Yes, We Are Judgemental (But Not in the Way Everyone Thinks

Kevin DeYoung offers some thoughts on the "Judge Not" passage.

Evangelical Christians are often told not to judge. If there is one verse non-Christians know (after, perhaps, some reference to the “least of these”) is that’s Jesus taught people, “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Matt. 7:1). Of course, what the casual Christian critic misses is that Jesus was not calling for a moratorium on moral discernment or spiritual evaluation. After all, he assumes five verses later that his followers will have the wherewithal to tell what sort of people in the world are dogs and pigs (Matt. 7:6). Believing in the sinfulness of sin, the exclusivity of Christ, and moral absolutes does not make one judgmental. Just look at Jesus.

But this doesn’t mean Matthew 7:1 has nothing to teach conservative Christians. Like everyone else on the planet, we have a propensity to assume the worst about people, to happily pass on bad reports, and to size up individuals and situations without knowing all the facts (or even half the facts). I’m not talking about disciplining wayward church members, or having hard conversations about people caught in sin, or refusing to ever take someone’s past behavior into account, or being hopelessly naive about the way the world works, or refraining from the public exchange of ideas, or suspending all our powers of discernment until we understand something or someone with omniscience. I’m talking about the all too natural tendency to shoot first and ask questions later (or not at all).

Is there a piece of biblical wisdom more routinely ignored on the internet, not to mention in our own hearts, than Proverbs 18:17?—”The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” I’ve never been accused of serious misconduct that I knew to be patently false or horribly misunderstood. But if I am someday, I hope folks will remember the book of Proverbs. “”If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame” (Prov. 18:13). Too often we are quick to speak and slow to listen. The world, the flesh, the devil, and the internet want us to rush to judgment, when the Bible urges us to suspend judgment until we’ve heard from both sides. It happens all the time: pastors sinfully judge parishoners based on hearsay, church members criticize pastors without knowing the whole story, citizen assume the worst about politicians whenever another Scandalgate emerges, kids attack their siblings at the first whiff of error.

Most of us go through life hearing dozens of reports and accusations about celebrities, athletes, pastors, and people we know, operating under the unwritten rule that where there’s smoke there must be a fire. And that’s often true. But arsonists also light fires. Sometimes the cloud of controversy conceals a raging inferno of wrongdoing. But sometimes the pungent smell of smoke turns out to be crumbs in the toaster. Best not to yell “Fire!” in a crowded building, only to find out later your neighbor likes crispy Eggos.

Some readers may wonder what has prompted this post. Nothing in particular. And everything. There is no fresh incident which inspired these thoughts. Rather, I’m writing because of the sin that I know lurks in my own heart and because of the way the blogosphere and twitterverse demand full scale denunciations the way rambunctious eight year-olds demand pixie sticks. Give them what they want and they will only ask for more.

As Christians we realize that sin deserves rebuke and the sinned against should have our deepest compassion. But we should also remember from the last days of our Lord that believing every accusation can be  just as bad as making them. As long as there is Jesus, we have to allow that “controversial” and “accused” do not always mean “troublemaker” and “guilty.” We should use the same measure with others that we would want used with us, which means an open heart and an open mind. Do you want people assuming the worst about you? Do I want people passing along every bad report they hear about me? What if people talked about us the way we talk about others?

I’ve often been challenged in this regard by the Heidelberg Catechism’s explanation of the ninth commandment:

God’s will is that I never give false testimony against anyone, twist no one’s words, not gossip or slander, nor join in condemning anyone without a hearing or without a just cause.

Rather, in court and everywhere else, I should avoid lying and deceit of every kind; these are devices the devil himself uses, and they would call down on my God’s intense anger. I should love the truth, speak it candidly, and openly acknowledge it. And I should do what I can do guard and advance my neighbor’s good name. (Q/A 112)

Think of your tweets (as I think of mine). Think of your posts. Think of your conversation with friends. Think of what you talk about with your husband. Or how you talk about your wife. Think of your emails and texts. Think of the speech pouring out of your heart. Are we doing all we can to guard and advance our neighbor’s good name? Or are we ready to believe the worst, eager to pass out failure, and happy to pile on when the pile gets popular? If the mere assertion of wrongdoing can ruin someone’s life–if that’s the moral universe we want to sustain, one where guilt is presumed and innocence is only declared after it’s too late–then you and I are only a whisper away from seeing it all go down the drain.

“Judge not, that you be not judged.”

It may not say what everyone wants it to say. But it still says a lot. Much more than many of us want to hear.

What in the "world"?

Dan Philips has a short blog post on the meaning of the word "world". He does not go into detail, but he does demonstrate with a little common sense reflection that it does not always just mean "every man, woman or child who has been or will be born." At the very least, she shows that sometimes it can mean something different. DB

What that specific meaning is must be determined by serious exegesis, and not by bilious assertion and airy, impatient dismissal.

In my review of the new EEC volume on the letters of John, I remarked on the author's selective lack of curiosity as to John's meaning in using "world" (kosmos) in 1 John 2:2. I noted that Derickson was forced to admit and consider other senses in later passages, though he had treated 2:2 as if the term could only be univocal, and only naked and baseless dogmatism could ever move one to another view.

My aim here is not to solve the difficulties in understanding 1 John 2:2 (on which I've shared a thought or two in the past). Rather, it is to open some minds — pause, to allow gales of laughter and tear-wiping to die down — of those who imagine that Bible readers who affirm Scripture's teachings about God's sovereignty in grace (i.e. "Calvinists") simply make up the notion that "world" could ever mean anything other than "every last man, woman and child who ever has been born or ever will be born."

