{"id":279,"date":"2012-01-09T21:47:11","date_gmt":"2012-01-09T21:47:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/heraldofgrace.org\/biblicalexpositions\/articles1\/?p=279"},"modified":"2015-04-01T19:39:11","modified_gmt":"2015-04-01T19:39:11","slug":"modern-examples-of-ignoring-forgetting-spurning-and-mistaking-counterfeits-for-gods-authentic-word-in-scripture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/heraldofgrace.org\/biblicalexpositions\/modern-examples-of-ignoring-forgetting-spurning-and-mistaking-counterfeits-for-gods-authentic-word-in-scripture\/","title":{"rendered":"Modern Examples of Ignoring, Forgetting, Spurning, and Mistaking Counterfeits for God’s Authentic Word in Scripture"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the second part of a two-part series on “Discerning the Word of God, An Exposition and Application of 1 Kings 13.” You can read the first part here<\/a><\/i><\/p>\n

D. Scott Meadows<\/strong><\/p>\n

Given the limitations of this presentation, we can only quickly survey some modern challenges to the orthodox Reformed view of Cessationism and the sufficiency of Scripture\u2014some even coming from the Reformed community. The order of my concerns is like a series of concentric circles from the outermost rings to the center, where the last ones are the most likely ways in which we ourselves have sinned against the biblical principles we have seen. <\/p>\n

Postmodern Language Skepticism<\/strong> <\/p>\n

While postmodernism is probably impossible to define to everyone\u2019s satisfaction, one of its conspicuous traits is a skepticism regarding any objective, fixed meaning from language texts of any kind, and this applies to the postmodern view of Scripture. Alphabetical characters and the words and sentences they form are merely the use of symbols that may mean different things to those who write them and those who read them. There is no single \u201ccorrect\u201d interpretation to any given text. Each reader must experience the text for himself, and decide for himself what it means to him. <\/p>\n

We hear this philosophy informally \u201cin the street\u201d by people who have never heard of postmodernism when they deny that the Bible can be objectively and universally interpreted. Their motto seems to be, \u201cThat\u2019s your interpretation,\u201d with the suggestion that your interpretation is only valid for you. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

An obvious philosophical problem with postmodern language skepticism is that it is self-contradictory. Postmodernists write books and give speeches to advance their views that at the end of the day language is incompetent to communicate the same ideas of a writer and speaker to a reader and hearer. The next time you debate a postmodernist, tell him you are glad to hear that he trusts the Bible as God\u2019s Word and Jesus Christ as the only Savior from sin. When he protests, thank him for agreeing with you, and explain that this is what his words meant to you! This is essentially what a postmodernist is doing to the words of God in Scripture. While misunderstanding in language communication is certainly possible, it is by no means necessary. It is patently obvious that great ideas are communicated by language through the centuries and across the globe, and that many people reading the same text typically come to the same fundamental understanding of its meaning. Without this, the great books of Western civilization would not be worthwhile, and newspapers would be incapable of reporting effectively what has happened to other people in other places.
\nTheologically, this nonsensical approach to language is plainly a blatant attack on the Scriptures themselves. If the words of the Bible have no objective meaning, then they are quite irrelevant after all, except as an existential amusement. <\/p>\n

The God who gave humanity language in the first place is certainly capable of using it to reveal His mind to men. The testimony of one Christian faith shared in common by believers across the ages and around the world illustrates the objectivity of the truth revealed in Scripture.<\/p>\n

Cultic Claims<\/strong><\/p>\n

For purposes of discussion, let us define a \u201ccult\u201d as a pseudo-Christian religious group outside the mainstream of historic Christianity, characterized by a rejection of some of the basics of universal Christian belief and an exclusivist mentality condemning all outside their group. By this definition, modern cults include well-known movements like the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, Mormonism, and Christian Science, as well as a host of little-known groups like the Urantia Foundation. <\/p>\n

Every one of these began and prospered as people departed from the Bible alone as the sole standard of faith and practice. Their founders either claimed to possess a new revelation outside the Bible or to have a unique supernatural insight into the Bible absolutely necessary for the salvation of others. <\/p>\n

At first appearance, the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses seem to have an orthodox view of Scripture. They recognize only the sixty-six books of the Bible as Holy Scripture and have confessed that all their doctrines must be demonstrably true by a Scriptural standard. Then gross inconsistencies appear. Charles Taze Russell, the group\u2019s founder, made outlandish claims for his series of books called
\nStudies in the Scriptures<\/i>: <\/p>\n

