A Text without a Context, Pt. 4 | Dr. Bob Payne

Although this study could go on ad infinitum, this will be my final installment to the "Text without a Context" series. The passages for this installment are found in the Old Testament:

"Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." (Ps. 105:15; 1 Chon. 16:22)

Since I began in the ministry, I have been extremely concerned not only with the misuse of these passages, but the unbiblical teaching and attitude concerning the pastorate by those who misuse them. I believe that in many cases both interpretive and doctrinal error go hand-in-hand with the scriptures under our consideration.

"Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm" is usually erroneously applied in this way: "Since the pastor is God's anointed man and God's prophet, no one has any right to question a pastor as to his morals, ethics, or teachings. God plainly tells us in His Word to 'touch not mine anointed.' All discipline of 'God's man' should be left to God Himself." Roy Branson, Jr. reflects this unbiblical view in his book, Dear Preacher, Please Quit! (pp. 33-34):

We're saying that if a man of God is out of the will of God, leave him to God to take care of; and believe it, God will take care of him. One may say, "Well, what if he's tearing up our church?" Either live with it or go to another church, but don't ever try to get rid of the preacher. You may be right and the preacher may be wrong, but, if he's called of the Lord, that's God's man and we will tell you God will take care of him. When you try to do it, you put yourself in the position of Saul's Amalekite.

At the end of the chapter Dr. Branson gives an illustration of a young lady who approached him following a service. She said that she was having an affair with a well-known local pastor. Roy Branson ends his story (and chapter) with these disturbing words:

What did the author do? He prayed with the young woman and she sought and received God's forgiveness. He told no one, not even his wife, about the problem. Leave God's man to God to straighten out.

By the way, the above affair was ended because the young lady got right with God and refused to continue it. [Nothing is said of the pastor's repentance, OR his resignation!!!]

Finally, let us be sure we understand that God put no qualifications, no "unless" or "if" on the warning, "Touch not mine anointed and do my prophets no harm."

As I stated before, I believe that the position articulated above abounds in both contextual and doctrinal error:

CONTEXTUAL ERROR

If we are to set these passages in their proper context, two questions need to be answered: 1) To whom does "mine anointed" and "my prophets" refer? and, 2) What does it mean to "touch" them or "harm" them? The contexts of our passages make the answers to these questions plain (both contexts are very similar). Notice whom God is addressing in Psalm 105:6-15:

6 O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen. 7 He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth. 8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. 9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: 11 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: 12 When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. 13 When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people; 14 He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; 15 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.

According to vv. 9-12 the "anointed" and "prophets" of v. 15 are a reference to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants. It is also apparent from vv. 13-14 that "touching" them, or "harming" them refers to protection from physical danger. J. Barton Payne's comments on 1 Chronicles 15:18-22 shed light on why God referred to these men as He did:

The titles by which the patriarchs are described possess, at this early period, more generalized meanings than those they came to have later. They are called "anointed" . . . , in the sense of being set apart by God's Spirit--a phrase elsewhere used specifically for prophets (1 Kings 19:16), priests (Exod 29:7), and kings (1 Sam 2:35), with whom the presence of the Spirit was symbolized by a visible anointing with oil, and ultimately for Jesus (Christ = Messiah = "anointed"; 1 Sam 2:10; Ps 2:2; Acts 10:38).

The patriarchs are also called "prophets," in the sense of being recipients of God's special revelation--a title later used specifically for those who proclaimed God's revealed will . . . . Abraham was thus designated a "prophet," at the time of God's special protection against Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar (Gen 20:7); others of the patriarchs did, however, make specific predictions (e.g., Jacob, Gen 48:19; 49:1). (From the Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 4, p. 391.)

To apply this passage to the modern pastor is wrong. The modern pastor is not equivalent to any of the patriarchs, nor is he the same as God's covenant people, Israel.1 Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that the pastor is equivalent to the king of Israel (another comparison often made as "God's anointed"). Perhaps a very broad application might be made for all believers2 that God "looks out for" and protects His own. To go any further than this application twists the context and violates a proper dispensational interpretation of the scriptures.

It is also interesting to note that the phrase "touch not mine anointed" has little to do with verbal attacks or accusations of wrong-doing. This would be Branson's primary interpretation, as well as the interpretation of many of the modern charismatic false teachers. As I stated earlier, the primary reference of "touch not" and "harm" is to protection from physical danger.

DOCTRINAL ERROR

There are some erroneous doctrinal implications behind these "twisted texts." In my experience those who hold that Ps. 105:15, and 1 Chon. 16:22 may be applied to pastors of local churches also hold to the following unbiblical teachings:3

"The pastor is the sovereign monarch and dictator of the local church."

Is this true? What does the Bible have to say?

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. (1 Cor. 3:5 N.A.S.V.)

2 Shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. ( 1 Peter 5:2-4 N.A.S.V.)

Notice that Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:5 calls those who minister "servants." This is far from the attitude of a man who considers himself to be the sovereign of the local church. The Bible knows nothing of the unbiblical, man-made distinction between "clergy" and "laity" which places the pastor on a higher, more exalted level than his people. Our Lord taught us that ministry is not something executed from a lofty position above others, but it is something performed from the "low" position of Christ-like humility (Matt. 20:26-28) as the Lord's servant.

The 1 Peter passage is also instructive. Notice that Peter does not tell us that the pastor is a monarch, a king, or a dictator. He indicates in 1 Peter 5:2 that he is a "shepherd." Peter goes on to tell us in v. 3 that a shepherd should not be a man who "lords it over" his sheep, but instead, he should be an example to the flock. The Friberg Greek-English Lexicon defines the Greek word translated "lording it over" (katakurieuo): "of exercising dominion for one's own advantage lord it over, rule over, domineer over (MK 10.42)." Clearly, the scriptures indicate to us that the pastor is not to be a dictator, but one who leads by example.