I'd just like to observe that it is not only impossible to imagine that the wordalways has that meaning — it is, in fact, questionable whether it ever has that meaning.

My favorite example is John 1:10, which saith: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him."

Can we say, "World just means world," and be saying anything meaningful about that passage?

That is, is John really saying, "In the incarnation, the Logos was in the presence of every last man, woman and child who ever has been born or ever will be born, and every last man, woman and child who ever has been born or ever will be born was made through him, yet every last man, woman and child who ever has been born or ever will be born did not know him"?

Unlikely.

Rather, is not John saying "Jesus came to be in the society of mankind [Sense 1], and though the entire physical universe [Sense 2] had been made through him [cf. v. 3], yet the anti-God Satanic system within it [Sense 3] did not know him"? If so, then, do we not have three senses of the same word, kosmos, in a single verse?

Or how about John 3:17, the verse after the Arminians' favorite (imagined) trump-card verse? It reads, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that theworld might be saved through him." Again, a threefold use ofkosmos. Does John really mean, "For God did not send his Son in the Incarnation to every last man, woman and child who ever has been born or ever will be born to condemn every last man, woman and child who ever has been born or ever will be born but in order that every last man, woman and child who ever has been born or ever will be born will be saved through him"? If so, how come most of the world never got a glimpse of Jesus or heard a word He said (and still haven't), and how come so many people are in fact and will in fact remain lost?


Or take 1 John 5:19, which has virtually the same wording as 2:2 — "We know that we are from God, and the wholeworld lies in the power of the evil one." So, really? Is John actually saying that "every last man, woman and child who ever has been born or ever will be born lies in the power of the evil one"? What about John himself, and the believers to whom he wrote? John certainly didn't think they all lay under the power of Satan (cf. 2:13-14). As for Paul, he thought he was (and we are) "in Christ," not in the evil one.

We shall come to real misery when we try to apply this to John 17:9, where our Lord prays, "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." Is He saying, " I am praying for them. I am not praying for every last man, woman and child who ever has been born or ever will be born but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." But aren't "those whom you have given me" people who have been born?

I could easily go on, and on, and on and on and on. Of course, no human power can dislodge dogma from the grips of its worshipers, but one may dare to hope that all fair-minded readers will grantthe one point I'm making: the word kosmos is not univocal, and it does not "just mean 'world,' period." It means different things in different contexts.

What that specific meaning is must be determined by serious exegesis, and not by bilious assertion and airy, impatient dismissal.

Ezekiel

Ezekiel, chapters 40 to 48 are to be taken literally, supposedly: Literally Reading Ezekiel 40-48 | hipandthigh (Cf. Triablogue: Literal events, figurative depictions)

Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39 are to be taken literally, or are they? Triablogue: Gog and Magog 

If Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39 are subject to some degree of figurative interpretation, then chapters 40-48 also take a place along the slippery slope. Where, for example, is the very high mountain near Jerusalem? (Riddleblog - The Latest Post - Eschatology Q & A -- What About Ezekiel's Vision of the Temple (Ezekiel 40-48)?

In the process, premillennialism and dispensationalism become questionable; however, by the same token some objections to the apologetical outreach of Messianic Jews also become questionable. For instance, some of the items of Mark S’ list--repeated and re-posed time and again on Yahoo! Answers--hinge on a strict literal interpretation of such passages: Where in the Tanakh do Jews reference when they deny Jesus was the Messiah? - Yahoo! Answers.

And yes, all of the information above is yet another reminder that the world is not a simple place.

Sola Scriptura and the Role of Teachers

By Phil Johnson

A less-than-admiring reader writes:

Your identity as a "Baptist"; your endless quotations from Charles Spurgeon; your faithful devotion to John MacArthur; and especially your willingness to call yourself a "Calvinist" are all huge red flags that tell me something is seriously wrong with your theology. Why do you teach a system of doctrine that is named after a mere man? Why are you following human teachers instead of going to the Bible alone? After all, 1 John 2:27 says, "The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you." We ought to go to Scripture alone to establish our doctrine! The truth is in God's Holy word, not in any theological system or theology textbook developed by mere men. Isn't that principle what the Reformation was originally about?Sola Scriptura?Didn't even Calvin himself go to Scripture for the truth instead of reading other men? I believe that if Calvin himself wrote for this blog, he would point people to the truth in God's Holy word, not to a theology developed by some other man.

My reply:

ou have seriously misunderstood sola Sriptura if you really imagine that it rules out human teachers or eliminates systematic theology. The Reformers (including Calvin) often cited the works of Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome, Cyprian, Ambrose, and others—ranging from the early church fathers through Aquinas. They didn't follow any of them slavishly, of course, but they certainly took them seriously. Not one of the major Reformers would have tolerated the claim that because the Church Fathers were mere men they were therefore irrelevant or incapable of shedding any helpful light on tough theological questions.

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the final court of appeal in all matters of faith and practice. It is an affirmation that "the whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture" and that "nothing at any time is to be added [to the Bible], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." It recognizes that there is ultimately no higher spiritual authority than God's Word, so "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture . . . it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

But none of that means we're obliged to discard the wisdom of godly men from ages past and require each man to try to discern truth from scratch by reading nothing but Scripture by himself.

