BOND, HELEN BOND

If you were to go back and look at the early James Bond movies, you'd think, "How quaint. How dated they appear. People liked this silliness?" It was in those movies, that when James Bond introduced himself, he'd always say his name as, "Bond, James Bond." I thought this strange because his name is "James Bond," not "Bond, James Bond," just as my name is "Mike Halsey," not "Halsey, Mike Halsey." I know that's a lame joke, so we'll move on.

Keeping the Bondian motif, last week I introduced you to Bond, Helen Bond, a respected professor and scholar at Edinburgh University. (It's a world class university, a highly respected one, although it has no football team.) Dr. Helen Bond has taught courses in the Divinity School of the U of E in the following: Biblical Studies, New Testament (particularly Gospels), Women in the New Testament, Jewish and Roman world of the first century, Historical Jesus studies, and Josephus.

That's an impressive line-up, but it contains a tip-off: when someone advocates or teaches anything positive having to do with "The Historical Jesus," run as fast as you can and as far as you can. It's a sure-fire clue that you're in the clutches of liberal scholarship.

Helen Bond

  

Dr. Bond has read and read and read the New Testament. She's read it so much that she knows the content of the gospel and can communicate it succinctly. Appearing on a documentary, she summarized what Paul wrote about the content of the good news--"Paul said, that you don't have to be circumcised. You didn't have to keep the Law; Paul was saying to the gentiles that all you need is to believe in what God has done through Jesus, [that is] the cross and the resurrection and faith in that is going to save you." Right on! Bond, Helen Bond adds no works, tells us to make no promises of future good behavior to God, no vows taken, say no sinner's prayer, go under no baptismal waters, and no cleaning up of our lives to be saved.

She's got the gospel nailed down, doesn't she? At last, a scholar and a Christian! But there's a problem or two. Let's let her speak for herself and we'll see the difficulties:

Take a listen: "Jesus was not unique in first century society (or other later societies, for that matter)." Say what? 2,000 years later, we're still writing about, talking about, arguing about, teaching about, preaching about this Person, and meeting once a week (or more) to honor Him who was "not unique" in her opinion. We could also add that people are still getting killed for His sake, losing their jobs for His sake, being arrested and fined for living by the words of this person who wasn't unique then or now. I might point out that Dr. Bond has devoted her adult life to the study of the Book that tells all we need to know about Him, yet she says, "He's not unique today and wasn't unique back then."

How about trying this on for size; she writes, "It is important to remember that not a single author of any of the New Testament ever met Jesus in person. Not one."  And, "All the writers of the New Testament wrote in Greek and with the exception of Paul, likely never set foot in the Holy Land."

She offers no proof for such a statement and doesn't mention the fact that the authors, like say, John, give evidence of someone who knew Jerusalem and Samaria quite well because he gives place names such as the Pool of Siloam, the Mt. of Olives, the Garden of Gethsemane, plus he mentions that Jews didn't like to go through Samaria because of their racism.

Then there's the matter of her saying that none of the authors of the Bible ever met Jesus in person.

Dr. Bond writes about the virgin birth:

"We will never know the precise details surrounding Jesus's nativity. Yet our best historical guess is that Mary gave birth to him in a perfectly ordinary way in the family home in Nazareth. Significant strands of the New Testament - Paul's letters, for example, and the gospels of Mark and John - know nothing of either the virginal conception [Wait a minute, how about Galatians 4:4?], any need for a room at an inn, or any trip to Bethlehem. In this case, Mary would have had little idea of her son's destiny, and little warning of what she herself would have to suffer on his account."

See one of the problems? She knows the gospel, but she isn't putting her faith in Christ to be saved. To her, the Bible is a flawed book. [She even says that we have no way of knowing what Jesus really said and it's useless to try to find out.] We might add, "She hasn't put her faith in Christ to save her, yet." Perhaps she will one day come to see Jesus as her Savior. She's devoted so many years to studying His Book, maybe so.

But, in the meantime, look at what she's written: "We will never know the precise details surrounding Jesus's nativity." It's amazing that such scholars as Bond can make such flat-out statements as she does. She's only right about the above IF we reject the New Testament. We can know all the precise details we need to know, if we believe the Bible to be our highest authority, not some "quest for the historical Jesus."

I wonder if those reading what she says picked up on something she said? I know you did, but would an average reader note that she writes, "Yet our best historical guess is that Mary gave birth to him in a perfectly ordinary way in the family home in Nazareth." You picked up on it, didn't you--her choice of the word, "guess." She's saying, "We scholars, we academics, as smart as we are in rejecting the New Testament as the Word of God, we're "guessing," and what I'm telling you about the birth of Christ is our best guess."

A guess? A guess is "arriving at or committing oneself to an opinion about (something) without having sufficient evidence to support the opinion fully." The Person and work of Jesus comprise the most important events in the world, and we're supposed to put our faith in her "best guess?" But, in fairness to Dr. Bond, isn't that what the human race is left with, if they reject the Bible--only what they classify as "best guesses?"


But the Apostles John and Peter weren't guessing they had met Jesus in person and knew what He said and did, up close and personal. Read I John 1: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life." 

Listen to Peter ^"and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— ³ what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you . . . " "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. ¹⁷ For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— ¹⁸ and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain."



And I know you caught the last thing Bond, Dr. Helen Bond, slipped in, "Mary gave birth to him in a perfectly ordinary way in the family home in Nazareth." In Nazareth? It's interesting, isn't it; she just says it and moves on, citing no proof of her statement and the average reader would think, "She's smart, so it must be true," whereas she just said, "I'm just guessing my best guesses here."

How about the other matter she brought up? "Paul's letters, for example, and the gospels of Mark and John - know nothing of either the virginal conception." Yet Galatians 4:4 points to the virgin birth, but she's right, neither John nor Mark relate the nativity narrative. Why?

In the book, "Dallas, 1963," there is no mention of Dallas Theological Seminary, Dr. John F. Walvoord, or Dr. Charles C. Ryrie who were living in Dallas at the time. Also, many a time, I've heard sermons and the speaker doesn't mentioned the virgin birth of Christ. Does that mean the authors of "Dallas, 1963" were unaware of Dallas Seminary, Walvoord, and Ryrie, both teachers a the school? How do we know they weren't?

The institution and those men weren't in the book because they weren't involved in the purpose of the book any more than the virgin is in every sermon. If we judged every book and every sermon by what they don't say, we could critique every sermon and every book to death. Just because an author doesn't mention something doesn't mean he knows nothing about it. It means that it's not in the purpose of his book to mention it.

In this article, I've not mentioned Dr. Bond's teaching methods in the classroom or what she prefers for lunch. Why not? Although her methods are important and lunch is important, they have nothing to do with the purpose of this article, even though I might know them.

Dr. Bond, it all boils down to this: what is your ultimate authority for checking the veracity of what you write? Is it the Bible? Is it anti-supernaturalism? Is it scholarship and acceptance in the academic circles in which you move, for surely if you came to faith in Christ, you'd be drummed out of the corps.

If your ultimate authority is not the Bible, then you'll have to guess and that's what you're doing.