If the six volumes of \u201cScripture Studies\u201d are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes \u201cThe Bible\u201d in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself. . . . Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible itself, but we see also that if anyone lays the \u201cScripture Studies\u201d . . . after he has read them for 10 years\u2014if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone . . . our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he has merely read the \u201cS. S.\u201d with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years. (Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1910)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Since that time, Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses have produced The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures<\/i> which is not a faithful translation at all but perverts the text in many places to support their heretical views. Their literature is produced by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society<\/i> and has usurped the Bible\u2019s place of authority in the minds of modern Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses. This appears from the fact that Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses will typically reject biblical challenges to their doctrines even if they cannot answer those challenges from Scripture.<\/p>\n

Mormons point to other writings as divinely-inspired like the Bible. They make this claim for The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ<\/i>, Doctrine and Covenants<\/i>, and The Pearl of Great Price<\/i>, not to mention a belief in continuing word-revelation through modern prophets, especially their President.<\/p>\n

Christian Scientists revere as God\u2019s Word their book entitled, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures<\/i> by Mary Baker Eddy, since that is the claim she made for it, \u201cI should blush to write of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures<\/i> as I have, were it of human origin, and were I, apart from God, its author. But, . . . I was only a scribe echoing the harmonies of heaven in divine metaphysics.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Urantia Foundation makes a fantastic claim concerning its \u201cbible,\u201d The Urantia Book. It \u201cwas authored by celestial beings as a special revelation to our planet, Urantia.\u201d Those who would inquire more than this about its origin and how we came into possession of it are told: <\/p>\n

In the early 20th century, a physician practicing in Chicago became the head of a group known as the Contact Commission. This small group was the focal point for the production of, and the primary custodian for, the final text of The Urantia Book. They were sworn not to disclose details about the transactions in order to preclude future generations from venerating the participants. It was considered important that no individual might be exalted through their association with The Urantia Book. Because of its revelatory nature, the book stands on its own merit, nature and content.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Once the stabilizing chain is cut from the anchor of Holy Scripture as the sole and sufficient Word of God for today, even intelligent people become very vulnerable to the most ridiculous religious claims. <\/p>\n

Roman Catholic Challenges<\/strong><\/p>\n

With the recent passing of so-called Pope John Paul II and the installation of his successor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, we have been impressed again with the depth and breadth of the Roman Catholic Church\u2019s influence in our own generation. Now more than ever we ought to be aware of Rome\u2019s serious errors and to warn the spiritually-na\u00efve against her seduction. <\/p>\n

Besides the obvious problem of the Apocryphal books in her doctrine of Scripture and divine authority, Romanism propagates other related and egregious errors. First, there is an inordinate elevation of church tradition as having an authority comparable to Scripture in doctrine and practice. \u201cBoth Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.\u201d Rome is never very specific about an exact definition of this tradition, and so in practice it amounts to whatever beliefs and practices Rome would defend without Scriptural support.
\nAnother major Romanist attack against Scripture is its insistence upon the authority of \u201cthe Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church\u201d and especially of the Pope. <\/p>\n

The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are \u201cauthentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice.\u201d The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter\u2019s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,\u201d above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine \u201cfor belief as being divinely revealed,\u201d and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions \u201cmust be adhered to with the obedience of faith.\u201d This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.<\/p>\n

In practical terms, this short-circuits any objective evaluation of Romanism in the light of Scripture by its adherents. The moment a Roman Catholic considers the possibility that his church may not be Scriptural in a point of its doctrine or practice, he has already abandoned his church and is thinking like a Protestant. That explains the extreme difficulty of getting devout Roman Catholics to test their church by a biblical standard. Once capitulate to Rome\u2019s lofty claims and you are trapped in a theological Catch-22 with no escape. Within Romanism, reformation by a Scriptural standard is impossible by theological definition, because in their view their errors have divine sanction. <\/p>\n

Charismatic Confusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The \u201ccharismatic movement\u201d is named after its insistence that all the New Testament spiritual gifts or \u201ccharismata\u201d are still active in the church today just as they were in the first century, including the miraculous gifts of healing, speaking in tongues, and prophecy. The latter two especially involve word-revelation like that deposited in Scripture. For example, the New Testament prophet Agabus announced his prophecy about Paul in the stock language of Old Testament prophets God used to write Scripture: \u201cThus says the Holy Spirit\u201d (Acts 21.10\u00ac11; cf. Exod 4.22; Josh 24.2; Judg 6.8; 1 Sam 2.27; 2 Sam 7.4-5; 1 Kgs 11.31; Isa 37.21; Jer 2.1-2, etc.). Likewise, the New Testament gift of tongues was the miraculous ability to speak in a language not known to the speaker, the verbal content being given by the Holy Spirit, and therefore possessing the nature of a divine word-revelation. \u201cAnd they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance\u201d (Acts 2.4). The Greek word for \u201cutterance\u201d (apophthengomai) is a technical term and was used in other ancient writings of the speech of an \u201coracle-giver, diviner, prophet, exorcist, and other \u2018inspired\u2019 persons.\u201d <\/p>\n