Having said all of this, it is important not to over-emphasize the "leading by example" aspect of the pastorate. By so doing, some have weakened the office of the pastor, and have relegated the shepherd to a hired hand of the flock who does as he is told. This too is a distorted view of the pastorate. Once again, the Word of God is clear in this area as well:

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer [episkope], it is a fine work he desires to do. (1 Timothy 3:1 N.A.S.V.) Let the elders that rule [administrate or preside over the affairs of the local church] well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. (1 Timothy 5:17) Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. (Hebrews 13:17)

According to the previous scriptures the pastor rules and presides over the entire ministry of the local church (both the "spiritual" and "material"). His position demands respect, submission and obedience. In spite of this he is still not the dictator and king of the local church. My plea is for BALANCE. Dr. Clay Nuttall brings some clarity to this issue:

A real danger also exists in not seeing his [the pastor's] administration in balance. . . . It has been soundly preached that a bishop's administration and rule are by example and precept. That is true. Woe to the pastor who does not preach the Word. It alone is the final Authority and Guidebook. Shame on the pastor who lords it over God's heritage. Let us all deride dictatorial self-centeredness . . . .

Let not man say, however, that the pastor's leadership is limited to his influence and example, or to the simple leadership of teaching as verbalization and integration into his own actions and the actions of others. To take from him responsibility and authority, to enforce, by rule, Bible commands in the local church is not an attack on him but on Christ.

The Lord Himself imposed that oversight (1 Pet. 5:1-4) and the pastor will answer directly to the Chief Shepherd for exercise of it. The bishop is to be obeyed (Heb. 13:7, 17) and that implies much more than being an example. He is to rule (1 Tim. 5:17) and anything less than that is a failure. Some have played grammatical games and contextual shuffling to deny the Lord's instruction to undershepherds. Those actions are beneath the dignity of the office. (The Weeping Church, pp. 103-104).

"The pastor is to be untouched by accusation or discipline, even if the accusations are true."

Once again, we must ask ourselves: "Is this a biblical teaching." No, it isn't! Based on this teaching a pastor could never be put out of the pulpit, even in cases of doctrinal heresy or immorality. This is contrary to the Word of God. Pastors must be held accountable for their actions as well as their soundness of doctrine. We need to go no further than 1 Timothy 5:19 to demonstrate this: "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." Dr. Robert Gromacki was correct in his comments about this verse: "As members of a church, elders are not immune to the procedure of discipline. The same standards apply to them as well as to the layman4 ."

Notice in v. 19 that Paul tells Timothy to "receive not an accusation." Literally the thrust of the Greek here is "stop receiving an accusation." Evidentially, Paul is trying to stop a practice that was already in process, where an individual would bring an accusation to Timothy against a pastor. Timothy was not to entertain an accusation or begin the discipline process unless the sin could be substantiated by two or three witnesses.5 If then a serious sin were substantiated, the pastor should be disciplined. Unlike what some are teaching in our day, the Bible clearly instructs us that the pastor should be disciplined for things such as doctrinal and moral perversion. In this way, the pastor is "touchable."

FINAL THOUGHTS

The scriptures should never be twisted and doctrine manufactured for one's own benefit. It is my fear that many men who hold to the "touch not mine anointed" view of the pastorate have done just that. The old nature, full of pride and arrogance desperately wants to justify a dictatorial leadership style. The carnal man finds comfort in the statement: "God says never to question anything that I ever do or say." May God help us to find a biblical balance in our view of the pastor's leadership in the local church.

END NOTES:

1. Confusing the church with Israel can lead to further doctrinal error, particularly eschatological error.
2. 1 John 2:20 (N.A.S.V.) tells us that all believers are anointed: " But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know."
3. Although this may not be true in every case.
4. Excuse the term ("layman"), but we understand what he means.
5. A principle very familiar to students of the Old Testament. Notice Deut. 19:15: "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."

A Text without a Context, Pt. 3 - Dr. Bob Payne

Continued from September…

PASSAGE #2: "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Revelation 3:20)

Revelation 3:20 is a passage that has been used for many years in gospel presentations. It is normally used as a "clincher" verse to demonstrate a person's need for personal acceptance of Christ as Savior. It is usually applied this way: "Christ is knocking at your heart's door . . . all you must do is invite Him in and He will save you from your sins." Most picture in their minds Warner Sallman’s Famous picture, Christ Knocking at Heart’s Door. BUT, is this an appropriate and contextually accurate way to apply this passage? Furthermore, is this application theologically correct? I believe that the answer to both of these questions must be a resounding "no!"

I would like to convey through this article that Revelation 3:20 was never intended to be used as a salvation verse at all, but is actually an exhortation to believers. I will present my case in two parts. First, I will demonstrate that using Revelation 3:10 as a salvation verse rests upon a defective interpretation of the text. Second, I will also seek to present a contextually accurate understanding of the passage under consideration.

A DEFECTIVE INTERPRETATION

Is Revelation 3:20 a salvation passage? Look at the context. In Revelation 3, verses 14-22 we find the last of the messages to the seven churches. Verse 14 tells us that Christ is addressing this letter to the "angel [most assuredly a reference to a pastor, not an angelic being] of the church of the Laodiceans." From this point on, there is no indication whatsoever that our Lord is dealing with anyone else but believers. No doubt these Christians were disobedient, careless and complacent, but the context does not even hint to us that these people were anything else but genuine believers.

