic presuppositions were correct, this positive work could not be done. For then there would be no true meaning in life. The fact that serious philological and archaeological work can be done is in itself an argument in favour of the theistic position. Certainly the Christian scholar recognises with gratitude the fact that much work has been done in these fields, sometimes by Christians and sometimes by non-Christians. The Christian recognises truth wherever it is to be found and understands full well that even a man whose basic presuppositions are false will himself act contrary to those presuppositions and say and do much that in itself is true.

True Christian scholarship therefore is willing and glad to recognise the debt it owes to all who have advanced the cause of learning. In itself, however, it would hold as the great goal to be achieved the glory of God. In all that it does it strives to bring glory to God, the Creator. The Christian investigator, whatever be the field in which he is working, will realise that this is God’s world, and in his endeavour to arrive at the truth will be guided by the Bible itself. He will not proceed in his investigations contrary to the Bible, but will permit the Bible to be His guide.

Polemic Theology: How To Deal With Those Who Differ From Us - Part 3 (Roger Nicole)

This is the third and final part of Roger Nicole's article, "Polemic Theology: How To Deal With Those Who Differ From Us".

________________________

How Can I Cope with Those Who Differ from Me?

In the previous two sections, we sought to explore how to derive the maximum benefit from controversy both as to those who differ by being sure that we do not fail in our duty toward them, and as to ourselves in welcoming an opportunity to learn as well as an occasion to vindicate our position. Now after having given due attention to the questions, “What do I owe?” and “What can I learn?”, it is certainly proper to raise the query, “How can I cope with those who differ from me?”

Now “coping” involves naturally two aspects known as “defensive” and “offensive.” Unfortunately, these terms are borrowed from the military vocabulary and tend to reflect a pugnacious attitude which injects bitterness into controversies. We should make a conscious effort to resist that trend. Furthermore “offensive” is often understood as meaning “giving offense” or “repulsive” rather than simply “passing to the attack.” It may therefore be better to use the adjectives “protective” and “constructive” to characterize these two approaches.

Biblical Arguments

In evangelical circles biblical arguments carry maximum weight if properly handled, for they invoke the authority of God Himself in support of a position. This is what Luther so eloquently asserted at the Diet of Worms, and what the Westminster Confession also bears witness to in these words:

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any way contrary to His Word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship (WCF 20, 2).

We need here to be careful to make a reverent use of Scripture, quoting every reference in a way that is consistent with its context. This will protect our approach against the legitimate criticisms levied against “prooftexting,” a method that lifts scriptural statements from their environment, and marshals them as if they were isolated pronouncements vested with divine authority without regard to the way in which they are introduced in Holy Writ. A notable example of this wrong approach would be to claim that God sanctions the statement, “There is no God” because it is found in Ps. 14:1 and 53:1.

We must therefore be careful to use the Scripture in such a way that an examination of the context will strengthen, not weaken, the argument. Very few things are as damaging to a position as a claim to be grounded in the authority of God’s Word, only to find that a more careful examination of the text in its context cancels out the support it was presumed to give. An argument of this type, like the house built on sand, “falls with a great crash” (Matt. 7:27).

Likewise, a well-advised person will be careful to avoid passages that “boomerang”--passages that are used as proof, but turn out to be more decisive against the view advanced. For example, some people quote Phil. 2:12, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” and forget that Paul continues, “For it is God who works in you to will and to act . . . .”

All this demands that we should know the Word of God. God entrusted the sacred Scriptures to His people in order that they may search it diligently (John 5:39) and make it the object of their daily meditation (Ps. 119). To be acquainted with the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) must be the aim not only of “professionals” like pastors and professors, but of everyone who wants to be known as a Christian. To be sound in the interpretation, correlation and application of the Scriptures is the way “to be approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed” (2 Tim. 2:15), and every child of God ought to aspire to that.

Protectively we may be aware of passages that are often quoted to invalidate a stance which we find scriptural. Sometimes we may anticipate this objection even before it is raised and be prepared to show how it does not undercut our view. If we have a particularly strong refutation, we may at times wait until the person who differs quotes the passage. In this way we may score the psychological advantage of destroying an argument thought valid. Even this however, must remain within the framework of “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).