While conservative, evangelical charismatics may squirm at the implications of these things, their doctrine nevertheless implies that we are receiving divinely-inspired word-revelation which is completely on par with Scripture, since the rationale of Scripture\u2019s divine authority is nothing other than the fact that it is God\u2019s Word, just like the verbal messages that came through New Testament prophets and tongues-speakers. <\/p>\n

The net effect of such misguided claims is to imply the insufficiency of Scripture and to distract attention from it for a more modern, relevant, and exciting Word from the Lord through gifted people in the church today. As always, the spiritual consequences of this error are and have been disastrous. <\/p>\n

Grudem\u2019s Doctrine of Prophecy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Wayne Grudem has written a mostly-helpful modern work entitled, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine<\/i>. He writes as solidly committed to a Reformed Baptist perspective except in this one particular area of the gift of prophecy. His views on this are especially evident in The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today<\/i> where he wrote, <\/p>\n

In this book I am suggesting an understanding of the gift of prophecy which would require a bit of modification in the views of each of these . . . [two] groups [cessationists and charismatics]. I am asking that the charismatics go on using the gift of prophecy, but that they stop calling it \u201ca word from the Lord\u201d simply because that label makes it sound exactly like the Bible in authority, and leads to much misunderstanding. . . . On the other side, I am asking those in the cessationist camp to give serious thought to the possibility that prophecy in ordinary New Testament churches was not equal to Scripture in authority, but was simply a very human and sometimes partially mistaken report of something the Holy Spirit brought to someone\u2019s mind. And I am asking that they think again about those arguments for the cessation of certain gifts. . . . I should make it very clear at the beginning that I am not saying that the charismatic and cessationist views are mostly wrong. Rather, I think they are both mostly right (in the things they count essential), and I think that an adjustment in how they understand the nature of prophecy (especially its authority) has the potential for bringing about a resolution of this issue which would safeguard items that both sides see as crucial.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I have a serious pastoral concern about this view not only because it apparently lacks Scriptural support, but also because it has a tendency to lower our guard against dangerous charismatic claims that prophecy comparable to that of the New Testament age continues in the church. An effective critique of Grudem\u2019s position is beyond the scope of this presentation, but important contributions have been made by O. Palmer Robertson and F. David Farnell.<\/p>\n

Subjectivism and God\u2019s Will<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another application of the lessons of 1 Kings 13 is to maintain a whole-hearted and exclusive commitment to doing God\u2019s will as revealed in Scripture. In a Reformed Baptist ecclesiastical environment committed to cessationism, we are less vulnerable to the theological threats we have just described, but we may yet be misdirected by an unhealthy, mystic subjectivism when it comes to discerning God\u2019s will for our lives. <\/p>\n

Charles Hodge\u2019s treatment of \u201cMysticism\u201d is masterful and we commend it highly. He carefully distinguishes between the \u201cleading of the Spirit\u201d which is Scriptural (Rom 8.14; Gal 5.18) and a mystical view of discerning God\u2019s will which is against Scripture in these words: <\/p>\n

Evangelical Christians admit that the children of God are led by the Spirit of God; that their convictions as to truth and duty, their inward character and outward conduct, are molded by his influence. They are children unable to guide themselves, who are led by an ever-present Father of infinite wisdom and love. This guidance is partly providential, ordering their external circumstances; partly through the Word, which is a lamp to their feet; and partly by the inward influence of the Spirit on the mind. This last, however, is also through the Word, making it intelligible and effectual; bringing it suitably to remembrance. God leads his people by the cords of a man, i.e., in accordance with the laws of his nature. This is very different from the doctrine that the soul, by yielding itself passively to God, is filled with all truth and goodness; or, that in special emergencies it is controlled by blind, irrational impulses.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Pastor Steve Hartland of Baltimore, Maryland, has preached a superb series on \u201cDecisions, Discernment, and the Will of God\u201d which exposes and corrects popular misconceptions and sets forth a proper understanding of Scripture\u2019s paramount importance in the life of a Christian.<\/p>\n

Textual Contention<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since we discern the Word of God has been especially preserved in the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT,39 we have a special regard for the exact wording found there. This brings us to the scholarly discipline known as \u201clower criticism\u201d in which careful judgments are made concerning ancient manuscripts with their textual variants and their relative merit as preserving the minutiae of the autographs. <\/p>\n

