|
|
Post by Admin on May 29, 2023 10:22:04 GMT -5
Martyn Lloyd JonesPreachingSovereignty of God
CHIP THORNTON
Lloyd-Jones
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a medical doctor-turned-preacher in England in the mid-1900’s. England’s churches were flailing. God used this man to spark a great revival. The spark He used to ignite that revival was “God-dominated preaching.” What is God-dominated preaching? Lloyd-Jones said it was preaching which focused on exalting the True and Living God of Holy Scripture. He identified three elements of God-dominated preaching: (1) God’s sovereignty; (2) God’s holiness; and, (3) God’s glory.
What is God-dominated preaching? Lloyd-Jones said it was preaching which focused on exalting the True and Living God of Holy Scripture.
God’s Sovereignty in Preaching
Preaching mustn’t merely be “laced” with the sovereignty of God. It must be “saturated” with it. In 1969, Lloyd-Jones gave a series of lectures at Westminster Theological Seminary. In one lecture, he counseled:
I can forgive a man a bad sermon, I can forgive the preacher almost anything if he gives me a sense of God, if he gives me something for my soul, if he gives me the sense that though he is inadequate in himself, he is handling something which is very great and glorious . . . If he does that, I am his debtor, and I am profoundly grateful to him.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Why do people listen to preaching? To hear a story-teller tell stories? To hear a “life coach” tell them everything’s going to be ok? To be entertained by a clean comedy routine or a clown show? No! People come to worship to hear Scripture declare that, although their life and the world around them seems to be in shambles . . . God is still sovereign and still sitting on his throne!
God’s Holiness in Preaching
Preaching also must be saturated with the holiness of God. In a sermon preached in Westminster Chapel (London), Lloyd-Jones observed:
You will never have a knowledge of sin unless you have a true conception of the holiness of God.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Preaching the holiness of God ultimately leads us to His glorious justice toward sin, which He meted-out at the cross event. In a sermon preached in the 1940’s (later published in Life in Christ: Studies in 1 John), Lloyd-Jones remarks:
It is the holiness of God that demands the cross, so without starting with the holiness there is no meaning in the cross. It is not surprising that the cross has been discounted by modern theologians; it is because they have started with the love of God without His holiness.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Such weak preaching has much power to accumulate crowds, but little power to transform souls.
God’s Glory in Preaching
Finally, preaching must aim—dead-center—for the glory of God. What exactly is the “glory of God?” Lloyd-Jones explains:
The glory of God is the essential being of God. . . . It includes beauty. It includes majesty. Better still, perhaps, the word, “splendor!” It, of course, includes the idea of greatness, of might, and of eternity! They’re all summed up in this one word, “glory,” and we really can’t get beyond that.
Lloyd-Jones, sermon #4011, “The Glory of God,” Ephesians 1:6
Of course, one of the greatest displays of His glory is His redeeming sinners. His redemption highlights many God-dominated attributes (love, mercy, goodwill, forgiveness, etc.). Lloyd-Jones summarizes,
Our salvation is the greatest and highest manifestation of the glory of God.
Lloyd-Jones, sermon #4011, “The Glory of God,” Ephesians 1:6
Indeed, God’s domination is lacking in today’s preaching. We structure sermons and services to appeal to the relics of sin in man’s flesh. Often, we end up drawing more glory to man than to God. Lloyd-Jones lamented the same sentiment his day:
This is the thing that troubles me so much about so much modern evangelism: That it’s all in terms of some benefit to men, and God seems to be forgotten!
Lloyd-Jones, sermon #4011, “The Glory of God,” Ephesians 1:6
That was in 1954. Imagine what the good doctor would say of the abominations which occur today in preaching and in worship.
Imagine what the good doctor would say of the abominations which occur today in preaching and in worship.
Closing Thought
The next time you hear a sermon, ask yourself three questions:
Did I hear the sovereignty of God proclaimed?
Did I hear anything of the holiness of God uplifted?
Did the message aim to glorify God and His Works or man and his?
If the answer to each of these questions is, “Yes,” then—by all means—bring others to hear a God-dominated preacher preach a God-dominated sermon . . . and thank your faithful pastor for doing so!
Logic on Fire: Review
In my doctoral work in seminary, I studied expository preaching. Out of the myriad of books I read during my time in seminary, the one book on preaching that still grips my heart perhaps more than any other is one written by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones titled, Preaching and Preachers. That book…
What If the Church Today Followed the Message of Ezra?