Notice the language of v. 19: "as many as I love." The Greek verb translated "love" here is phileo. As Dr. Daniel B. Wallace writes in his article, "Revelation 3:20 and the Offer of Salvation:" "Here phileo is used for ‘love'--a term that is never used of God/Jesus loving unbelievers in the NT. (Indeed, it would be impossible for God to have this kind of love for an unbeliever, for it routinely speaks of enjoyment and fellowship . . . )." Reading further in v. 19, we notice the words: "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten [italics mine]." The passage indicates that the ones whom Christ loves, He disciplines. According to Hebrews 12:6-8 only true sons are disciplined by the Lord, not those who are unsaved:

"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."

God does not discipline those who are not His. Clearly, the context reveals that only saved people are in view in Revelation 3:20, not unbelievers.1

The concept of a person "inviting Jesus into his heart" is also attributed to Revelation 3:20. It is based upon a careless translation of eiseleusomai pros auton. There is no problem with the A.V.'s rendering of this Greek clause: "I will come in to him." However, a difficulty occurs when interpreters try to translate the clause: "I will come into him." The two meanings are quite different. Neither the Greek nor the English is hinting at penetration ("into"), but rather direction ("to"). If Christ would have been indicating penetration into the human heart, the Greek word eis would have been used, and the translation "I will come into him" would be justified. But the Greek word pros is used here, indicating (in this context) motion towards someone. Wallace clarifies the issue for us:

"The idea of ‘come into' would be expressed with eis as the independent preposition and would suggest a penetration into the person (thus, spawning the idea of entering into one's heart). However, spatially prov" means toward, not into. In all eight instances of eisercomai pros in the NT, the meaning is ‘come in toward/before a person' (i.e., enter a building, house, etc., so as to be in the presence of someone), never penetration into the person himself/herself. In some instances, such a view would not only be absurd, but inappropriate (cf. Mark 6:25; 15:43; Luke 1:28; Acts 10:3; 11:3; 16:40; 17:2; 28:8)."

It is perhaps best to avoid such expressions as "inviting Jesus into your heart." It is, at best, an expression that is extra-biblical and theologically questionable. Moreover, the terminology can create great confusion in the minds of children.2 It would be far better for us to use the biblical term, "faith."3 Wallace has some significant observations:

"Among other things, to use this text as a salvation verse is a perversion of the simplicity of the gospel. Many people have allegedly 'received Christ into their hearts' without understanding what that means or what the gospel means. Although this verse is picturesque, it actually muddies the waters of the truth of salvation."

A PROPER UNDERSTANDING

In Revelation 3:20 Christ is portrayed as standing outside the lives of church members. The Laodicean church had become complacent and self-sufficient. They no longer felt that they needed the Lord, for they were "rich, and increased with goods," and "had need of nothing." They were about to be judged, and now Christ tenderly appeals to them one more time, as individuals, to return to intimate fellowship with Him. William R. Newell writes,

"Here we have Christ in all His tenderness, His unfathomable devotion! In these last words to the Church, the love of the Bridegroom makes Him forget wholly the work of the Judge. It is The Beloved, of the Song of Solomon (Song of Solomon 5:2).

This final plea of the Lord Jesus to the individual heart, where he has been shut out of the love and fellowship of the general company, should win every heart that UNDERSTANDS!" (The Book of the Revelation, p. 79).

Our text says, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock." The perfect tense of the verb histemi portrays the standing as a past action with present, continuing results. The present tense of the verb krouo indicates a continuous knocking. Christ's appeal to the individuals of the church (as well as to lukewarm Christians today) is to open the door ("if any man hear my voice, and open the door"), so as to let Him back into their miserable, empty lives. Then, and only then could the intimate relationship with their Lord be restored ("I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."). Concerning deipneso ("sup"--which is a metaphor for fellowship), J. Hampton Keathley III writes in his internet commentary on the book of Revelation:

"Dine is a Greek word which referred to the main meal of the day—a real feast. This Greek word, deipnew, was used not only of the chief meal of the day—a full course dinner—but of the meal which was the occasion for hospitality and fellowship. At this meal, however, He is the host. It is He who sets the table and we are His guests dining on that which He has provided."

Revelation 3:20 is clearly a passage written to Christians to repent of sin and be restored to full fellowship with the Lord. Again, Keathley writes,

" . . . this passage is addressed to the church—to believers. This is a call to fellowship with the Savior. As an invitation to Christians, it's a call to repent, as commanded in verse 19. It is a call for confession of one's sins with a renewal of mind and heart to continue to draw upon the glorious life of Christ daily through walking by the Spirit and living in the Word. It means abiding in Christ, the vine (John 15:1-7; 1 John 1:7-10; Eph. 4:20-24; 5:14-18; Rom. 8:1-16)."

May each one of us heed Christ's appeal in the midst of this uncaring and spiritually apathetic generation!

END NOTES:
1. Walvoord agrees, "This was an appeal to Christians rather than to non-Christians" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, p. 942).
2. How well I remember a Junior High student telling me of the time when her little brother "asked Jesus into his stomach" because he couldn't understand how Jesus could live in a person's heart!
3. We should all reevaluate our soteriological terminology to make sure that it is biblical. How cautious we need to be!

Intellectual Quicksand - Dr. Clay Nuttall

Editor's Note: I am interrupting my series on “A Text without a Context” to publish an article by Dr. Clay Nuttall. One of the characteristics of what might be termed a “Reformed hermeneutic” is an arrogant, “cerebral” approach to the scriptures. This results in a “we are smarter than you are” attitude. Human reasoning at times takes precedence over biblical teaching.