As for Calvin, he certainly did "point people to the truth in God's Holy Word"—but one thing he did not do was steer people away from the important theologians of the past. In fact, Calvin's works are filled with references to the Church Fathers—Augustine in particular. Calvin knew it was important to demonstrate that he was proposing nothing wholly novel and that his theology was in the doctrinal lineage of the greatest theologians of the church. He regarded himself as Augustinian, in precisely the same way many today think of themselves as "Calvinists."

If Calvin wrote for this blog and someone responded to one of his posts by refusing to read what Augustine wrote, Calvin would probably write that person off as arrogant and unteachable.

Incidentally, 1 John 2:20,27 is the apostle John's response to an early outbreak of gnostic-flavored spiritual elitism. He was refuting some false teachers (he called them "antichrists") who insisted that real truth is a deep secret, different from the apostolic message, into which people must be initiated by some anointed swami. The Holy Spirit indwells and anoints each believer, and He is the One who truly enlightens and enables us to understand truth. But He also gifts certain people with a particular ability to teach others (Romans 12:6-7; Ephesians 4:11). So while John was condemning the notion of enlightened masters in the style of Freemasonry and gnosticism, he was not making a blanket condemnation of teachers. He himself was a teacher.

Bonus:

A follow-up message asks me if I am suggesting it's wrong for someone to abandon all books and human teachers and rely only on what he can glean from the Bible for himself. Answer: yes, I think that's wrong because it's arrogant and reflects a sinful kind of unteachability. This is my whole point: sola Scriptura doesn't rule out the valid role of teaching in the church.

Furthermore, it is simply not the case that any common, unskilled, unschooled individual, sitting down with his Bible and no other tools, can expect to come to a full and mature understanding of Scripture without any help from godly teachers who understand some things better than he will ever get it on his own. Here's Bernard Ramm's famous response to the arrogance reflected in such a perversion of sola Scriptura::

It is often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible completely without helps. They preface their interpretations with a remark like this: "Dear friends, I have read no man's book. I have consulted no man-made commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for itself." This sounds very spiritual, and usually is seconded with amens from the audience.
     But is this the pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to by-pass all the godly learning of the church? We think not.
     First, although the claim to by-pass mere human books and go right to the Bible itself sounds devout and spiritual it is a veiled egotism. It is a subtle affirmation that a man can adequately know the Bible apart from the untiring, godly, consecrated scholarship of men like [Athanasius,] Calvin, Bengel, Alford, Lange, Ellicott, or Moule. . . .
     Secondly, such a claim is the old confusion of the inspiration of the Spirit with the illumination of the Spirit. The function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture. Suppose we select a list of words from Isaiah and ask a man who claims he can by-pass the godly learning of Christian scholarship if he can out of his own soul or prayer give their meaning or significance: Tyre, Zidon, Chittim, Sihor, Moab, Mahershalalhashbas, Calno, Carchemish, Hamath, Aiath, Migron, Michmash, Geba, Anathoth, Laish, Nob, and Gallim. He will find the only light he can get on these words is from a commentary or a Bible dictionary.

[from Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), pp. 17-18 (emphasis in original).]

Elements of Productive Bible Study: Interpret, Part 2

Elements of Productive Bible Study: Interpret, Part 2

by John MacArthur

Faithfully reading Scripture is fundamental to your spiritual growth. But reading alone isn’t enough to sanctify you—it’s just the first step in the process.
To truly get the full meaning—and the full benefit—of Scripture, you’ve got to be able to interpret it accurately. While you might be able to glean some eternal truth from a basic, surface reading of the text, God’s Word deserves and demands our careful attention and diligent study.

We already looked last week at some of the common, dangerous mistakes people make when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Today, I want to highlight five key principles of sound biblical interpretation. These are tools I use regularly when I’m preparing to teach, and I know they will help you in your own study.

The Literal Principle

In simple terms, this means you take the words of Scripture in their literal, normal, natural sense. A literal view of God’s Word will help guard you against spurious interpretive methods like numerology, extreme allegory, and bizarre mysticism. What each word means is what it means.

Obviously, that’s not a call for slavish, rigid literalism. But even where Scripture employs parables, hyperbole, similes, metaphors, and symbolism, we’re to read and understand those figures of speech in their natural, normal sense.

Fans of allegory will point to the figurative language deployed in some apocalyptic prophecies, but that’s far from the norm in Scripture. And even in those passages, a clear understanding relies on historical study and not the imagination of the reader.

Don’t approach Scripture as if it’s a treasure map or a puzzle that needs to be solved to access some secret meaning. If you ignore the literal understanding, you discard any hope for an accurate, coherent interpretation. With few exceptions, the simple, direct meaning of the text is its original, intended meaning.

The Historical Principle

We need to work to understand the Bible in its original, historical context. Ask yourself this question: “What did this verse or passage mean to its author and its original audience?” A text without a context is a pretext.

To fully understand any book of the Bible, you need to be aware of the history involved. Who was the original audience? Where did they live? What were the political and cultural conditions like? What were the tensions, problems, and crises in that community at the time of the writing, and did the writer address those issues? Were there specific customs or rituals that have a bearing on the meaning of the text?

Answering those questions and others like them helps bridge the gap between the culture of the Bible and our modern society, bringing you to a clear, thorough understanding of the writer’s original message.

The Grammatical Principle

Often the syntactical construction of a passage is the key to its meaning. Verbs, nouns, pronouns, prepositions—just as in any other language, the usage and placement of the individual words help determine their meaning.

Sentence diagramming isn’t as stressed in grammar classes as it once was, but identifying the grammatical parts of a verse or passage and how they work together is very helpful when studying Scripture. If you don’t accurately and precisely follow the sequence of the words and phrases, how can you hope to know what God’s Word truly says?

