Aug 31, 2009

Accusatory Comment

A commenter named "Russ" posted the following comments about my comment on the desiringgod web site concerning whether Esther 9: 1 (or the rest of the Book of Esther) "pointed to Jesus," whether, per John 5: 39, the Book of Esther "testified" concerning Christ.

Russ wrote:

Stephen is tragically irrational in his absurd self-righteousness (contradicting and violating Romans 2 & 1 John 1:10) in pretending to make a case for Esther and Mordecai as the "rebel, disobedient, secular, or worldly Jew" since we weren't there and don't know of their actual thoughts or actions concerning the return from exile, thereby in no way being able to make a case against them without witnesses, just facile speculation. Since Esther is GOD's Word, I'll take that any day over man's any day, especially such pathetic, idle speculation.

For the few who take God and HIs Word seriously, David Mathis's Biblical observations of the matter to which Stephen vainly attempted a refutation/reply )at
are Biblically substantial and truly edifying in contrast.

Instead of this kind of rebuttal, why didn't Russ simply give us the canonical proofs of the inspiration of Esther? Why did he not defend Mathis' attempt to find Jesus' death and resurrection in Esther 9:1?

Russ also said, in another comment:

Care to try eisegesIs instead of eisegesUs? If one can't even get the spelling right I doubt we need to worry so much about David's alleged reading of Jesus into Esther, the sole canonical book that doesn't mention the name of God, just because he makes a comparison. Talk about straining at gnats! If the Church had held to such an absurdly limited view of inspiration, Esther would have never made it into the canon, in view of lacking the name of God. Thankfully Stephen's sectarian views were not held and so we have this wonderful narration of God's grace. Soli Deo Gloria!

So I misspelled "eisegesis"! It's not like I haven't spelled it correctly before! So, how does this prove I am wrong on Esther? So, not only does Russ not show how Esther meets the canonical rules laid down by Christ and his apostles, and does not show how Esther 9: 1 "points to Jesus" (thereby justifying my remark about this type of "interpretation" being "eisegesis"), but he shows that he cannot reason logically.

Who can come forward and debate the legitimacy of the Book of Esther without resorting to this kind of rebuttal? Does it not show how weak is the position of those who defend Esther?


hardshell said...

Excellent points on Esther. Canticles and Ecclesiastes are also extremely dubious. But be as bold as your soul, dear brother, and don't stop with the OT. James, Hebrews, and Revelation have long generated more trouble than they are worth, and on an equally slender claim to canonicity.

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear Hardshell:

Are you a Hardshell?

I accept the canonicity of Canticles and Ecclesiastes and James, Hebrews, and Revelation. I only reject Esther from the canon.