I’ve already argued against the Efting/Broadus/Krummacher position. What you and he are saying is that the words “You live,” sort of like Jesus’ words to Lazarus in the tomb, are the words we live by. “Not only do we live by bread, but we also live because God says to live,” is how I am understanding you and him. That doesn’t fit into the context here. And I don’t understand why anyone would say “every” word to communicate that understanding, despite the fact that we are tuned into the meaning in 8:1 as I’ve said several times. God wanted them to be serious about everything that He told them to do, instead of obsessing on their meals.

Dear all,

These replies illustrate why I usually don’t get into these debates. It is absolutely fruitless! And since it is fruitless, it generally only serves to produce frustration and tempts us to sin with our lips. Witness my term ‘baloney’ and others. I am going to try to keep this as dispassionate and non-sarcastic as possible! (Ps 133.1-3)

Another reason that I don’t like to get into this kind of debate is that there is just too much to deal with in these posts. Listen, guys, if you want to have a discussion, please don’t give us all five or six or seven paragraphs of your reasoning. Blogs bog down this way. You also have the tendency to assume or read into what I or someone else has said, then you argue against your assumption or your perception of the other person’s responses to your argument. This leads to thread drift and increases the frustration factor.

For that reason, I’ll not answer everything that has been said here, but will make a few points to Paul and Kent. Paul first:

Paul S Ferguson on 04.04.09 at 7:46 am

the passage states it is “every word” not just the generic “message” or “truth” which Constable and all of you here are seemingly arguing for in respect of availability.

Constable isn’t arguing in respect of availability. It isn’t even on his radar screen at all. He is commenting on the meaning of the passage in question. I use his comment to more efficiently sum up my perception of the passage (I also tend to be verbose!).

In discussions such as this, I always remind myself that it was actually the HOLY SPIRIT who inspired every Word of Scripture and indeed the specific grammatical sense of every Hebrew/Greek word. I also presuppose that He knew what He was doing better than me, has no intention to be ambiguous, and knew the difference between saying “every word” and “the message” or the “concepts” of the Bible.

If the Holy Spirit had no attention to be ambiguous, why are some passages ambiguous? Why did Jesus teach in parables? Is God obligated to make his word clear or available to men?

With respect to this specific passage, does the term ‘every word’ mean the same thing at all times and in all places? Language doesn’t work that woodenly. I am dealing with a passage in Romans for tomorrow where Paul uses the same word (‘law’) in the same verse and means two distinctly different things (Rm 3.21). So to understand Mt 4.4, we have to think about what God meant in Dt 8.3 and in the temptation.

I am also not sure that you have all thought through the implications of your alternative solution. In effect you are saying that God did NOT promise the availability or all of His Words, is indifferent to it, and has no purpose in preserving and making available all of these Words for almost the whole of the Church Age.

I think you just changed something here. Are you saying now that God only promised availability for only part of the Church Age? Which part did he not promise it for? Do we have a text that tells us when the promise is good for or when it isn’t?