The first thing I do when I prepare to teach a passage is study the biblical text in its original language. I want to make sure to get the full meaning of each word in the passage, and not overlook some nuance that can be lost in the translation to English. You can do the same in your personal study, even if you don’t know Greek and Hebrew. Interlinear translations, Bible dictionaries, and good commentaries ought to give you insight into the original languages, and help you break down what the words and phrases meant to their original audience.

The Synthesis Principle

If the Bible is God’s Word, it must be consistent with itself. No part of Scripture can contradict any other part. It was all inspired by one Author—the Holy Spirit—and consequently, it reflects a marvelous, supernatural unity.

That means that obscure passages can—and should—be understood in light of clearer ones. The synthesis principle puts Scripture together with Scripture to arrive at a clear, consistent meaning. If you hold to an interpretation of one passage that does not square with something in another passage, one of the passages is being interpreted incorrectly—and possibly both of them.

Using Scripture to interpret itself will also guard you from many heretical, extrabiblical doctrines, as it forces you to submit your interpretation to the standard and context of the rest of Scripture. It protects you from spiritual contradictions.

The Practical Principle

You can’t end your Bible study without asking, “What does all this have to do with me?” What does the passage have to say about faith, godliness, growth, sin, and repentance, and what are the implications for your life?

Regardless of what you’re studying, there will be some practical connection to your life. As Paul said in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.”

Once you’ve considered the literal meaning of a passage, its historical and grammatical context, and how it harmonizes with the rest of Scripture, you need to draw out the practical implications for your life. That’s what productive Bible study looks like—digging down to the original meaning of a text and applying it to your life.

Does that seem like something you can do faithfully in your own, personal study of God’s Word?

Elements of Productive Bible Study: Interpret, Part 1

Elements of Productive Bible Study: Interpret, Part 1

 by John MacArthur

When it comes to Bible study, too often people want to jump straight to application. They might be faithful to read God’s Word, but they skip an important step on the way to applying it to their lives. And in many cases, that application comes from only the most basic, shallow knowledge of what Scripture truly says and means.

You can’t dig deeply into the riches of God’s truth if you only have a surface understanding of its meaning. If you truly want to apply God’s Word to your life, you cannot skip over the important step of interpretation. It’s not enough to simply know what the Bible says—we must strive to know what it means by what it says.

It’s a matter of, as Paul charged Timothy, “rightly dividing the Word” (2 Timothy 2:15, NKJV). Left to our own understanding, we might be able to make some limited sense of portions of Scripture. However, other passages would leave us as clueless and confused as the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:31). In fact, without careful interpretation, you could wind up with a different application of biblical truth for each person in your family, your Bible study group, or even your congregation.

In order to interpret the true meaning of Scripture, there are a number of gaps we need to bridge. Since the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Greek, and even some Aramaic, there are language gaps we need to cross. Why did the biblical authors use the words, phrases, and idioms they used, and what did they mean to the original audience? And do our translations of those words and phrases capture their full meaning, or is there more to it than is instantly apparent in our English Bibles?

Along those same lines, we need to bridge the culture gap. We need to understand how the biblical authors thought and lived, and how that influenced what they wrote. You can’t appreciate the full weight of the parable of the Good Samaritan or Christ’s interaction with the woman at the well if you don’t understand the tension between Jews and Samaritans. We don’t need to contextualize Scripture to make it relevant today—we need to understand its original context and how it shaped God’s Word.

In addition to language and culture, there’s also a geography gap. Even a basic understanding of Old and New Testament geography can make a significant difference in your understanding of a particular text. How many times have you consulted the maps in the back of your Bible? Just that basic information helps bring vivid detail to the life and ministry of Christ, His disciples, and many other Old and New Testament figures.

Finally, when it comes to interpreting God’s Word, we need to bridge the history gap. Knowing Pilate’s background and the mistakes he’d made with the Jews helps you understand why he was so willing to hand Jesus over for crucifixion. Knowing about the wicked lives of the Roman rulers helps you understand the kind of persecution and opposition Paul and the other apostles faced. Don’t fall into the trap of treating God’s Word like a collection of fables, fairy tales, and ancient proverbs. Knowing the real history that shaped the events in Scripture helps bring them to life in your study.

The work of bridging those gaps is interpretation, and it’s a vital part of any thorough, productive Bible study. It can seem like daunting work at first, but it’s the only way to get past a shallow, surface understanding of God’s truth. To help you with that, tomorrow we’re going to look at five key principles of Bible interpretation.

The Pitfalls of Biblical (Mis) Interpretation- Part 3

Be careful not to spiritualize or allegorize the Biblical text...But don't take my word for it. Here's what MacArthur says:

by John MacArthur

If you believe the Bible is God’s Word—that it’s His revelation of Himself and His plan for redeeming sinners, and that it supplies all the instruction and encouragement believers need for life, spiritual growth, and godliness—then getting the message right is of the highest importance.

However, the emphasis in many churches has shifted away from careful, disciplined Bible study to more intuitive and internal methods of spiritual formation. People who profess to love the Lord treat His truth carelessly, or disregard it altogether. Others simply lack the training and wisdom to get beyond the most basic, surface understanding of God's Word.

Over the past few days, we’ve been looking at some key mistakes people make when it comes to interpreting and understanding God’s truth, and today we want to look at one more. In order to get the message of Scripture right, don’t spiritualize or allegorize unless the text itself calls for it. Some people use the Bible as a flexible fable to back up some point or platform they want to put across. Instead of seeking the true meaning of Scripture, they make it an allegory to support whatever they want to teach.