In some cases it may be possible to show that the interpretation which would see in a particular passage an objection to the scriptural truth we are undertaking to advocate is simply improper and indefensible because it sets this Scripture in conflict with its context, or at least with the larger context of the unity of divine revelation. In other cases it may be sufficient to show that there are one or several plausible alternative explanations of this text that do not precipitate the alleged conflict. Since we are obliged to seek the unity of the truth, a plausible interpretation that averts a conflict may well deserve preference.

To sum up, we must ever strive to take account of the fullness of biblical revelation to have the boldness to advance as far as it leads, and the restraint to stop in our speculations where the Bible ceases to provide guidance. Polemic Theology in this respect is simply biblical light focused in such a way as to assist those who appear yet caught in some darkness.

General Arguments

These arguments direct their appeal to something other than the actual text of Scripture, namely to logic, history and tradition. While the authority involved is not on the same level as the Bible, the Word of God, it has a bearing on the discussions and must be considered by those who wish to make a strong case.

Appeal to Reason

Human reason, especially when not guided by divine revelation, is apt to go astray either in being unduly influenced by prejudice (what we call “rationalizing”) or when reason forgets its proper limits and attempts to apply to the infinite what is valid only for finite categories. Nevertheless, reason is a divine gift to humankind, indispensable to the process of receiving, applying and communicating revelation (cf. J. I. Packer, “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, pages 128-137). It is a part and parcel of God’s image in humanity. To fly in the face of logic is to court self-destruction, for logic has a way to beat its own path in the process of history. Rational arguments may therefore be presented with propriety, and those advanced by people who differ from us must be addressed.

Constructively, it behooves me to show that my view is in keeping with the totality of revealed truth, with the structure of the Christian faith as an organism of truth. I will promote the acceptance of an individual tenet if I can show that it is inescapably related to some other element of the faith on which I and the one who differs from me have agreement. For instance, one who accepts the doctrine of the Trinity is pretty well bound to confess the deity of Christ and vice versa.

Specifically, it is in order to make plain the damaging or even disastrous effects that a departure from the position I advocate will logically entail. In doing this, I must carefully distinguish between the view that the other person actually espouses and the implication that I perceive as resulting from it. Failure to make this distinction has resulted in the ineffectiveness of much Polemic Theology. Christians have wasted a huge amount of ammunition in bombarding areas where their adversaries were not in fact located, but where it was thought they were logically bound to end up.

To struggle with a caricature is not a “big deal.” And to knock down a straw man does not entitle one to the Distinguished Service Cross! To be sure, it is a part of the proper strategy to show those who differ that their view involves damaging implications that will be difficult to resist in the course of time, but one must remain aware that it is the present position rather than anticipated developments that must be dealt with.

Protectively, I need to face the objections that are raised against my view. Some of them are irrelevant because they are based on a misunderstanding of the issues. To deal with these will help me to clarify my position and to reassert it with proper safeguards against one-sidedness, exaggeration or misconceptions. For instance, I may show that definite atonement is not incompatible with a universal offer of salvation in Christ, even though the supporters of universal atonement frequently think it is. Other objections may be shown to be invalid because they apply to the view of those who differ as well as to mine. Still other objections may be recognized as peripheral, that is to say, difficulties that may or may not be resolved rather than considerations that invalidate a position otherwise established. For instance, some alleged contradictions between two passages of Scripture represent a difficulty for the doctrine of inerrancy rather than a discreditation of this otherwise well-established tenet of the faith. Obviously the most advantageous situation is found when an objection can be turned around to become a positive argument in favor of the view objected to. Jesus’ treatment of the Old Testament Law in Matt. 5:21-42 is a case in point. It might appear to a superficial reader that in this text Jesus repudiates the authority of the Law, when in fact He confirms it and reinforces it by His spiritual interpretation.

Furthermore, it is sometimes effective to challenge a person who differs from us to articulate an alternative approach which we may then proceed to criticize. For instance, a person who denies the deity of Christ may well be pressed to give his or her answer to Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15). Any answer short of full deity may be shown as deeply unsatisfactory, as leading to some form of polytheism or as failing utterly to account for the facts of the life, death and resurrection of Christ. It may be hoped that those who have unsatisfactory views may then leave the smoldering ruins of their system and take refuge in the solid edifice of the faith “once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3).