Stop Preaching About the Gospel
A couple of years ago, I met a man who seemed to really love baseball. He knew a lot about the past players, current players, and their statistics. However, the more I talked baseball with this particular man, the more obvious it was that he didn't truly know baseball. He…
AUTHOR
Lloyd-Jones
Chip Thornton
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 30, 2023 12:24:42 GMT -5
Unmasking Satan’s Motive
Expository Preaching
CHIP THORNTON
Hypocrite Mask
Do you believe in the sufficiency of Scripture? At times in history, man has held strongly to this conviction. At other times, he hasn’t. You can tell when he has or hasn’t by looking at the hermeneutics of past eras. Let’s take a brief journey to see the ebbs and flows.
Satan’s Hermeneutic
Satan craftily disguised his hermeneutic. Consider his first recorded words, “Did God actually say . . .” (Gen. 3:1). He didn’t deny God had spoken. He didn’t even try to change the words. Rather, he twisted God’s meaning. In effect, Satan asked not, “What do God’s words mean?,” but “What do they mean to me?” He shrewdly sought to remove God as the Author of His meaning and replace God with himself. This strategy–offering a deeper (or different) meaning than God intended–was a direct assault on the sufficiency of Scripture. This is where the problem began. Yet, Satan cleverly masked the strategy through the ages.
The Apostles’ Hermeneutic (Authorial Intent)
Let’s fast-forward to the apostles. Hermeneutically, how did they approach OT texts? Walt Kaiser rightly maintains: “n all passages where the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament to establish a fact or doctrine and use the Old Testament passage argumentatively, they have understood the passage in its natural and straightforward sense.”[1]
When the NT writers engaged in serious exegesis, they handled the text in ways that preserved the OT author’s intent.
This was the problem Jesus, in large part, was correcting in His Sermon on the Mount. The Pharisees had created deeper (or different) meanings for OT texts in their efforts to control people. Jesus was restoring the biblical author’s intent to its rightful place of authority. The apostles, in like fashion, preserved the OT author’s intent, and then powerfully applied it to contemporary situations. The result was a proliferation of biblical, gospel truth that changed the world.
The Patristics’ Hermeneutic (Allegory)
After the apostles died, two schools of interpretation arose: the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools. The Alexandrian school was famous for its hermeneutic called “allegory.” Allegory seeks a deeper (or different) meaning than the author’s intent. Their famous teacher, Origen, taught every Scripture text was pregnant with multiple layers of meanings. To him, every text has three meanings: (1) a literal meaning; (2) an ethical (moral) meaning, and a spiritual (heavenly) meaning. Famously, he rendered the Good Samaritan passage this way:
“The traveler (Adam) journeys from Jerusalem (heaven) to Jericho (the world) and is assaulted by robbers (the devil and his helpers). The priest (the law) and the Levite (the prophets) pass by without aiding the fallen Adam, but the Samaritan (Christ) stops to help him . . .”[2]
The Antiochene school, by contrast, insisted allegory was illegitimate and held to the literal meaning alone. They sought to discover the single meaning of the biblical author. They vigorously challenged the Alexandrians, but the impact of the Alexandrians won the day. For centuries thereafter, most Christian preaching drifted into unrestrained allegories. With no interpretive controls in place to hold it accountable, a plethora of heresies sprang forth: works-based salvation, purgatory, indulgences, and many other false teachings.
The Reformers’ Hermeneutic (A Return to Authorial Intent)
That dark environment gave birth to the brilliant light of the Protestant Reformation. The motto of the Protestant Reformation became, “Post tenebras lux,” which means, “Out of darkness, light.” That motto even was printed on the coins in Geneva where Calvin ministered. The reformers recognized all heresies were directly connected to hermeneutical practices. For instance, William Tyndale (ca. 1494-1536) was the first to translate the Greek NT into English. Listen to the hermeneutical philosophy he personally experienced in Roman Catholic universities: “[T]hey have ordained that no man shall look in the Scripture until he be noselled [nursed] in heathen learning eight or nine years and armed with false principles with which he is clean shut out of the understanding of Scripture” (Practice of Prelates). The reformers marched lockstep in rejecting allegory and embracing the principle of Sola Scriptura, which means, “Scripture Alone.”
At its heart, Sola Scriptura was a return to the biblical author’s single intent.