In his article “Intellectual Quicksand” Dr. Nuttall deals with the arrogant attitude of intellectualism that is threatening the consistently literal hermeneutic that those who write for this blog hold so dear.
___________________________

One of our readers, a good friend, wrote me about a conversation he had had with a future seminarian. The young man was quite enamored with the intellectuals in today’s evangelicalism, and he complained about a lack of intellectualism among fundamentalists. I mention this incident because I have had the same experience with at least a half dozen young men over the past few months.

Personally, I am thrilled to find anyone who not only is searching for information, but also is willing to screen massive amounts of material in order to understand the meaning of a given subject. One of my major goals as a teacher is to press my students on toward analytical and critical thinking. They need to learn to ask questions about everything.

The problem with this illustration is that every one of the above-mentioned young men was guilty of the same mistake; they sought intellectualism, but seemed unable to recognize the difference between truth and error in the midst of it. Several of the popular figures they identified as intellectuals teach theological error openly, but the younger men seemed to lack the ability to recognize that fact.

Such is the danger of broad intellectualism, an elitism that is heady for a young student - it is a spider’s web. It is quicksand, ready to entrap the unsuspecting.

THE UGLY TRUTH BEHIND THIS

Now mind you, I am not defending the presence of dull or lazy minds in fundamentalism. Although it has had - and does have – many thinking theologians, I don’t think I could honestly say that this is the norm in our movement. The absence of careful and demanding study has provided us with a fairly nasty list of examples of how not to do it. The debates we have observed are too often extremely shallow, usually ending with personal attacks. (We have probably learned that technique from the liberals, who always attack character when they don’t have an answer.)

The blame for this void cannot be pinned on any one thing. It could be that so many of our churches, with their lame excuses for any kind of organization, have caused this. The lack of really serious Bible study, along with too many flat-line sermons, might have something to do with it. In addition, I’m sure our educational institutions haven’t put this issue on the front burner because, without exception, all the young men referred to at the beginning of this article are from “schools of our stripe”.

No matter who or what is to blame, it is sad that we have failed to stir their thinking process. It is tragic that we did not give them the tools that would enable them to recognize theological error. And so they rush off to study under some intellectual guru who will instruct them to think about error as though it were truth.

SO, WHERE DO WE GO WITH THIS?

Please don’t write me before you read the following: I am not against intellectual pursuit! We need to demand that our young folks learn to practice analytical and critical thinking. They need to do so with a strong Biblical understanding of how to recognize error even when it is cloaked in apparent intelligence.

What kind of intellectualism is it that passes error on as if it were equal to truth? It is an information repository that is less than honest, that lacks integrity. Intellectual pagans are not deserving of our adulation. The apostle Paul speaks of this very issue in II Timothy 3:7 - “Ever learning, and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.”

Elite intellectualism in itself is a curse, rather than something to be worshiped. It is information without benefit of wisdom. It is academia at its worst. Someone who is smart only about facts may possess only half the wits he needs in order to be actually intelligent.

Every reader could do something to set this aright. Step No. 1: spend those hours reading instead of staring at the tube. Step No. 2: learn to ask questions about everything you read. In your study of the Scripture, stop telling the text what it says, and instead start asking questions of the text. Learn to think; and pass that skill on to those around you, particularly the young people. Perhaps then in the future we will have fewer young men being drawn into the quicksand of intellectualism. We need more people who, when they come face to face with bald-faced error, are aware of it. That, surely, would give joy to the heart of our Heavenly Father.

JUST FOR THOUGHT

It is not just the young men who are in danger of being taken in by an orator with information and a smooth tongue. Some months ago in this journal I referred to a very popular writer as a “false teacher” because he holds or supports several unbiblical views, such as Preterism. That makes him a false teacher. Since he is viewed as an intellectual, I was not really surprised at how many of you wrote to scold me.

The real problem behind all this is that I do not know of any of these evangelical icons who practice a hermeneutic that is Biblical. What, then, does that say for the well-meaning friends who rush to their defense?

A Text without a Context, Pt. 2 - Dr. Bob Payne

The hymn writer wrote:

"Sing it o'er and o'er again:
Christ receiveth sinful men;
Make the message clear and plain:
Christ receiveth sinful men."

It is vitally important for us as Bible believers to make sure that we "make the message clear and plain" as we seek to present the gospel to a lost world. Some well-meaning, genuinely zealous Christians, have fallen into the trap of carelessly using out-of-context passages to present the "good news" about Jesus Christ. Passages torn from their context definitely do not "make the message clear and plain!" In fact, applying passages incorrectly only makes the gospel message seem confusing; and ultimately, serves to destroy the credibility of the entire plan of salvation.

Although there are seemingly an endless number of passages which are incorrectly interpreted as salvation passages, our study for the next two articles will center on only two verses: 1 John 1: 9; and Revelation 3:20. I hope to demonstrate that the contexts in which these verses are found are referring to those who are redeemed, not to those who are unsaved. As a result of this, it will become obvious that to use these two passages in our gospel presentation is inaccurate and potentially dangerous. The passages within the Word of God that speak of man's sinfulness, the penalty for sin, and the remedy for sin are numerous. There is no excuse for using inaccurately applied passages to point people to Christ! May God use this study to drive each one of us to "dig" into God's Word so that we might "rightly divide (handle accurately) the word of truth."

PASSAGE #1: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)

This verse from John's first epistle is sometimes applied in this way: "God wants those who don't know Him as Savior to confess their sins to Him. Only then can He forgive a person of his sins and cleanse him from all unrighteousness." At first glance the statement may seem harmless, but it not only presents a verse out of context, it also teaches doctrine that is patently false and unbiblical. Should those who have never received Christ as Savior be urged to confess individual sins in order to be saved? Our answer must be an emphatic and resounding "no!" Those who do not know the Lord are never commanded to confess their individual sins, but are only to acknowledge their sinfulness (Rom. 3:23).