An extreme example of the perils of allegorizing is the young couple that came to one of our assistant pastors to get counseling about their marital problems. He began talking with them, and after about thirty minutes he asked them, “Why did you ever get married? You are miles apart!”

“Oh” said the husband. “It was the sermon the pastor preached in our church.”

“And what was it?”

“Well, he preached on Jericho.”

“Jericho! What does that have to do with marriage?”

“Well, he said that God’s people claimed the city, marched around it seven times, and the walls fell down. He said if a young man believed God had given him a certain young girl, he could claim her, march around her seven times, and the walls of her heart would fall down. So that’s what I did, and we got married.”

“That can’t be true,” said our assistant pastor. “You’re just kidding, aren’t you?”

“No, it’s true,” said the husband. “And there were many other couples who got married because of the same sermon!”

Some people believe their marriages were made in heaven. Here was a marriage made in an allegory—and a silly one at that!

That kind of interpretation has gone on since the early days of the church, and it continues today. A well-known charismatic preacher did a sermon series on the book of Nehemiah. As he taught, just about everything in the book represented something else or meant something symbolic. These are among his points:

• Jerusalem’s walls were in ruin, and that speaks of the broken-down walls of the human personality.
• Nehemiah represents the Holy Spirit, who comes to rebuild the walls of human personality.
• And when the pastor got to the king’s pool (Nehemiah 2:14), he said it referred to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and from there he went on to teach the importance of speaking in tongues.

The book of Nehemiah has nothing to do with the walls of human personality, the baptism of the Spirit, or speaking in tongues. But when a preacher reads that kind of application into the story, some people think it is marvelous Bible teaching. I say it isn’t. It’s hucksterism. It makes the Bible say what we want in place of what God is saying to us (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:17).

The real danger of that kind of teaching is that it teaches believers to use the same approach in their personal study. It robs God’s Word of its true meaning, supplanting the original intent with all kinds of freewheeling, unhinged interpretations. It treats Scripture as if it can mean anything and everything. That kind of approach cuts you off from the original, objective meaning of God’s truth, and therefore cuts you off from the true source of spiritual growth.

The Pitfalls of Biblical (Mis) Interpretation- Part 2

The Pitfalls of Biblical (Mis)Interpretation, Part 2

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

• PDF
• Print
• Email

by John MacArthur

If you had to give a presentation on Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, how would you prepare? Would you study the work of scholars to absorb as much pertinent information and insight as you could? Or would you simply mull the few facts and details you already know, hoping for the shreds of disparate information to coalesce into a useful outline?

Obviously the second method is a path to embarrassment, misinformation, and failure. But why then do we tolerate similar patterns when it comes to studying and teaching God’s Word?

We’ve been identifying some key pitfalls in the area of Bible interpretation, and the next one is simple: avoid superficial study. Good, accurate Bible study is hard work. As we have seen already, discerning what God is saying to us through His Word cannot be done by flipping through quickly and looking for messages wherever our eyes happen to settle. Nor is understanding the Bible a matter of personal opinion (“To me it means...”).

Careful and accurate handling of God’s Word requires diligence. If we are diligent, we can arrive at a correct interpretation of the major truths of Scripture and the general thrust of particular passages. God has not hid His truth from us.

But neither is the meaning of His Word always instantly clear. Sometimes the real meaning of a passage is revealed in an understanding of the culture to which it was addressed. Sometimes it is made clear by a simple nuance in the original language. That’s why we cannot get by with the haphazard ad-libbing and flippant freewheeling that is so popular in some churches today. Some differences of interpretation may never be resolved in this life, but that does not negate our responsibility to study carefully and diligently.

In 1 Timothy 5:17, Paul describes the “double honor” to be given to those in the church “who labor in the word and doc­trine.” The reason God has given teachers to the church is that understanding His Word and correctly instructing people in the Scriptures requires people who are committed to persistent, conscientious labor in response to the divine calling.

Bernard Ramm wrote,

It is often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible completely without helps. They preface their interpretations with a remark like this: “Dear friends, I have read no man’s book. I have consulted no man-made commen­taries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for itself.” This sounds very spiritual, and usually is seconded with amens from the audience.

But is this the pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to by-pass all the godly learning of the church? We think not.

First, although the claim to by-pass mere human books and go right to the Bible itself sounds devout and spiritual it is a veiled egotism. It is a subtle affirmation that a man can adequately know the Bible apart from the untiring, godly, consecrated scholarship of men like Calvin, Bengel, Alford, Lange, Ellicott, or Moule....

Secondly, such a claim is the old confusion of the inspiration of the Spirit with the illumination of the Spirit. The function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture. Suppose we select a list of words from Isaiah and ask a man who claims he can by-pass the godly learning of Christian scholar­ship if he can out of his own soul or prayer give their meaning or significance: Tyre, Zidon, Chittim, Sihor, Moab, Mahershalahashbas, Calno, Carchemish, Hamath, Aiath, Migron, Michmash, Geba, Anathoth, Laish, Nob, and Gallim. He will find the only light he can get on these words is from a commentary or a Bible dictionary.¹

What Ramm was describing—that lack of respect for the work of gifted theologians and expositors who have spent years studying and interpreting Scripture—is on display in many churches, ministries, and in particular, on Christian college campuses today.