Martin Luther, in many ways the face and personality of the Protestant Reformation, said of Origen’s allegorical method:
“He relied too much on this same spiritual meaning, which was unnecessary, and he let the necessary literal meaning go. When this happens, Scripture perishes.”[3]
Luther stated that “allegory is a sort of beautiful harlot, who proves herself specially seductive to idle men.”[4] John Calvin went further, deeming allegory “a contrivance of Satan.”[5] During the reformation, Luther’s common-sense approach took root: “The Holy Ghost is the all-simplest writer that is in heaven or earth; therefore his words can have no more than one simplest sense, which we call the scriptural or literal meaning.”[6] The effect was a complete reformation of theology, ecclesiology, scholasticism, architecture, culture, etc.: a total reshaping of society. God gloriously blessed that golden era in which the sufficiency of Scripture was restored to its rightful and prominent place.
The Post-modern Hermeneutic (Multiple Meanings)
Sadly, that glorious era was short-lived. Over time, Scripture interpretation degenerated into a worse condition than ever. The Reformation gave way to the Enlightenment era (17th and 18th centuries), in which all supernatural events in Scripture were either explained away by science or rejected as mere fantasy. The Enlightenment era shifted into the Modernist movement with Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, and others: an era in which scientific and psychological ideas were given the first place of prominence, and then those ideas were integrated into Scripture texts.
Modernism gave way to post-modernism, with its numerous tentacles. Post-modernism no longer limits the text one meaning (as the protestant reformers did) or even three (as Origen did). Nor does it limit the place of prominence to science or psychology. Post-modernism claims the meanings in a text are limitless, and the reader takes first place of prominence. How did they get to that idea?
The German influence of higher criticism taught the author’s original intent is impossible to ascertain. Therefore, it is useless to ask, “What did the author mean?” Rather, we should ask, “What do these words mean to me, the reader?” That transfer of authority had devastating effects. No longer does a text mean what the author intends it to mean. It means what I intend it to mean. The motive was deliberate: To free man from any authority to God (as Author) and to replace Him with every man. Even in 1967, E.D. Hirsch, Jr. lamented: “When critics [readers] deliberately banished the original author, they themselves usurped his place, and this led unerringly to some of our present-day theoretical confusions.”[7] Hirsch recognized where all of this was trending: Every man doing that which is right in his own eyes.
The tentacles of post-modernism kept sprouting. Recently, the idea took a clever turn toward unbridled mysticism. Even in conservative circles, it is common to hear comments like, “God told me . . .,” “the Holy Spirit spoke to me . . .,” “the still small voice whispered to me . . .,” etc. Reminiscent of “inner light” Quakerism, the difference now is the post-modern mindset has stamped each person’s experience with divine authority to his/her own version of truth. This led Oprah Winfrey and others to speak in terms of “your truth” rather than “the truth.” That single seed, once sown, has reaped a whirlwind.
More recently, critical race theory (CRT) has been embraced by post-moderns as a legitimate hermeneutical tool. CRT suggests a worldview in which mankind is divided into two groups: “oppressors” and “the oppressed.” Socially, for instance, CRT claims the social structures in the USA inherently are racist: the laws, judicial system, zoning, tax code, universities, churches, etc. The system becomes a self-perpetuating scheme to keep one race in power. This philosophy surreptitiously (or, perhaps deliberately) seeped into Christian hermeneutics.
Hermeneutically, CRT proponents approach each Scripture text seeking those two groups: (1) “oppressors” and (2) “the oppressed.” The reader, not the author, determines who is in which group, and anyone who disagrees with the reader reveals he is, in fact, part of the “oppressors.” In other words, to hold to the biblical author’s intent—alone—as absolute truth is the ultimate act of racism. Why?
CRT-ers place the ultimate authority in their own personal (often horrific) experience–not the absolute truth of Scripture. Anyone who disagrees with them is part of the problem.
CRT proponents begin from their personal experience, not absolute truth, and logically trace things backward.
They reason, “I have experienced racism because the social structures of the USA are inherently racist. Therefore, the Constitution which gave rise to the country’s social structures must be racist because its framers were all of the same race. Further, those framers largely were informed and influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics found in Scripture. What’s more, those Judeo-Christian ethics emanated from the biblical authors’ single intent.” Therefore, to suggest the authorial intent of the biblical writers is absolute truth is to perpetuate racism. It proves you are part of the “oppressors.” The fact that you cannot recognize this means you haven’t been “woke.” This all might seem far-fetched until we look at what is happening in society. Then we start to realize where the real crisis lies: in the pulpits.