To understand the context, and ultimately the correct teaching of this verse, we need to understand the identity of "we" in 1:9 (obviously the author is including himself). There are four possibilities: 1) the word "we" is referring to humanity in general (of whom John is a part); 2) the word "we" is referring to all unbelievers (of whom John is a part); 3) the word "we" is referring to all those who profess to know Christ as Savior (some are saved and some are not. . . of whom John is a part); or 4) the word "we" is referring to all believers (of whom John is a part).

With very little difficulty we should be able to immediately exclude #2 from our consideration. It would be impossible for the "we" to be referring to those who are unsaved, since John would have to be including himself in this group. Would it not be more than a bit absurd to say that John considered himself to be a lost man?

Nevertheless, could 1 John 1:9 be speaking of mankind in general (#1), or perhaps just professing Christians (#3)? Our answer must be an emphatic “no.” The context of the book makes this clear. Chapter one, verse three tells us that "truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." This would not be an appropriate designation for either mankind in general, or for those who just professed Christ and didn't actually know Him. Also, notice the following statements found in chapter two, verses one and two: "My little children," and "we have an advocate with the Father," as well as "he is the propitiation for our sins." Once again, these statements would not be appropriate descriptions of either #1 or #3. The only way to sensibly interpret the "we" of verse nine is as a reference to all believers (#4).

As we read further in John's first epistle, we will also notice that in chapter two, verses 12-14, John tells us directly that he is addressing believers. Just a few verses later, he indicates yet again that he is writing to those who know the truth: "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth" (2:21). No, John is not writing to humanity in general, or to the unsaved, or to merely professing Christians, but to genuine believers.

Keeping the context in mind, how then do we understand "confession" as it relates to a believer? First, it is important to understand the meaning of the word. The Friberg Greek Lexicon defines the Greek word homologeo, which is translated in 1 John 1:9 as "confess": "fr. a basic mng. of saying the same thing. . . as confessing that someth. is true admit, agree (HE 11.13); of an acknowledgment of sins confess (1J 1.9)." God wants us as believers, when we sin, to immediately confess/admit/agree with Him about our sin. Continual confession of known sin is an important part of the Christian life. Dr. Hall Harris writes in his internet commentary: "John points out that if as Christians we confess the sins we are aware of, we may be sure that God will forgive our sins and cleanse us not only from those sins we confess but from all unrighteousness."

So then, the meaning of the word isn't difficult, but just what is the purpose of this confession? Does it help "keep us saved?" J. Dwight Pentecost writes concerning 1:9:

"When the believer sins, the blood of Christ is instantaneously, automatically applied to the believer (v. 7), maintaining his sonship with the Father, but sin has broken fellowship. My child may strain our relationship by disobeying, but he is still my child. Disobedience does not affect position, it affects fellowship. To be restored to fellowship with God we must confess our sin" (The Joy of Fellowship, pp. 30-31).

Donald Burdick agrees,

"It must be remembered that this epistle was written to those who already are forgiven (2:12). John is not here speaking of the initial forgiveness of sin which occurs at the point of salvation. At that time the guilt of all one's sins--past, present and future--is forgiven. The forgiveness of this verse, however, is an experience which comes after salvation. Its function is to remove that which has disturbed the believer's fellowship with God. Whereas the former is a legal remission of guilt, the latter is the Father's forgiveness of His child to restore undisturbed communion" (The Epistles of John, pp. 26-28).

Zane Hodges also concurs with Pentecost's and Burdick's view on confession:

"What is considered in 1 John 1:9 may be described as ‘familial' forgiveness. It is perfectly understandable how a son may need to ask his father to forgive him for his faults while at the same time his position within the family is not in jeopardy. A Christian who never asks his heavenly Father for forgiveness for his sins can hardly have much sensitivity to the ways in which he grieves his Father. . . . The teaching that a Christian should not ask God for daily forgiveness is an aberration" (1 John from the Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament volume, p. 886).

Conclusion

How careful we need to be with our interpretation of 1 John 1:9! To the unsaved man, sin is a matter between a lawbreaker and the Judge; but to the believer, sin is a matter between a son and his Father. Confession of sin does not maintain the believer's salvation, but it maintains the son's (small "s") close fellowship with his Heavenly Father. 1 John 1:9 encourages believers to daily and regularly confess known sin as the Holy Spirit brings it to our minds. To use this passage as an encouragement for people to receive Christ as Savior is not accurate. 1 John 1:9 is clearly a passage directed to Christians. Zane Hodges' comments are appropriate to conclude our study:

". . . confession of sin is never connected by John with the acquisition of eternal life, which is always conditioned on faith. First John 1:9 is not spoken to the unsaved, and the effort to turn it into a soteriological affirmation is misguided" (1 John from the Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament volume, p. 886).

A Text without a Context, Pt. 1 - Dr. Bob Payne

When I was a student working on my undergraduate degree, I recall the professors “drilling” it into the heads of the “preacher boys” that “a text without a context is a pretext.” Although we as fundamental Baptists are critical of the cults when they take scripture out of context (and rightfully so), there are many who claim to have a high regard for the Word of God who do the same.

In most cases out-of-context preaching/teaching among fundamentalists is not purposeful. Many times at the root of the problem is a faulty hermeneutic, or a careless exegesis of the passage. Other times, well-meaning believers will lift a passage out of its context because of “innocent” ignorance. Perhaps they are repeating what they have heard someone else preach or teach. Although unintentional, it is still a serious error to mishandle the Word of God.

