A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original review appears below. Edmund F. Bloedow is a professor of Classics at the University of Ottawa.
Standing on the Rock: The Importance of Biblical Inerrancy. James Montgomery Boice, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers Inc., 1984.
Is the Bible “the word of God”? Or “the words of men”? Or “the word of God and the words of men combined”? This is what is at issue so far as Boice is concerned who, besides being minister of the Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, is also author of at least two dozen books on a wide range of subjects. The first of the above alternatives is claimed to be “the classic evangelical doctrine, the view that was believed throughout church history” (p.46). The second is “the view of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy” (the latter in the forefront of debate in the ’60s), while the third is currently in the foreground of discussion, “the one we are especially wrestling with today” (p. 47).
Boice sets out to champion the first of these “positions”. In a short treatise he seeks, from a contemporary perspective, to represent for the layperson the great tradition of the early Reformers in Europe and, on this continent, the position of authorities like Machen and Warfield earlier in this century. The style is lively, and aided by many sub-headings and interspersed with numerous examples and anecdotes.
The book consists of six chapters. Chapter 1, “A Place to Stand” (pp. 11-24), affirms the need for an authoritative reference point. The proper understanding of the nature of the Bible provides such a foundation. In Chapter 2, “The Way God Speaks” (pp. 25-43), the author discusses such aspects as general revelation, special revelation, inspiration, regeneration and illumination, and thereby explores the progressional mode by which the contents of the Bible can be appropriated by the individual. Chapter 3, “Positive Evidence for the Bible” (pp. 45-64), covers various witnesses which attest the Bible’s high authority, namely that it is the Word of God. These include such factors as the teaching of Christ on the Scriptures, the Bible itself, prophecy, the preservation of the Bible and the transformation of men and women as a result of reading it. Chapter 4. “Understanding God’s Book” (pp. 65-85), treats certain necessary principles in approaches to studying the Bible, i.e., after discussing Higher Criticism and subjective personal interpretation. These principles involve “unity and noncontradiction”, Scriptum sui interpres (Scripture is its own interpreter), respect for the context of any statement, the style of a given writer, the nature of the material (historical or didactic), the purpose for which any section was said or written and the actual meaning of the words themselves. In Chapter 5, “Alleged Problems in the Bible” (pp. 87-106), Boice briefly considers some of the standard types of questions which are repeatedly raised as objections to inerrancy. These he distinguishes as moral problems, scientific problems, historical problems and inconsistencies. Chapter 6. “The Most Useful Thing in the World” (pp.107-123), seeks to put the previous discussion into perspective. As a framework, the author uses 2 Tim. 3:16, and considers the usefulness of the Bible from the standpoint of the four aspects proposed by the Apostle Paul: teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
Two Appendices complete the book. Appendix A (pp. 125-138) consists of “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”, which emerged out of the sessions of Summit 1 of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, held in Chicago in October, 1978 (the Conference had as its objective “affirming afresh the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture”). Appendix B (pp. 139-167) resulted from Summit II of the same body, in sessions held in November, 1982, and consists of “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics”. Appendix A is comprised of XIX Articles, while Appendix B of XXV. Each Article consists of a positive proposition and a negative counterstatement. Following the Articles themselves is a short section on “Exposition”. These Appendices reproduce in propositional form the substance of the text of the book, especially Appendix B.
Here it is not possible to comment in detail on all the issues which discussion of such a subject raises. I shall therefore restrict myself to several general observations and a few points of detail.
This book together with the Council on Biblical Inerrancy represents evangelicals on the offensive. As a strategy, in contrast to earlier days of being strictly on the defensive, this is a very positive development and one greatly to be welcomed. One also welcomes the clear style in which the author, for the most part, expresses himself, as well as the fact that he covers most of the essentials.
At the same time, however, there are certain respects in which the book is not entirely satisfactory. One of the principal weaknesses is its very brevity. Most lay people today probably do not have (or, do not take), the time to read lengthy treatises, certainly not on such subjects as biblical authority. Consequently, one has to compromise to achieve the initial objective of inducing people to read what one has written. The resultant compromise, however entails a difficulty in that the brevity adopted makes it impossible to deal in sufficient detail with various questions. The result is that the answers which are attempted to these questions too often tend to be only partial answers. This is less than satisfactory. A case in point is the question posed by time reckoning, as emerges from John’s statement that it was “the sixth hour” when Pilate gave his verdict condemning Jesus (19:14), whereas Mark writes that it was “the third hour” when they crucified him (15:25). On the basis of time reckoning in ancient Palestine, in which the day was divided into four parts of three hours each, Boice maintains that “The day periods were referred to generally by the first hour of each period: the first hour, the third hour, the sixth hour and the ninth hour respectively” (p. 102). His solution is that “Mark and the other synoptic Gospels indicate that Jesus was crucified during that period of the day designated as ‘the third hour’, that is, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and noon, while John, who says ‘about the sixth hour’, indicates that it was in fact getting on toward midday when the trial before Pilate was completed” (pp. 101-102). This rather summary treatment of the question, while it may just possibly account for the “problem”, is not entirely convincing, because the solution proposed gives, as stated, the impression of being somewhat unnatural and therefore forced. It requires us to conclude that Mark was referring to the very end of a “period”, whereas John to the very beginning of one, with probably also a little additional time for which one must account between the two. The question warrants more detailed discussion, or barring that, at least reference to a more detailed discussion. The latter may, however, pose a further problem, for it is often difficult for lay people to gain easy access to libraries where the relevant publications are to be found. One solution is to cite at length from such publications. Boice in fact does just that in a number of instances (e.g.. in his discussion of the question of the genealogies of Jesus, which immediately follows that of time reckoning).