I won’t pretend to understand all the reasons that mentality appeals to people, and especially young people. It could flow out of a deep dissatisfaction with the church models and practices of their youth. Or it could simply be evidence of a heart bent to outright rebellion. No matter the reason, the impact is still the same: it cuts the individual, the congregation, or even the whole community off from the collected teaching and wisdom of the church and the guidance and instruction of church history.

In terms of your own spiritual growth, along with that of anyone who might follow your example, the spiritual stakes are far too high to rely solely on your own understanding, or to wait for special, unique instruction from the Lord.

I once heard a radio interview in which a woman pastor was asked how she “got her sermons up.” She replied, “I don't get them up; I get them down. God delivers them to me.” Her words reflect an attitude all too familiar in the church today. Many believe it’s unspiritual to study. “After all,” some say (taking a verse completely out of context), “didn’t Jesus say, ‘For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say’?” (Luke 12:12).

That kind of shallow, superficial approach to Scripture is a sure way to miss its true meaning. You can’t ad-lib your way to biblical understanding and spiritual maturity—not in the pulpit and not in your personal study. Don’t attempt to speak for God when you have no idea what you’re talking about—and don’t follow anyone who does.

John MacArthur

No Good in Theological Debates?

I was listening to a sermon recently and the pastor made a comment that caused a bit of concern (though I’m not sure this is the best word). I have heard similar comments made before, and often, from different churches and leaders. The pastor said something to the effect of, ‘I have seen no good come from a theological debate. We should instead just love Jesus and study the Word.’ He also mentioned that theological debate is divisive and can lead to self righteousness.

I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, so I am going to assume he doesn’t fully mean there is no value to debate since he also mentioned that it is important to offer arguments to others. Maybe he meant quarrelsome debate. However, I wanted to offer a few thoughts on his comments, since it is one I have dealt with in the past. The challenge in this, ironically, is to do it such a way as to avoid the label divisive or self righteous. I’ll do my best.

1) Just because you can see no value in something does not mean there is no value or that someone else does not see the value.

                I like math and I think it is useful beyond simply answering the question in front of you. It helps with critical thinking skills and more. Many folks do not see the value, though it is there. For years, I did not like history; it took a long time to see or appreciate the value in it.  While we may not always see the value in something, it does not mean the value is not there.

2) Just because someone does something poorly does not mean we ought not to engage in it.

                Marriage, driving, parenting, communication, relationships, loving God, loving others, preaching, apologetics, debate, etc…Many folks completely mess up these things, myself included, on a daily basis. This does not mean we ought to abandon them. Instead, we must work on doing them well. Many folks come from a family of dysfunctional relationships (who doesn’t? J)- I still wanted to get married and have children. But I knew it was going to take work to do it well. I knew there were certain things I did not want for my relationship. So, I learned from folks that did it well and tried not to make the same mistakes.

3) Unity does not mean we always agree. Debating theology does not always mean being divisive just to be divisive- put another way- Dividing truth from error is not always bad.

                Like it or not good theology does divide. But sometimes our error will have worse results than division. If I say I love Jesus, I need to be sure of a few things about Him (ie…theology). If I am wrong about some of the details of who He is, this could have eternal implications. Even if I just want to ‘love Jesus and study the Word’. Mormons, some New Age folks, and others could say the same thing and still not be a believer.

                Just as we must be careful not to treat ‘nonessentials’ as the most important thing, we must also be careful not to think that if an issue is not explicitly the Gospel that it is not important. Many issues have implications beyond the immediate, but have some level of importance. (ex…baptism, church governance, methods of evangelism, worship music, the sovereignty of God vs. man, Biblical interpretation, etc)

                On the formal side of debate folks like Ravi Zacharius, Greg Koukl, William Lane Craig, James White and many other godly men have participated in public debates that have been very helpful, even if not for those directly involved. Koukl calls the value in this- ricochet evangelism. What he means is that sometimes we may never persuade the person we are talking to; sometimes those who may be “listening in” may learn something valuable, even if it only to learn how to deal with those we may disagree with. (I have found this can be the case with many online interactions as well)

 Debate, discussion (even heated), or thinking deeply about controversial theological matters can be done well or poorly.

                As I said above, I want to give the pastor the benefit of the doubt. It may have just been a throw away comment that was not clearly qualified, which is understandable. However, the American Church has long neglected the intellectual life. And many Christians feel like they can never bring up a contrary view for fear they could be, or have been, unfairly labeled divisive. And just for questioning, discussing or debating important issues about the God of the Bible.

                God is bigger than our doubts; He is bigger than our questions; He is bigger than when we mess up. Thank the Lord. Even when we mess up our marriages, theological discussions, and any other human interactions. Thank the Lord. He still saves people in spite of us. Thank the Lord. The Gospel even covers us when we do things poorly. Dare I say, thank the Lord? But it doesn’t always mean we ought to give up those things. Strive, instead, to do them well.

It's Not You, It's Me

I was recently reading Deut. 33 and in it is detailed many blessings and curses for those that are obedient or disobedient. The obedient were on the receiving end of all kinds of positive things. The disobedient got all kinds of promises of disease or death, pestilence, etc.

It made me think of the way that many folks take a promise of God out of context and try to apply it to their own life. We would not dare take the curses as promises for us, because it is clear, looking at the context, that it is not for us (plus it is negative). If we would not accept the negative promises of God as our own, why do we accept the positive promises as our own without the same consideration?

I wonder if it is because we think we deserve all the blessings of God because we are so good, and God would surely not punish our disobedience to His holy, righteous law because of all the good we usually do.