I hope this little journey offers perspective. Satan’s tactics change. His motive never does: To cast doubt on the sufficiency of Scripture. He might mask it through allegory (the Patristics), intellectualism (the Enlightenment), secularism (the Modernists), or the all-out onslaught of multiple meanings (Post-modernism)—now mixed with racially charged innuendos and accusations. It won’t stop there. New, repackaged methodologies will emerge in the future, but they are all designed by Satan to put a mask on his true motive: To assault, challenge, demean, and ultimately deny the sufficiency of Scripture. Remember this: The two glorious eras that unmasked his motive were the two that, hermeneutically, exalted the sufficiency of Scripture. We can do again. Today: Post tenebras lux—Out of darkness, light!
[1]Walt Kaiser, Toward An Exegetical Theology (Baker Books: 1981), 57.
[2] Origen, On Principles 4.1.8, The Anti-Nicene Fathers (Charles Scribner’s Sons: 1885), 4:356.
[3] Martin Luther, Answer to the Hyperchristian, . . . vol. 39 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), 178.
[4]Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology, 61.
[5]Ibid.
[6]Ibid.
[7] E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation (Yale University Press: 1967), 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by iconoclast on Jun 19, 2023 21:17:11 GMT -5
Is Every Text Pregnant with Meanings?
Expository PreachingHermeneuticsSufficiency of Scripture
g3min.org/is-every-text-pregnant-with-meanings/?fbclid=IwAR2in2iw-3KdCnXbC2WgpFXgFMOfencGc7aK8uz3onnUg-Q92qZy72k9e38
CHIP THORNTON
blue and white diamond pattern
For centuries, theologians have grappled with the tension between the human author(s) and the Divine Author of Scripture. Historically, this has caused the Church great turmoil, leading some to see two, three, four, or even more meanings in every text. As we near the end of our interpretive (exegetical) process, we must consider the question, “What is the relationship between the human author and Divine Author in Scripture?” Space limits a full-orbed historical survey, but perhaps the following historical sweep will put the discussion in its proper context.
We must consider the question, “What is the relationship between the human author and Divine Author in Scripture?”
Historical Sweep
Philo, a Jewish philosopher born in 20 BC, suggested every OT text had two meanings. He felt the Hebrew scriptures were too culture-specific. He attempted to make the OT more palatable to a Greco-Roman culture by broadening the meaning of passages, especially the Levitical laws. A two-meaning system developed: (1) the literal meaning and (2) a hidden one.[1]
Origen (late 2nd century) suggested every text had three meanings. He was influenced heavily by Platonism and attempted to synthesize three streams of thought: (1) the human author; (2) Platonism thinkers; and, (3) the Divine Author. He developed a tri-partite structure: (1) the literal (human author’s meaning); (2) the ethical (moral meaning); and, (3) the heavenly (Divine meaning).[2] Origen did apply two controlling parameters: Every interpretation must align with the analogy of Scripture and the rule of faith.[3]
Augustine (late 4th/early 5th century) reached further, suggesting every text had up to four (or more) meanings. His words:
“When, again, not some one interpretation, but two or more interpretations are put upon the same words of Scripture, even though the meaning of the writer intended remained undiscovered, there is no danger if it can be shown from other passages of Scripture that any of the interpretations put on the words is in harmony with Scripture.”[4]
Augustine developed a system in which a text might have as many as four meanings: (1) historical (what has been done); (2) aetiologial (why it was done); (3) analogical (consistency between OT & NT); and, (4) allegorical (Divine meaning). Augustine, too, applied two controlling parameters: Any interpretation must align with Jesus’ command to “love God and love your neighbor.”[5]
Augustine’s influence trickled down through the medieval age. Thomas Aquinas formalized it into what became known as the Quadriga, which the Catholic church employs with some regularity even today. Aquinas posited four meanings: (1) literal (human author’s meaning); (2) tropological (moral); (3) anagogical (future fulfillment of divine promises); and, (4) allegorical (Divine meaning). Over time, the literal meaning began to be usurped by the other three. Extra-scriptural traditions began to take root from the “non-literal” meanings (indulgences, purgatory, works-salvation, etc.), resulting in a two-source authority: Scripture and tradition. Oberman and Ward, respectively, track this progression in their excellent works.[6] What we find is the Divine Author’s “non-literal” meanings–which were subject to the interpreter–began to overshadow the human author’s meaning.