I am writing this short series of articles to emphasize the importance in hermeneutics of handling the Word of God in a contextually accurate way. The purpose of this series is not to “condemn” well-meaning fundamentalist brethren, nor is it to set myself up as the “final word” in hermeneutics. Instead, my desire is for this series to serve as a reminder concerning how careful we need to be as we approach the subject of scriptural interpretation. Whether we are preachers or not, we all need to use great care in handling the Scriptures, so that we might not violate the scriptural admonition given in 2 Timothy 2:15 to “rightly divide (handle accurately) the word of truth.” If unsaved folks can’t trust us to interpret a simple passage accurately, how can they trust us to accurately tell them about God’s simple plan of salvation?

Our day is a day of bad hermeneutics. Both preachers and non-preachers alike need to return to a diligent, careful study of God’s Word using a sound hermeneutical process. Although the main part of the hermeneutical process that I will be examining in this series is the context, the meaning of the text cannot be determined without also giving due consideration to such things as grammar, word studies, and historical background. These will also be included in our study as appropriate.

This month we will consider a commonly misapplied Bible verse…

"Where there is no vision, the people perish."
Proverbs 29:18a

I have heard more than one preacher interpret Proverbs 29:18 this way: “What Christians need today is real vision. Believers today are lacking in vision, and that is why so many are perishing and going to a Christless hell. . . 'Where there is no vision, the people perish.’” There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the statement just written. The problem is the “proof text.” Both the original language and the context clearly demonstrate that this is an erroneous interpretation and application of Proverbs 29:18. The word translated “vision” has very little to do with our common, modern English definition: “Unusual competence in discernment or perception; intelligent foresight….”[1]

The BDB Lexicon defines the Hebrew word translated “vision” (hazon in Hebrew) in Proverbs 29:18 in this way: “divine communication in a vision, oracle, prophecy.” When we combine this lexical definition with the context of the latter part of the verse ("but he that keepeth the law, happy is he"), it becomes apparent that this passage is not teaching that we need to “catch a vision of a lost world.” The subject of the verse is not intelligent foresight, but revelation!

The “vision” in Proverbs 29:18 is a prophet’s vision. 1 Samuel 3:1 speaks of this type of revelation: “And the child Samuel ministered unto the LORD before Eli. And the word of the LORD was precious in those days; there was no open vision.” Derek Kidner wrote, “Vision. . . is to be taken in its exact sense of the revelation a prophet receives. Law in line 2 is its complement” (Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary, p. 175). So, the word “vision,” as well as its complementary term, "law," indicates that the subject of this verse is revelation from God.

The word translated “perish” is also often misunderstood. The term does not refer to “perishing in hell” (John 3:16). Instead, we need to understand the Hebrew word, as the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 2, p. 737 indicates: “‘to let loose’ in the sense of ‘to let run wild’….” The author then gives a possible translation of this verse: “‘Where there is no vision (revelation from God), the people are “undisciplined/get out of hand”.’” Delitzsch uses the words “ungovernable” and “disorderly” to translate this Hebrew term (Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 6, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon). Kidner (Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary, pp. 175-176) gives a similar idea when he translates the KJV word “perish,” as “run wild.” He writes, “The verb means to let loose, e.g. to let one’s hair down, whether literally (Lv. 13:45; Nu. 5:18; ?Jdg. 5:2) or figuratively (especially in Ex. 32:25 (twice): RV ‘broken loose’, etc.).” The modern translations do a good job rendering this word as “unrestrained” (NAS), and “cast off restraint” (NIV).

The meaning of Prov. 29:18 becomes plain when the words and the context are clearly understood. The author’s message is that “where there is no prophet’s vision the people cast off restraint/run wild/get out of hand, but he that keeps the law is blessed.” Although the gift of prophecy is not in effect in our day, the modern application is obvious: when the Word of God is ignored (or not present) people live unrestrained lives. We see the sad truth of this verse in churches today, as well as in our own nation. We can only find restraint and joyful living as the Word of God is heeded!

[1] “vision.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 26 Jul. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vision.

Hermeneutics, Pt. 6 - Dr. Clay Nuttall

Hermeneutical Aberrations

There is nothing wrong with forcing people to think by expanding their vocabulary, nor is there anything wrong with inventing terms that serve to clarify. I do think, though, that there is something wrong with inventing or using terms that will cause confusion in the reader’s mind. Our task, therefore, is to make sure to define our own terms in a way that will make them very clear to others. It is equally important that we challenge and clarify the new or unusual terms that others are using. Some of them may contribute to our growth, but others are used for the specific purpose of misleading people. In the past, that practice has been termed “turnspeak.” Commonly used words are actually given new definitions and motives are later revealed.

This illustration will help you understand why the interpreter must continually be asking questions. When I was in seminary, a favorite professor frequently stated that “all truth is God’s truth.” He would then proceed to integrate some philosophical point into the Bible text. He was very skillful at this practice, but after a while, it became quite clear that his truth was changing the actual meaning of the Bible text. It is still true that “all truth is God’s truth.” It is also true that what men often call truth is really thinly veiled heresy. Facts, philosophies, propositions, and concepts may well be intellectual information, but that does not make them truth.

Word games are good for us. It is wise, however, to see how quickly you can simplify something that has been deliberately complicated. The same is true with things that are similar, because we have learned that similarities are not equals. Using confusing similarities, for example, is one of the methods that atheistic evolution has employed to blind its captives.