Because of the strong and united testimony that the entire corpus of extant manuscripts give to the vast majority of Scripture\u2019s original wording, too much has sometimes been made of this controversy, especially by those arguing for exclusive use of the King James Version, to the unsettling of immature believers. Extremists have written that any other Bible translations are Satanic counterfeits and tools of the New Age movement. <\/p>\n

Still, the ongoing debate among serious and reverent scholars about the relative merits of the Received Text and eclectic texts reflected in the UBS 4th Edition of the Greek New Testament is not insignificant. We must be committed to discerning the Word of God, even down to its minute particulars. <\/p>\n

Irresponsible Paraphrases and Translations<\/strong><\/p>\n

God\u2019s Word is obscured today by blatantly irresponsible paraphrases and translations, especially when these are regarded too highly by the uninstructed. An old example from 1971 is The Living Bible<\/i>, a paraphrase by Kenneth Taylor. The very notion of \u201cparaphrasing\u201d Scripture, expressing \u201cthe meaning of the writer using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity\u201d and then calling it a \u201cBible\u201d instead of a commentary on the Bible reflects a low view of the perfection and sanctity of the very words God has given by divine inspiration. <\/p>\n

That this low view of the inspired text leads to a loose handling of it is evident in The Living Bible<\/i> from countless examples. \u201cBlessed are the poor in spirit\u201d becomes \u201cHumble men are very fortunate!\u201d (Matt 5.3). The \u201cjot\u201d and \u201ctittle\u201d of Matt 5.18 which Jesus promised will not pass away have vanished, ironically, from Taylor\u2019s rendering: \u201cEvery law in the Book will continue until its purpose is achieved.\u201d In Acts 20.28, Paul\u2019s warning to pastors to take heed to themselves as well as to the flock is also gone: \u201cAnd now beware! Be sure that you feed and shepherd God\u2019s flock\u2014his church, purchased with his blood,\u201d etc. These and a thousand other glaring errors make Taylor\u2019s work useless at best, perhaps even dangerous. <\/p>\n

A more current example of irresponsible paraphrasing is The Message<\/i> by Eugene Peterson (NT, 1993; whole Bible, 2002). It makes The Living Bible<\/i> look like a strict translation by comparison! Yet it has the endorsement of influential Christian leaders like Billy Graham and Rick Warren. Even J. I. Packer said of it, \u201cIn this crowded world of Bible versions Eugene Peterson\u2019s blend of accurate scholarship and vivid idiom make this rendering both distinctive and distinguished. The Message<\/i> catches the logical flow, personal energy, and imaginative overtones of the original very well indeed.\u201d This is high praise from a Reformed theologian, but it is terribly misplaced because Peterson\u2019s work does not catch the true meaning of the original very well at all. <\/p>\n

One example of Peterson\u2019s flight from God\u2019s Word will suffice. In Col 2.10, Paul wrote, \u201cand you are complete in Him [i.e., Christ], who is the head of all principality and power\u201d (NKJV). Believe it or not, Peterson mangles it this way, \u201cYou don\u2019t need a telescope, a microscope, or a horoscope to realize the fullness of Christ, and the emptiness of the universe without him.\u201d Many other of Peterson\u2019s misrepresentations are even more offensive to those of us who reverence God\u2019s Word. <\/p>\n

Our concerns about these paraphrases remain in a lesser degree for poor, modern translations of the Bible, even though they take fewer liberties. Pastors especially must be very selective in choosing a Bible translation for preaching. One that is committed to a strict and formal equivalence between the donor language (Hebrew or Greek) and the recipient language (e.g., English or Spanish) is most agreeable to a high view of Scripture. \u201cThe best choice of translations on which to base expository preaching is . . . one which more literally follows the original languages and excludes as much of human interpretation as possible.\u201d My preference is for the King James Version, and there only seem to be a few reasonable alternatives amidst the plethora of English translations. <\/p>\n

Failure in Scripture Exposition<\/strong> <\/p>\n

Even agreement on the substance of all that has come before this leaves room for a seriously defective public ministry of the Word of God in Scripture. One of the most common and deplorable faults of the modern evangelical pulpit is simply a significant degree of omitting biblical exposition in preaching. This is manifestly inconsistent with the doctrine of an inerrant and authoritative biblical text. Indeed, as John MacArthur has written, expository preaching (in the sense of making the Bible text\u2019s meaning plain to the hearers, not any particular homiletical form) is the mandate of biblical inerrancy.<\/p>\n