What I am saying is that God is not under any obligation to make his word available to anyone, but God still judges men by the law, even by law they didn’t know, see Rm 3.19 among others. What I am looking for from you is a specific piece of revelation where God makes any promise of availability to anyone in the Church Age or any age. I don’t see it in the text, but in your reasoning (which I think is faulty).

~~~

Now for Kent:

Kent on 04.04.09 at 9:26 am
first, by not looking at all of Deuteronomy, which is laid out like an ancient suzerain treaty with God the suzerain and Israel the vassal. The words are the terms of surrender to Israel. She must obey every Word to live.

Kent, I realize that many conservative commentaries suggest that Dt is in the form of a suzerainty treaty. Do you know where that idea came from? (Hint: possibly modernistic liberal scholars) Is that really where you want to go in forming your understanding of Dt?

What is clear is that Dt is a Bible Conference. It is made up of four farewell sermons preached by Moses as he was about to depart this earth.

Having said that, I agree that Israel has to obey every word of Dt to live. But you have to note that in Dt 8.3 God through Moses is referring specifically to Israel’s hunger in the wilderness. God is saying to Israel, the purpose of your hunger in the wilderness was to teach you to live by every Word God says. Let’s think about it step by step:

1. Israel hungered in the wilderness (pre-Deuteronomy) and complained (even though God had said “Go” and had delivered them by a mighty hand.
2. God allowed them to hunger (‘suffered them’) (pre-Deuteronomy) for the purpose of teaching the lesson that they had to trust what God said.
3. God gave them manna (pre-Deuteronomy) for the purpose of teaching the lesson that they had to trust what God said.
4. God did all this pre-Deuteronomy to teach them the lesson that they needed to live by every word God said, pre-Deuteronomy AND NOW post-Deuteronomy. Now he was giving them more words to live by.

Having said all that, it is clear that God expects them to obey every Word Moses was speaking in Deuteronomy also. But is that a promise of availability to all of the people of God (Israel) at all times? Does that mean that every Israelite would have the Pentateuch available and accessible? How is it that they would have such access?

Fourth, you and everyone else essentially didn’t argue with what I wrote but with a strawman.

Perhaps, I wasn’t really trying to argue with what you wrote. I was trying to give my understanding of Mt 4.4 and trying to see how it possibly can be a promise that God promises that every word will generally be available to his people at all times.

I think it would be appropriate to ask you a couple questions Don. You say that I come to my application through human reasoning.

That’s true, if you have arrived it at some other way, please enlighten me. I see you reasoning from the meaning of the text to infer that since God commands his people to live by every Word, therefore every Word must always be available.
Am I reading you correctly?

After you give that little indented, enumerated section, then you say that they were living by a paraphrase.

Here you need to read me a little more carefully. I didn’t say they were living by a paraphrase, I said I was offering a paraphrase. Should I have quoted the whole Pentateuch?

As far as speaking as a fool, I’m not going to answer that question. Jesus didn’t have scrolls, so we’re not talking about the Words God expects us to keep.

This is an example of what I said earlier about sinning with our lips. I was being a smart-aleck. It was just rhetorical flourish that I thought quite funny at the time. It probably is still funny, but possibly not spiritual.

Well, let’s move to the next text. I think you’re wrong.

No, no, let’s not move on to the next text. I am not going to go wandering all over the Bible on this question. I don’t think things are settled concerning this passage at all. Please show me how this text promises perpetual availability of all the words of Scripture. That is what I am asking. You cite it like a proof text in a statement of faith, it is a passage you bring up all the time. So let’s just stick with this text until we can agree on what it means.

I am not interested in a protracted argument passage by passage through the Bible. If we are going to continue the discussion, let’s deal with this one passage until we thoroughly understand it.

Or not. We can just drop it, but that would be up to you.

And one more thing, though this reply has been very long, let’s try to work our way through simply, point by point, question by question. You don’t have to answer everything I said here. Just deal with one aspect of Mt 4.4 and let’s work our way from there. Otherwise this thread will become next to useless.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

P.S. I want to add that I actually believe the totality of the Words God inspired as Scripture were generally available through all generations. What I don’t believe is that the passages cited by Kent et al make those promises. And I don’t believe that the Scriptures were available to everyone who wanted them at all times, but that doesn’t mean God wasn’t preserving them or that they were completely unavailable.

After you give that little indented, enumerated section, then you say that they were living by a paraphrase. If you read Deuteronomy, you don’t get the sense at all that God had the one big goal—go conquer the land—and that was it. It doesn’t read anything like that. Start reading in Deut 1 all the way up to 8. You get this:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 4:40 Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever.

Deuteronomy 5:10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

Deuteronomy 6:1-2 Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it: That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.

Deuteronomy 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

You will find the same kind of teaching afterwords. If the vassal would obey the Words of the suzerain, he would live. Those were the terms of surrender. That is reiterated at the end of the book in Deut 30 and following as far as blessing and cursing.

As far as speaking as a fool, I’m not going to answer that question. Jesus didn’t have scrolls, so we’re not talking about the Words God expects us to keep. When Jesus quoted Scripture, He was talking about the Words that we are expected to keep. The assumption is that we are to have every Word. You reject that.