Good and Bad Hermeneutical Tools

In the bibliography of your syllabus, several books have been listed for your consideration. Remember, I have already warned you that your source reading will contain a number of suspect concepts. At this point, I want you to begin to work through these problems using the things you have learned about the Biblical system of interpretation.

The interpreter needs to investigate several hermeneutical issues, using the tools that rise from Scripture. The first issue is the relationship of Old Testament and New Testament literature. You will want to use great care in reading through the material that comes from those who support the second system of interpretation. The fact is that tools have been developed to support aberrant theological positions, and those theories should be your first clue.

The Church

Looking at the very sequence of the Bible text, it should be clear that the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament. One should be careful not to force meaning on the text, even in interpreting New Testament texts that explain the Old. For instance, the church was a mystery. It is first mentioned prophetically in the gospels. That means it did not exist before then, and the text tells us it did not exist before Pentecost. It is not until the epistles that we have any substantial information about the church. The book of Acts is like a primer creating a list of questions on this subject. There is no church polity in the gospels and, even though some would choose to disagree, the gospels are really Old Testament literature.

The Old Testament declares pointedly that there would be salvation for the gentiles. The prophets connect the gentiles with Christ in several ways. As the light, He brings salvation to the gentiles. (Isaiah 42, 49) As the Root of Jesse, He is to reign over the gentiles in His Messianic millennial kingdom. This does not mean, however, that the church was revealed or prophesied in the Old Testament.

To understand these challenges, you will want to read carefully about “continuity and discontinuity.” Your research will take you to the “complementary hermeneutic,” and you will also want to read about the “evangelical hermeneutic.” Be sure to review these carefully.

The Holy Spirit and Illumination

The apostle Paul encourages us with information about the Holy Spirit’s ministry in guiding us to an understanding of revelation from God. (I Corinthians 2:10-14) The Spirit plays a major role in leading us into a faithful interpretation of the Bible text and protecting us from personal or private interpretation. Christ promised us that the Holy Spirit would be our guide and teacher, that He would be our comforter, and that He would be with us and in us. (John 14) This helps to give us confidence about arriving at a correct interpretation of Scripture.

There is one disturbing concept that corrupts this marvelous teaching - the idea that the Spirit gives us new meaning that adds to the Bible, or information in contrast to the Bible. That is outside the realm of orthodoxy. The Holy Spirit does lead us into truth, but nothing He teaches us will ever conflict with the trusted Bible text.

In his book on evangelical interpretation, Millard J. Erickson quotes Daniel Fuller:

“More recently, a radically different view of the role of the Holy Spirit has arisen. According to this view the Holy Spirit’s real role is not giving cognition, or knowledge of the meaning of the Scripture, but making possible the reception of that truth. Perhaps the clearest and most definite statement of this position has been given by Daniel P. Fuller.

Fuller begins by noting that some in the history of the church have relied on the Holy Spirit in contrast to the methods of determining the verbal meaning of the text. Origen, for example, insisted that since the writers of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit to give them the content of the Scripture that they wrote, the interpreter must also be taught by the Holy Spirit. This will enable the interpreter to go beyond the historical grammatical data or literal meaning of the Bible to its spiritual meaning. Fuller observes that “The problem with this understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in Biblical interpretation is that the words of the text can play no essential role in conveying its intended meaning, even though it is these very words which the writers were inspired to use in transmitting God’s message to men.”1

The reader may be puzzled or shocked at such self-assumed license, but there is nothing new about this view. Such radical ideas are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to rewrite the divine revelation settled in the Bible. At one point in the second century, Clement of Alexandria and Origen used this and other errant hermeneutical ideas to replace the existing hermeneutic. Up to that time, literal interpretation had been the dominant factor. Since the time of this intellectual revolution, all of Christianity has suffered, to some degree, from the influence of an allegorical interpretation.

As part of our graduate program, I teach near Alexandria, Egypt, every Fall and Spring. To this very day, the theology of the Middle East is an allegorical disaster. What we have been able to do is to bring back to Alexandria the very thing it lost back in the second century. That concept is the very heart of this course.

Our course text will give you some background on the issue of literal interpretation in the first century. What you will learn is that doctrines such as the millennium and the imminent return of Christ were taught in the first century because they rose from the literal text. You should consider getting a copy of the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, complied by Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling. To search such historical gems will launch your mind in the right direction. This book records the following:

“Alexandrian school. So called because of its origin in the city of Alexandria (Egypt), this Christian center of scholarship was led first by Clement of Alexandria in A.D. 190 and then by Origen in A.D. 202. The Alexandrian school was influenced by the philosophy of Plato and understood the task of Biblical interpretation as seeking out its literal, moral and allegorical senses. In other words, the Alexandrian theologians taught that although the Bible was literally true, its correct interpretation lay in the moral or allegorical senses more than in the literal sense.”2

You will have to follow this trail in your study of the history of hermeneutics. For now, I want you to note that what we have been proposing in detail throughout this class is exactly what is going on in the world today. The very same concepts, with their aberrations, are what we are trying to describe. There are two basic concepts of interpretation - one with a literal base, and a second with an allegorical base.
_____________________
1. Erickson, Millard J. Evangelical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993.

2. Grenz, Stanley J., David Guretzki , and Cherith Fee Nordling. Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Hermeneutics, Pt. 5 - Dr. Clay Nuttall

The Extent of a System of Hermeneutics

We come now to the most effective illustration of what are basically two opposing systems. The amount of available material on this topic is so voluminous that we can consider only a few areas of contrast. Contrary to the protests of our theological peers, the grammatical/contextual/historical/literal system is more dissimilar than similar to the allegorical system, which is nearly identical to the reformed and covenant theological systems. The old adage says, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” In other words, the product tells us all we need to know.