Boice also seems to tread on rather uncertain ground when he touches on questions involving archaeology. The reference in Time to “the Midianites . . . identified in Genesis as the first metal workers” (p. 100) may have been opportune for the subject under discussion. but the beginning of metallurgy in the Mediterranean world is now an extensive and complex subject. Such incidental references to it are probably not very helpful. Somewhat similar is his reference to the recent finds at Ebla. Given the controversy which still surrounds this site, any reference to it is probably still somewhat premature, and Boice’s specific reference to it actually does not contribute anything substantial to the discussion.
Nor are Boice’s examples always adequately effective. He, for instance, readily affirms that “If the Bible had been only the thoughts or work of mere men, it would have been eliminated long ago, as other books have been” (p. 60). His case would be much stronger, however, if he had cited a specific instance of such “other books” being eliminated, especially as a result of a determined hostile policy, and particularly too a book of relatively comparable position within a given society. As another example, when discussing the question of regeneration, he. not surprisingly, has recourse to Nicodemus as an illustration. In stating the case, however, he alludes to two features: firstly, that “we cannot understand spiritual things even if God reveals them clearly. More than that, we are even hostile to spiritual things. Consider the occasion when Nicodemus . . . came to Jesus …” (p. 38). There does not. however, appear to be anything in the account to suggest that Nicodemus was either hostile or incapable of understanding Jesus after the latter had clearly explained the subject of new birth to him. One should also draw a distinction between ignorance and the inability to understand.
At times Boice also appears to fall victim to discrepancies. If, for instance, we do not respond to “general revelation” because “we cannot understand it” (p. 40), how can one declare that “no man has . . . any excuse for failure to seek God out”, especially since “God has made himself so clear in nature” (p. 30)? Moreover, if “General revelation” exposes the sinful, rebellious nature of men and women, and “proves us guilty” (p. 31), is not this tantamount to an understanding of what God demands, namely tantamount to understanding at least part of his revelation? It seems that at times Boice is too rigid and inflexible in stating his views.
In the chapter on “alleged problems”, he also runs into some difficulty. This subject admittedly involves some genuine difficulties, so one should perhaps not expect too much. Here, however, it is more a question of approach that calls for comment. The problem of suffering is of course particularly difficult. Boice’s approach is. in part, as follows: “We are asking, ‘Why did God let that happen to him or her?’, when, actually, the question should be, ‘Why doesn’t God let it happen to us all?”’ (p. 92). This constitutes a rephrasing of the question. Although such rephrasing may help to put the question in better perspective, it is not for that an answer or solution. Boice then cites Christ’s approach, namely in connection with the Galileans who were killed by Herod’s soldiers while offering sacrifices and to those individuals who were killed in Jerusalem when the Tower of Siloam fell on them (Luke 13:1-5). Using Christ’s answers to the questions does not resolve the problem, nor does it seem from the context that they were intended to do so. The problem in large measure still remains. To imply, therefore, that this is only an “alleged problem”, is probably too simple an approach. It would seem to be a fairer representation to acknowledge that the problem exists and that a satisfying solution is not available to us at the moment.
Apart from the above, one may find the title somewhat disturbing. For all the importance of the Scriptures, is not the actual “rock” on which we stand, according to those Scriptures, Christ himself, as Saviour and Lord?
Perhaps even more disturbing are the Appendices. The attempt to reduce or reflect the subject under discussion in forty-four propositional Articles with apparent credal status raises questions about the authority which determines such propositions. This is highlighted in particular by, for instance, Article XIII in Appendix A (p. 130). By what authority does the royal “We” declare what shall or shall not be error?
The above observations are not intended to detract from much that is worthwhile reading in this little book. In this era of cultural relativism, the forthright assertion of divine authority is timely and pertinent. Informed evangelicals should possess a thorough understanding of the subject. But at the same time, evangelicals must not evade real problems where they exist nor over-react in the opposite direction in a way that does not appear to be warranted.