I was thinking also of the promises to the Israelites for the promised land. We like to claim the promises for the promised land for ourselves, but not the promises to Moses, that he will not make it into the Promised land because of his disobedience. I think the same applies with Jeremiah 29, that I've addressed before...We like Jer. 29:11, where God has a good plan for us, but shouldn't also claim Jer. 29:17- thus says the Lord of hosts, 'Behold, I am sending upon them a sword, famine and pestilence, and I will make them like split-open figs that cannot be eaten due to rottenness.

Can we have it both ways? Can we claim promises of God that seem to be for someone else entirely? If we can, why not the promises of destruction for our disobedience also?

I wish we could claim some of these things as our own, but I am not at liberty to take something out of context and apply it to myself, no matter how encouraged it makes me feel...But we are called to rightly handle the Word of God and I don't think this does it.

Experiencing God Part 1

This has been a topic of interest for me for a few years now. I also think it is a big part of the Christian culture and it is important to consider thoughtfully things that are happening in the culture. Especially those things that are so ingrained, we would not usually even question them because to do so would be considered unloving and almost heretical (I say that with my tongue in cheek, but I am serious about the response at times). Gary Gilly takes a look at the Biblical foundations for "hearing God's voice" and points out a few of Henry Blackaby's misuse of Scripture. My prayer is that you would look carefully at the reasons for concern and act accordingly. Be sure to share your thoughts at the end.