I’d ask Dan S. and Don. What Words of God do we not have to live by? Which ones? Dan S. says that the quote didn’t have to do with Obadiah. That is the kind of dealing with a text that says that only the blood of Paul’s potential evangelism audience would be on his hands—not on any one elses. When Jesus said, “Follow me,” He only meant those twelve, not everyone else. And if I think that He meant anyone else, then I am using my “reasoning.” Uh-uh. Nope.

Well, let’s move to the next text. I think you’re wrong.

Where you flop in this is, first, by not looking at all of Deuteronomy, which is laid out like an ancient suzerain treaty with God the suzerain and Israel the vassal. The words are the terms of surrender to Israel. She must obey every Word to live. Second, you don’t look back at v. 1 of Daniel 8 to get your understanding of “live,” the near context. You just ignore it. Both of them are the Hebrew khawyaw, same Hebrew word. That ought to be important to you, especially in light of the connection between obedience to commandments and the living by every Word. Third, really in line with your ignorance, purposeful or otherwise, of the whole book of Deuteronomy, you miss the fact that it was more than just the command to leave Egypt and go to the land at that point. It was everything that God has said to them in Deuteronomy 5 and beyond. Ignoring that in order to keep alive your no-availability teaching is curious at the least. Jesus had a broader teaching than just what the Father’s will for Him was. It refers to every Word that the Father gave. Fourth, you and everyone else essentially didn’t argue with what I wrote but with a strawman. I have to leave here in two minutes so I can’t elaborate too much.

This is an example with Dan. S: “Christ was not simply providing some pious statement like, “I don’t really need food. I can meditate on all the word of God instead.” This loses the point that Christ was trusting God’s word for him at that point in time for that specific purpose.”

First, what is wrong with a pious statement? And that is besides the point. I didn’t say anything about Jesus not needing food. Where do you get that from what I wrote? No one said that Jesus said He could meditate on the Word of God instead of eating. And this is typical of the argue against strawman. No one said it, but he argues against it as if it was said. You do this repeatedly, Don.

I’ll be back.

Returning to Don’s exegesis of Matt 4:4. Tom Constable’s claim that “God had intended Israel’s hunger in the wilderness to teach her that hearing and obeying God’s Word is the most important thing in life” is not fully accurate as the passage states it is “every word” not just the generic “message” or “truth” which Constable and all of you here are seemingly arguing for in respect of availability. Indeed, there are no such things as wordless concepts and repeatedly we are warned against adding or taking away from the Words (not concepts or ideas) of the Bible (e.g. Deut 4:2; Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18-19). In discussions such as this, I always remind myself that it was actually the HOLY SPIRIT who inspired every Word of Scripture and indeed the specific grammatical sense of every Hebrew/Greek word. I also presuppose that He knew what He was doing better than me, has no intention to be ambiguous, and knew the difference between saying “every word” and “the message” or the “concepts” of the Bible. So when I read “every Word” is needed for me to live by and Paul repeats this in II Tim 3:16-17 I see no need to force the text to fit the views of modern textual criticism. I just take it at face value especially as this fits with the general purpose of Scripture both within the direct context of Matt 4:4 and Deut 8 as well as the rest of Scripture.

I am also not sure that you have all thought through the implications of your alternative solution. In effect you are saying that God did NOT promise the availability or all of His Words, is indifferent to it, and has no purpose in preserving and making available all of these Words for almost the whole of the Church Age. One wonders why God would have even bothered inspiring all of these Words if frankly they were superfluous and unnecessary for the Church. This uncertain “certainty” position of yours is in marked contrast to the whole tenor of both Old and New Testaments. For instance, the Lord spoke through Solomon about the inspired words, “Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?” (Prov. 22:20-21). Luke penned a two volume, fifty-two chapter history of the life of Christ and the first thirty years of the church, which had more words than all of Paul’s epistles, and he expressly stated it was for the purpose, “That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed” (Luke 1:4).

Since then, the nutritive power lies not in the bread, but in the will and Word of God alone, it will readily be seen how with five loaves and two fishes, He could perfectly satisfy five thousand men; how by means of a single barley cake He could sustain Elijah forty days and forty nights; yea, how He satisfies and preserves many a poor family now, who, besides a morsel of dry bread in the morning and in the evening, scarcely see any other food during the day. The Lord needs no bread at all for our sustenance, if He does not will it. His bare words, “let him live,” is enough – and we live. Without bread, Moses was maintained at Sinai – Jesus in the wilderness – and many more. He needs but to speak, and the very air we breathe turns to milk and wine, and we eat the costliest dainties – we imbibe pure vigor and strength without opening our lips, without sitting at table, without reaching out our hand. This is what is meant by “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Krummacher, “The Temptation of Christ” in A Glimpse of the Kingdom of Grace, p. 22).

While the phrase, “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,” does not refer primarily to Scripture, I do believe that this passage can be applied in principle to Scripture since the Word does give spiritual nourishment to our souls and it does proceed out of the mouth of God. (Contra Broadus, who “admits to no such application…” p. 64). Every word of Scripture is profitable for our spiritual growth and sustains up spiritually. Additionally, we should obey God, even when it doesn’t make sense from a human perspective, because we can trust God to provide for all our needs. It is His Word that has sustained us so far and it is His Word that will continue to keep us. It is His sovereign word as spoken by the Lord of hosts that keeps this universe intact (“he upholds all things by the word of his power” Heb 1:3) and provides for our daily needs.