The Protestant Reformers rescued us from such polyvalent meanderings, in large part, by restoring the human author’s intent to its rightful place of objectivity. For instance, Martin Luther said of Origen:
“That is why Origen received his due reward a long time ago when his books were prohibited, for he relied too much on this same spiritual meaning, which was unnecessary, and let the necessary literal meaning go. When this happens Scripture perishes and really good theologians are no longer produced. Only the true and principal meaning which is provided in the letters can produce good theologians.”
Martin Luther, Answer to the Hyperchristian . . . 1521 AD
Their battle cry was Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), which was nothing less than a return to the authority of the human author’s intent. The human author’s intent was much easier to substantiate through (1) his grammar and (2) his historical context. The so-called Divine Author’s intent(s) had been abused and weaponized to keep people (as well as the human author) in subjection. The Reformers recognized: Only the objective truth of the human author’s intent could cut through the subjective, oftentimes fanatical, conjectures. Sadly, the revival of the human author’s meaning was short-lived.
Higher criticism, in the 19th and 20th centuries, threw up its hands and suggested no one can know the human author’s meaning (Schleiermacher, Gadamer, Frye, Derrida, etc). Therefore, the reader—not the author—determines meaning, which paved the way for where we are today: Post-modernism.
Though brief, this historical sweep suggests all of these efforts were grappling with the same question: What is the relationship between the human author’s meaning and the Divine Author’s meaning?
The Problem Continues
After this brief historical journey, one might think we would take all precautions against suggesting every text is pregnant with multiple meanings. Yet, the urge to dabble has proven too fascinating. Mitchell L. Chase’s (adjunct professor, Boyce College) recent article is stimulating, even if highly speculative.[7] He relies heavily on David Schrock (adjunct professor, Boyce College and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) and, to a lesser extent, Jim Hamilton (professor, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Chase advocates for a controlled typology. That is, any typological connection must be grounded in (1) historical correspondences, (2) a discernible escalation between type and antitype, and (3) a Christological viewpoint. He supports this assertion with Schrock, who departs even further from the human author’s intent into subjectivism:
“t is appropriate to speak of typology in terms of Christotelic trajectories that would have exceeded the expectations of the original author and audience . . . Israel’s persons, events, and institutions are divinely designed types of Christ.”[8]
We must pause here to ask, “Who decided on these three criteria? If trajectories exist that exceed the human author’s expectations, how do we know it? Who authorized it? Certainly no NT author; and if no NT author, then who?” We cannot help but notice: The transference of meaning, subtly, has shifted from the human author to the human interpreter; and this sleight of hand (or, so it seems) flies under the guise of the Divine Author. But, I go on . . .
Chase asserts:
“The divine author has designed a type to function in a forward-pointing, christotelic way.”[9]
To this, we must pause again, with eyebrows raised, and ask, “On what basis do we make such a leap? On inferences grounded purely in human speculation? And, then, are we to preach such speculations as if they have Divine Authority?” But, I go on . . .
Chase continues:
“The NT authors never claimed to exhaust all that one can see of Christ in the OT, nor did they forbid their readers from imitating their hermeneutics.”[10]
Once more, we must pause. We understand Chase’s point, but what of Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor 4:6)? Whatever Paul meant by that, it was within the context of the Corinthians elevating human wisdom above what is written. Yet, I proceed . . .
Finally, Chase asserts:
“While readers can be certain about Christological types which NT authors have identified [with this, we agree], interpreters can also make a cumulative case suggesting a type, which is unidentified by NT authors, with different degrees of probability or certainty (brackets added)”[11]
Here, we must ask, “Who defines these ‘degrees of probability,’ and how? What is the objective measuring-stick?” Chase even suggests (quoting George Barrois) to not enter into such speculative typology is a “serious fault of method.”[12] Barrios, now deceased, ought to have known where this leads, historically, since he was a professor (and historian) at Princeton Theological Seminary.
Chase will go on to suggest Boaz is a type of Christ, a notion we shall examine in more detail in a subsequent article. Before we drink too deeply from this rather intoxicating well, though, someone must be willing to ask, “What happened to the biblical author’s truth-intention in all of this?”