Experiencing God - Part 1

Written by Gary Gilley

(October 1997 - Volume 3, Issue 8)  A pastor who had read some of my writings encouraged me to read Henry Blackaby’s best selling book, Experiencing God. This pastor apparently either thought that Blackaby’s work would compliment my own, or correct my thinking. Either way, I am afraid that I have proven to be a disappointment to my friend. If he felt that I would appreciate and enjoy Experiencing God I have sadly mis-communicated to my readers. The thrust of this book is so foreign to my views of Scripture that I find it incredible that I could be so misunderstood. If so, I repent and vow to try harder to communicate plainly. On the other hand, if my pastor friend thinks that I would be persuaded by Blackaby’s brand of "story-theology" he is sadly mistaken. Blackaby’s book and seminars are representative of much that I detest in so-called evangelicalism today. They take a purely mystical approach to Christian living and by necessity undermine and distort the precious Word of God. I write about Blackaby’s work, not only to expose it, but also because it is a clear representation of the state of evangelicalism in America. Where It All Began In 1990 a workbook, based upon the teachings of Henry Blackaby, a Southern Baptist pastor and conference speaker, was published. The workbook, Experiencing God, has since sold over two million copies, has been translated into forty languages and it has been reported that sixteen percent of all Southern Baptists have taken a course based on this workbook. By some estimates this translates to about half of all active members of the denomination. Churches from many other denominations, including Roman Catholic churches, have gone through the "Experiencing God" course, according to a spokesman for the S.B.C. Sunday School Board. Furthermore, there are now youth and pre-teen editions of the workbook, as well as videos and a leader’s study guide. The hard back version of Experiencing God (subtitled Knowing and Doing the Will of God, Life Way Press, Nashville, Tennessee) is an expanded and modified form of the workbook (all of our comments will be based on the hard back edition). It was published in 1994 and already has sold two hundred fifty thousand copies. In addition, thousands have attended Experiencing God Weekends and Experiencing God Weekends for Couples. These weekends are open to usually sponsored by the Southern Baptist Convention, but are open to all denominations. Even the Jesuits at Boston College had scheduled a Spring "Experiencing God Conversation Series." The appeal of Blackaby's ideas is that we can experience a deeper reality of the presence and voice of God. Unfortunately, Blackaby does not derive most of his thoughts from Scripture. The general teaching of Experiencing God is wrapped around what Blackaby calls the "Seven Realities of Experiencing God." The discerning reading will quickly recognize that the last four of the "Seven Realities" either contradict or at best cannot be supported or proven by Scripture. The Seven Realities are: God is always at work around you. God pursues a continuing love relationship with you that is real and personal. God invites you to become involved with Him in His work. God speaks by the Holy Spirit through the Bible, prayer, circumstances and the church to reveal Himself, His purposes and His ways. God's invitation for you to work with Him always leads you to a crisis of belief that requires faith and action. You must make major adjustments in your life to join God in what He is doing. You come to know God by experience as you obey Him and He accomplishes His work through you. General Thoughts Experiencing God is a book that is full of errors, biblically unsupportable assertions, incredible statements and story-theology (views based upon anecdotal accounts rather than upon Scripture). Some examples: "If you have trouble hearing God speak, you are in trouble at the very heart of your Christian experience" (p87). What does this mean? Does God speak to all Christians individually? If so, how? What Scripture is used to support this? (By the way, Blackaby uses none.) After praying to God Blackaby advises, "Reflect on your feelings. . . . How did you feel as you walked and talked with God" (p62). What passage from the Bible tells us to reflect on our feelings in order to evaluate our prayer life? "Knowing God only comes through experience as He reveals Himself to me through my experiences with Him" (p5). Doesn't the Bible reveal God to us? Are our experiences necessary and more importantly, are they reliable when it comes to experiencing God? "With God working through His servant, he or she can do anything God can do. Wow! Unlimited potential" (p26). Wow, is right! Kenneth Copeland, Paul Crouch, Benny Hinn and the whole Word of Faith gang of heretics would shout, "Wow!" too. Can believers create? Can they convict of sin? Can they draw men to God? This statement is a gross perversion of Phil. 4:13. "When God gets ready to do something, He reveals to a person or His people what He is going to do" (p31). This concept is a major emphasis of the book, and a large part of its popularity — but what Scripture supports this? Does God really report to us? Does He reveal to His church what He IS GOING TO DO? If so, tell me, what is He going to do next week? What is the next major movement of God in this world? Or, when will the rapture take place? We can often tell in hindsight what God has done and who He has used, but going forward is a different story. "You must make major adjustments in your life to join God in what He is doing" (p38). What kind of "adjustments" are we talking about here? Blackaby often uses this word "adjust," but I do not find it in my concordance. I wonder why he is so reluctant to use some good old fashioned biblical words like, "repent," "confess" or "obey." "Adjust" sounds so nice and clean. "Repent" sounds messy and ugly — maybe that is why!? Modern wisdom tells us that we must avoid offending anyone — even if it is with the truth. What Is The Word of God? As concerning as some of the statements that we have mentioned are, the real distress lies in Blackaby's distortion of the Word of God. Many readers of Experiencing God will, at first, believe the above statement to be in error. After all, the volume is peppered with numerous references to the Bible and much of what the author says is supported with scriptural accounts. Blackaby often speaks highly of the Word, proclaiming its importance; so, how can we challenge him with distortion of the Scriptures? We do so along three fronts: Misuse of the Scriptures II Timothy 2:15 is clear that if we are to be a people approved of God we must accurately handle the word of truth. Teachers of the Word of God have an awesome responsibility to understand and deliver God’s truth, not their own opinions. On this score Henry Blackaby fails miserably. To misuse the Bible as Blackaby does, is not uncommon. His errors are not unique, but that fact does not excuse one who claims to speak for God. Keep in mind that Blackaby is attempting to use the following passages as support of his views: John 14:26 — "The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things." — "The Holy Spirit of God will be your personal teacher. . . . He will be at work revealing God, His purposes and His ways to you" (p3). Simply completing the verse clarifies its meaning: "And bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." Jesus was not talking to us but to His apostles. The Holy Spirit would teach them and bring to their remembrance those things that they would share with the church largely through the writing of the New Testament. This verse is not a promise to the average believer directly. John 14:6 — "I am the way, the truth, and the life." — Blackaby uses this verse to teach that we will know specifically what God wants us to do with our lives. "Who is it that really knows the way for you to fulfill God’s purpose for your life? God is. . . . If you were to do everything that Jesus tells you one day at a time, you always would be right in the center of where God wants you to be. Can you trust God to guide you that way" (p21)? This passage is not in the context of God’s individual will for our lives, but the context of salvation and eternal life. Hebrews 1:1 — "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways." Blackaby utilizes this verse with a few others, to prove that God will speak to His people today, outside of the Scriptures. "If anything is clear from a reading of the Bible, this fact is clear: God speaks to His people. . . . God does speak to His people, and you can anticipate that He will be speaking to you also" (p83). Note carefully that Blackaby is not referring to the written Word of God. In using Heb. 1:1 as a proof text, our author does the same as he did with the last verse - he rips it out of context! Reading the very next line, "In these last days has spoken to us in His Son" (Heb. 1:2), shows that Blackaby has totally misused Scripture. Rather than a proof text for God speaking to us apart from Scripture, Hebrews 1:1 and 2 coupled with Hebrews 2:1-4, is a proof text of God’s revelation which was "In His Son" and has now been recorded by the apostles in the Word of God. This passage proves that there is no additional revelation apart from the Bible, not that God is speaking to us today apart from the Bible. Blackaby could not be more wrong. Luke 4 is used as an example of how to use the Scriptures to find direction from the Lord. Rather than teach his readers to carefully study the Word in its context, using proper hermeneutical principles, Blackaby teaches a mystical approach. A story is told of a lady who awakened one night with Luke 4:24running through her mind (pp105-106). She got up to read the passage and, "That morning the Lord spoke to Gail through the Bible. She realized that even Jesus had to leave His hometown in order to"‘preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns’ (v24). She sensed the Holy Spirit saying that she would have to leave the comforts and security of home to go with her husband as they served the Lord together. Later that morning, in an Experiencing God Seminar, she gave her testimony of what God had said." On the basis of God "speaking" to Gail in this way, she and her husband would sell their house and move to another state. This is indeed pure mysticism — it is among the most perverted forms of scriptural distortion! John 11:4 — "This sickness is not unto death" is used in the same manner (pp119-120). Taken as if it were a personal promise to the Blackaby family, they believed that God had promised them that their daughter would not die of cancer — and she did not. Proof positive that God had spoken, right? What about the thousands over the years who have claimed this same verse only to watch a loved one die? Perhaps it is because of such misuses of Scripture that many professing believers think that God has disappointed — even deceived them. Yet, John 11:4 has nothing to do with Blackaby’s daughter, or anyone else’s. It has to do with Lazarus. Romans 8:26,27 — Blackaby uses these verses to teach that the Holy Spirit, "Helps us know the will of God as we pray. . . . The Holy Spirit’s task is to get you to ask for it (God’s will)" (pp110-111). Of course the passage teaches no such thing. Rather, it tells us that, "The Spirit Himself intercedes for us." The Holy Spirit is not some mystical Ouija board from God prompting us to ask for just the right things before we can get them (as Blackaby claims). Instead, recognizing our weaknesses, the Holy Spirit prays for us, according to the will of God. In our next paper we will discuss Blackaby’s neo-orthodox leanings and general mysticism.