We are not arguing that sermons should take the form of a verse by verse reading and commentary of an extended biblical passage; indeed, effective sermons rarely if ever take that form. Rather, a faithful pulpit ministry will be in its substance what the Bible has already revealed instead of thoughts spun out of the head of the preacher or taken from other sources like the news media, literature, or the preacher\u2019s personal experiences and observations. <\/p>\n

This is nothing else but a plea that those standing in the pulpit would \u201cpreach the Word!\u201d (2 Tim 4.2). \u201cPreach\u201d here might be rendered \u201cherald\u201d (Gk. kerusso) with the sense of publicly proclaiming a message one already received from another, in this context, the revelation God has already given in Scripture. God does not send His messengers empty-handed with a charge to be creative orators. He has committed to us a very specific verbal message for relay. That message is the whole counsel of God in Scripture focusing especially on His glory through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. <\/p>\n

Filling pulpit time with their own thoughts rather than faithfully reading, explaining, and applying God\u2019s Word in Scripture is a mark of today\u2019s false prophets. \u201c\u2018The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream; and he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat?\u2019 says the Lord. \u2018Is not My word like a fire?\u2019 says the Lord, \u2018and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?\u2019\u201d (Jer 23.28-29). <\/p>\n

Homiletical Eisegesis<\/strong><\/p>\n

One final warning comes to mind as an application of 1 Kings 13. We must take what God has already said and proclaim it boldly and accurately. Well-meaning preachers through deficient education or careless study have aimed to preach Scripture but by erroneous interpretation have missed the Spirit\u2019s true intent in a particular passage. We generally come to each sermon text with certain preconceived notions of its meaning before we study it or we may draw conclusions too hastily in our study. Then we are tempted to read our notions into the text without warrant. This is what we mean by \u201chomiletical\u201d (having to do with preaching) \u201ceisegesis\u201d (Gk., lit., \u201cto explain into\u201d). <\/p>\n

We contrast this with the God-fearing approach to preaching always preceded by careful \u201cexegesis\u201d (Gk., lit., \u201cto explain out of or from\u201d), where we come to the inspired text as self-confessed ignorant fools yearning to know what God actually says in it and what He objectively means by it. We adopt the spirit which Eli recommended to the boy Samuel receiving God\u2019s Word for the first time, \u201cSpeak, Lord, for Your servant hears\u201d (1 Sam 3.9). This gospel humility spurs prayerful study of the text in its context applying all the helpful knowledge and tools at our disposal. <\/p>\n

When we learn the message from God, then we must relay it as faithfully as Samuel did to Eli, even though like that message it contains many hard things that will grieve our hearers. We must take Micaiah\u2019s motto as our own, \u201cAs the Lord lives,\u201d a solemn oath formula, \u201cwhatever the Lord says to me, that I will speak\u201d (1 Kgs 22.14). Having discovered the mind of the Spirit in any particular passage, we can stand boldly before our hearers to proclaim and explain it with divine authority. <\/p>\n

CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n

My pastoral brethren, the people before whom we stand as God\u2019s spokesmen face great peril if they should ignore, forget, spurn, or mistake a counterfeit for God\u2019s authentic Word. We have a great responsibility to promote their salvation by bringing God\u2019s powerful Word in Scripture to them and warning them of the dangers of distraction from it. \u201cTake heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you\u201d (1 Tim 4.16). <\/p>\n

To fulfill our divine charge, we must be able to discern God\u2019s Word amidst all the modern confusion and relay His message without distortion. May God use these studies to sharpen your discernment and increase your fidelity as a herald of His sufficient and unchanging truth found in Scripture alone. Amen. <\/p>\n

All rights reserved.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is the second part of a two-part series on “Discerning the Word of God, An Exposition and Application of 1 Kings 13.” You can read the first part here D. Scott Meadows Given the limitations of this presentation, we can only quickly survey some modern challenges to the orthodox Reformed view of Cessationism and … Continue reading Modern Examples of Ignoring, Forgetting, Spurning, and Mistaking Counterfeits for God’s Authentic Word in Scripture<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[27],"class_list":["post-279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scripture","tag-d-scott-meadows"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/heraldofgrace.org\/biblicalexpositions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/279","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/heraldofgrace.org\/biblicalexpositions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/heraldofgrace.org\/biblicalexpositions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/heraldofgrace.org\/biblicalexpositions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/heraldofgrace.org\/biblicalexpositions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=279"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/heraldofgrace.org\/biblicalexpositions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/279\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":668,"href":"https:\/\/heraldofgrace.org\/biblicalexpositions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/279\/revisions\/668"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/heraldofgrace.org\/biblicalexpositions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/heraldofgrace.org\/biblicalexpositions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/heraldofgrace.org\/biblicalexpositions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}