Someone must be willing to ask, “What happened to the biblical author’s truth-intention in all of this?”
This is not to suggest Chase, et al., are not capable theologians. They are. They are well-intentioned, and I recognize their motive is pure: To glorify Christ in new, exciting dimensions. They make valid points and offer Christ-centered controlling parameters. Moreover, they have centuries of church history on his side. Yet, that is precisely the point. Origen and Augustine offered Christ-centered controlling parameters, too (see above). Nevertheless, when they stepped away from the objectivity of the human author’s intent, it was a slow, slippery slope into subjectivism. The end-game of subjectivism nearly always leads us to the same terrible place: An inherent or outright denial of the sufficiency of Scripture.
Their proposal is a dangerous one—indeed, one we cannot accept—and the record of church history is the strongest evidence of where that road leads. One can see, easily, how this interpretive laxity opens “Pandora’s Box” of pregnant meanings. We don’t need better controls on typological references; the Holy Spirit made certain, through the NT apostles, the typological references He desired us to have; rather, we need a (re)commitment to the true and principal meaning of the human author through whom God chose to speak.
Their position is predicated on the presumption that we possess the same hermeneutical powers as the apostles, another proposal we cannot accept. The apostles’ hermeneutical powers were stamped with infallibility, inerrancy, and a certainty we do not enjoy. Again, we must never apologize for that (or for this): If the NT authors make typological (or hermeneutical) correspondences, then we are on solid footing. Otherwise, it is a serious fault of method—and a dangerous one—to create those ourselves and then proclaim them as divinely authoritative.
The end-game of subjectivism nearly always leads us to the same terrible place: An inherent or outright denial of the sufficiency of Scripture.
Is There A Solution?
So far, we have done nothing except uncover the problem which has plagued interpreters, ancient and modern, namely: “What is the relationship between the human biblical author(s) and the Divine Author?”
Is there a solution? Indeed, there is. It begins with the two principles: (1) the analogy of antecedent Scripture and (2) the distinction between the human author’s meaning and the timeless significance of that meaning. To these, we shall turn next.
[1]For example, see Philo, De Specialibus Legibus, 1.37.207-208. In 1.37.207, Philo suggests the hidden meaning underneath the washing of the feet of animals is that man’s soul should walk upward to heaven.
[2]See Origen, De Principiis, 4.1.11. In support of this three-fold division, Origen cites Proverbs 22:20-21, “And do thou portray them in a threefold manner, in counsel and knowledge, to answer words of truth to them who propose them to thee.”
[3]See Origen, Contra Celsus, 7.11 and De Principiis, Praef., 2.
[4]Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3.27.
[5]See Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 1.36.
[6]Heiko Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Referomation Thought (Edinburgh: 1986), 276-280; Timothy Ward, Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of Scripture (Oxford: 2002), 21-73.
[7]Mitchell L. Chase, “A True and Greater Boaz: Typology and Jesus in the Book of Ruth,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 21.1 (2017): 85-96.
[8]Schrock, “What Designates a Valid Type?,” 25.
[9]Chase, “A True and Greater Boaz,” 87.
[10]Chase, “A True and Greater Boaz,” 88.
[11]Ibid., 88.
[12]Ibid., 88.
AUTHOR
blue and white diamond pattern
Chip Thornton
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 8, 2023 12:04:52 GMT -5
Closing the Gate on Allegory
Expository Preaching
Share
g3min.org/closing-the-gate-on-allegory/
CHIP THORNTON
Lion Gate
We detailed earlier how, historically, an issue that has plagued interpreters is the relationship between the human author(s) of Scripture and the Divine Author. What is the relationship between the two?
First, since the Divine Author chose to communicate His will for mankind through human authors, then the human author’s meaning (often called the “literal meaning”) is the Divine Author’s meaning. What’s more, the Divine Author chose to give us the Bible progressively. Therefore, we must respect the way in which God progressively revealed Himself. This makes the “Analogy of Antecedent Scripture” all-the-more important to close the gate on the allegorical tendencies we have witnessed throughout history.