No single issue in theology better describes this theological Grand Canyon than the subject of Israel and the church. Inside each of the two hermeneutical systems there are, understandably, some variances. The number of these differences is much smaller, however, in the literal-based system. In the allegorical base, the differences, though much greater as to number, are still common in their source.

The Literal Approach

Within the literal system, the widely held view is that the church is made up of those who are declared righteous, from the time of Pentecost up to the rapture and that the founding, history, and future of the church is distinctly clear and separate from national Israel. While the church does include Jews and Gentiles saved from Pentecost on, none of these is part of national Israel; they are known as “the bride of Christ” and will have that identification throughout eternity. It is also widely held by this group that the removal of the church from the earth will precede any portion of the tribulation period. This view sees God as dealing continually and separately with the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church.

The first system mainly views the ministry of the Holy Spirit as a clearly defined relationship with the church, beginning at Pentecost. Certain specific ministries are related to the church and not to Israel. These would include the baptism of the Holy Spirit and His indwelling relationship. This last item has a close similarity to the doctrine of the indwelling Christ: “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” According to Scripture, only those who are in “the body of Christ” are “in Christ.”

The literal system has held that God made The New Covenant with Israel, not with the church. At the same time, the church has received benefit from that covenant, while not being a partner in it.

Among those who hold to a literal system, the subject of the kingdom, like all other matters, has some variance. In the main, however, there is a clear distinction between the eternal, universal kingdom and the theocratic, millennial, messianic 1,000-year physical reign. Historically, this system has not viewed the church as a kingdom or Christ as King of the church. This will be dealt with in detail later.

A literal interpretation has no quarter with the old liberal theological view of a general resurrection or general judgment. The end result of comparing a Biblical and literal interpretation of the text with the allegorical system is a major contrast of eschatological differences.

At this point, there is a need for clarification. There are those who would be legitimately included in the literal system who have some friendly, if not some relationship to several of the subjects just listed. Allow me to mention several areas of debate. The first is the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Old Testament saints. The second is a relationship of the church to the New Covenant that would go beyond the sharing of some blessings, and the third is an inaugurated kingdom. This provides a good illustration of our earlier discussions. These intrusions into the literal community do not actually result from a careful use of the first system. These are examples of what happens when the allegorical system is integrated into the literal; it means that these are ideas borrowed from the covenant theological field. That is evident to anyone reading through the arguments of those who champion such hybrids.

It is also important to note that, just as these positions have been borrowed from the allegory-based system, others borrow from the first system. The result, then, is that those from the second system may hold some such distinctive as the any-moment rapture. There are two explanations for this. The first one is that, in recent years, many who had previously straddled the fence have begun moving to new theologies that represent the Reformed perspective. The second is that the allegorical system is so fluid that one could hold any view of the rapture or other event in prophecy. This may sound impossible, but that is the great negative of the allegorical base. If one decides on their own what is allegory, or what may be spiritualized in any selected text, they should expect confusion.

The Allegorical Approach

The second system provides ample evidence of the great divide in theological views between the two.

Views that flow from this second system vary widely. Their view of the church is so broad that it would include even Adam, while others see it as having begun with the Abrahamic covenant. Some would claim that the church includes the redeemed of the ages. One of the most popular views is that Israel has become the church, or that the church and Israel will become one in the future. None of these views rises from the literal Biblical view we have outlined. All of these views present great contrasts to that which is held by system one.

Since the distinctiveness of the church is set aside by the second system, it is no surprise that other views follow. It matters little to this system if the church is in the tribulation, if there is a millennium, or if you end up with just one people of God. One or more resurrections or judgments are possible. This, believe me, is vastly different from the literal system.

In contrast to the literal approach, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the New Covenant, prophetic and other events are up for auction. I think the reader can understand why there is so much animosity toward such a dependable and clear system as the literal Biblical hermeneutic.

Theological Theories

To confirm the above, one has only to take a look at the many popular and extreme theories looming on the horizon. We have already described supersessionism and the replacement theory, where Israel becomes the church in some form at some time, so I repeat this only for purposes of emphasis; it illustrates the great ocean of difference between the two contrasting systems of interpretation. The products of the two are violently different, and the differences are much greater than are the similarities.

The second system is capable of producing such theories as preterism. In this extreme position, one sees all prophecy as having already been fulfilled; there is no future rapture, tribulation, second coming, millennium, etc. Even more stunning is the list of famous evangelical names that have given credence to such fanciful ideas. The reader should pay close attention to those names and approach very cautiously anything that these types of theologians may propose.

The opposing view to a literal hermeneutic produced yet another idea. This one is called progressive dispensationalism. Reportedly, it was meant to provide a bridge between historic dispensationalism and covenant theology. It could be considered a failed attempt, because all of the above has demonstrated that the divide between these two views is not a mere creek - it is as wide as the Atlantic Ocean. In the end, a cursory observation shows the movement as progressively edging toward the Reformed model. The reason for that conclusion is that the views in progressive dispensationalism mirror those that rise from the allegorical base.

Finally, there is the matter of the kingdom. I remember the liberal concept that was taught when I was a young student. They explained that they were “bringing in the kingdom, building the kingdom, and growing the kingdom.” Now those same terms are used freely by evangelicals and even by some fundamentalists.

The church is not a kingdom, nor is Christ king of the church. We are not building or growing a kingdom, let alone the kingdom. God’s plan for this age is the church, and we are not building or growing the church; God is doing that. In a prophetic statement, Matthew wrote, “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

On final reminder is in order. These discussions are not about people. They are about ideas. We should, and must, speak firmly about ideas. Doing so will allow each reader to grow as a scholar and as a thinker.