Appeal to History and Tradition

The course of history is a remarkable laboratory that permits us to observe the probable developments that issue from the holding of certain tenets. The decisions of councils or the pronouncements of confessions of faith are often geared to guard against erroneous opinions that God’s people recognized as dangerous or even fatal to the faith. To neglect this avenue of knowledge is to risk repeating some mistakes of the past that an acquaintance with history might well have enabled us to avoid. The Christological debates of the fourth and fifth centuries should protect us from the twin errors of Arianism and Apollinarianism, of Nestorianism and Monophysitism without our passing through the convulsions that the church of those days experienced. The Reformation of the sixteenth century, similarly, should shield us from repeating some of the mistakes of the Roman Catholic Church.

Constructively, it is proper for me to attempt to prove that I am in line with orthodoxy in general and specifically with statements of faith that have received wide acceptance or that are part of the subordinate standards of my church or of the church of the one who differs. This will be especially significant if the formulation was established for the purpose of warding off a position analogous to that of my opponent. Now all man-made statements are subject to revision and correction, but it appears prima facie impossible that a view that flatly contradicts the Nicene Creed or even the Westminster Standards should turn out to be right, while these revered creeds, tested as they were through centuries of Christian thinking, should be wrong.

Specifically, the position of the one who differs may so closely approximate a well-known heresy adjudged as heterodox that the course of history may provide a portrayal of what happens to those who entertain it. The disastrous course of Arianism, culminating as it did in the Moslem conquest of North Africa, may be an example. We need, however, to be careful to recognize the importance of weighing all operative factors rather than just some selected ones which seem to suit our purpose. The demise of Christianity in North Africa applied largely to Egypt where a monophysite tendency prevailed, as well as to the lands that had been conquered by the Vandals with their Arian commitment.

Those who would gloat over the increasing heterodoxy of the Arminian movement in the Netherlands should probably be somewhat sobered in thinking of the destiny of Calvinism in New England, which moved from high orthodoxy around 1650 to the rather massive Unitarian and Pelagian defection at the beginning of the nineteenth century. These remarks do not invalidate the value of the lessons of history, but merely admonish to caution in applying them.

Protectively, the course of action would parallel closely what was described above. Objections raised against our view may be shown to be counterproductive, because they support rather than undermine our view. They also may be judged irrelevant, because they fail to address our real position or because they burden equally the objector’s view. Or they may simply be inconsequential, because they have only a peripheral bearing on the issues.

Christian’s Goal

Perhaps the most important consideration for the Christian is to remain aware at all times of the goal to be achieved. It is the consistent perception of this goal that will give a basic orientation to the whole discussion: Are we attempting to win an argument in order to manifest our own superior knowledge and debating ability? Or are we seeking to win another person whom we perceive as enmeshed in error or inadequacy by exposing him or her to the truth and light that God has given to us?

If the former be true, it is not surprising if our efforts are vain: we should be like physicians who take care of patients simply in order to accredit some pet theory. If the latter be true, we will naturally be winsome. This will increase our patience when the force of our arguments does not seem to have an immediate effect. This will challenge us anew to understand those who differ in order to present the arguments that are most likely to be persuasive to them. God has appointed all of us to be witnesses to the truth. (John 1:7; Acts 1:8) God is the one who can and will give efficacy to this witness. We should never underestimate His ability to deal even with those who appear most resistant. Who would have thought that Stephen could actually reach the heart and mind of anyone in the lynch mob that put him to death? But his great discourse was actually sowing goads in the very heart and conscience of Saul (Acts 26:14). Acts 7 shows that his argument was sealed by his Christ-like spirit in the face of this atrocious murder (Acts 7:59-60). His witness was used by God to win over perhaps the ablest of his adversaries, who was to be the great apostle Paul!

A Christian who carries on discussions with those who differ should not be subject to the psychology of the boxing ring where the contestants are bent upon demolishing one another. Rather “The Lord’s servant must not quarrel: instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses . . . " (2 Tim. 2:24-26).