Editorial -- By: Ron J. Bigalke, Jr.

Journal: Journal of Dispensational Theology
Volume: JODT 18:54 (Summer 2014)
Article: Editorial
Author: Ron J. Bigalke, Jr.


Editorial

Ron J. Bigalke

Proverbs 30:4 begins a series of rhetorical questions (similar to Job 38—39), with the obvious reply being “God.” Agur considered the immensity of the natural forces, and was amazed when considering that it is God who controls them. Enoch and Elijah ascended into heaven, but none have been known to also descend. Agur’s readers would have regarded the request for a name as an extension of the argument, but it may also be a prophetic intimation of Jesus, the Son of God (cf. John 3:13; Eph 4:9–10). The one who knows the name of the Creator, as revealed through Jesus Christ, is happy and wise to have obtained such internal and intimate knowledge (John 1:14–18; 17:3). The primary emphasis of verses 2–4 is humility, combined with gratitude for what God has revealed, and proper submission to God’s revelation without intruding upon his words.

God’s Word is true and unfailing (“tested”), which must not be combined with autonomous pontifications and speculations. Eternal truth is unattainable by one’s own ability and intellect; rather, God alone is the sole infallible source of truth. Not mere parts of God’s Word are infallible, but “every word of God” is reliable. Scripture is perfect and sufficient. All who “take refuge” behind God as “a shield” will find protection from the vicissitudes of life (Prov 30:5–6). Agur, therefore, warned against adding to (and therefore misconstruing) the perfection and purity of God’s Word (cf. Deut 12:32; Rev 22:18).

Proverbs 30:2–6 communicates two profound truths regarding Scripture, the Word of God. The first verity is the perfection of God’s revelation, and the second, is the entire sufficiency of the words, or sayings of God. Treasuring the revelation that God has given is the natural response to its trustworthiness.

Peter J. Goeman’s article demonstrates such cherishing of Scripture, as he not only contributes uniquely to an understanding of Amos 9:11–12 theologically but also textual critically. Ray M. Wenger’s final article in his series elucidates the Lukan Olivet Discourse in comparison to the more frequently exposited Matthean text, which is helpful even if one does not agree with all aspects of...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()