Analogy of Antecedent Scripture
The Analogy of Antecedent Scripture acts as one gatekeeper which protects against multiple meanings rushing-in to corrupt the biblical author’s single truth-intention. Kaiser notes:
The only correction that we know for past and present abuses that have taken place in the name of doing theological exegesis is to carefully restrict the process to (1) examination of explicit affirmations found in the text being exegeted and (2) comparisons with similar (sometimes rudimentary) affirmations found in passages that have preceded in time the passage under study.[1]
This means we read the Bible forward, not backward. That is, we must (initially!) limit any theological observations (or proof-texts) to scriptures the biblical author knew at the time he wrote. Indeed, we must be deliberate not to allow later revelation to alter the biblical author’s intent. Once our exegesis is complete, however, we would be remiss if we failed to trace-out any subsequent theological developments in our summaries or conclusion. Again, this is only reasonable since it respects the way God gave us the Bible: progressively.
Abuses creep in when we begin interpreting the Bible backwards.
So serious are we about this point that we must sound an alarm: The greatest threat to accurate Christian proclamation is a violation of the Analogy of Antecedent Scripture, and the last 50 years of preaching bear that out. Today, we see pastors/theologians who decry allegory while actively, though oftentimes unwittingly, engaging in it![2] Largely, this is done by imposing later theological grids, developments, or proof-texts of which the biblical author was unaware at the time he wrote. To objectively critique this methodology nearly always elicits two quick but bold assertions: (1) I merely am exposing the Divine Author’s meaning and (2) I merely am employing the same hermeneutical powers as did the NT apostles.
To this, Kaiser responds:
The whole approach is wrongheaded historically, logically, and biblically . . . The tendency to interpret the Bible backward is a serious procedural problem, for it will leave a large vacuum in our teachings and provide seedbeds for tomorrow’s heresies.[3]
Indeed, our previous article (Is Every Text Pregnant with Meanings?) documented those seedbeds and the terrible heresies that sprang from them.
Perhaps you have experienced the frustration of someone taking your words out of context. Anyone who has knows the experience can be maddening. It stands to reason, then: We should offer the biblical human authors the same courtesy we expect from others. Perhaps a couple of examples will illustrate.
A Good Example
Romans 10:13 is a clear case of “intertextuality:” i.e., one biblical author citing another biblical author who preceded him in time. Paul states: For “everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved.” He is citing the OT prophet, Joel (Joel 2:32). Obviously, Joel informed the Apostle Paul’s theology. So let’s investigate Joel’s assertion. Joel 2:32 states: And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the Name of the LORD shall be saved [Paul cites this part of the verse]. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls [Paul did not cite this part of the verse]. Joel 2:32b, which part Paul did not cite, tips us off to something important: Joel actually defines who will call upon the Name of the LORD. Namely, those whom the LORD effectually calls. Paul didn’t bring this part to the attention of his hearers. It was unnecessary. He had treated God’s elective purposes already in Romans 9, but Joel’s theology certainly informed Paul’s. The Analogy of Antecedent Scripture gives us a valuable piece of direct evidence to that effect. We are on solid footing with this direct piece of evidence to assert: Just as the elect in Joel’s day would be saved by faith alone, so the elect in Paul’s day will be saved by faith alone.
A Not-So-Good Example
Theologians have long-suggested Boaz is a type of Christ even though no NT author makes that connection. Mitchell L. Chase recently argues as much and builds his case based on seven “correspondences:” (1) Boaz was from Judah’s tribe; Christ was from Judah’s tribe; (2) Boaz was from Bethlehem; Christ was born in Bethlehem; (3) Boaz redeemed Ruth; Christ redeems sinners; (4) Boaz welcomed foreigners; Christ welcomes Gentiles; (5) Boaz was overly-kind; Christ is overly kind; (6) Boaz kept the law; Christ kept the law; and, (7) Boaz provided abundantly; Christ provides abundantly.[4]
All these “coincidences” sound alluring until we ask a simple question, “Is this what the human author of Ruth intended to convey?”
In fairness to Chase, he begins with the human author’s intent: To show how God providentially arranged the lineage of King David. At this point, however, he begins interpreting the Bible backward, imposing later revelation onto Ruth’s author. So alluring and exciting are his analogies that we even start to think, “All these connections can’t be merely coincidences, can they?” Chase himself states, “It cannot be coincidental that go’el appears twenty-two times in the Book of Ruth, the precise number that the word appears in Leviticus.”[5]
Yet, if it were that obvious, how did the NT authors miss it?
Yet, if it were that obvious, how did the NT authors miss it?
Have we, in all this excitement, perhaps inadvertently shifted the emphasis from the biblical author’s single truth-intention to the reader’s probability recognitions? And, amidst this shift of emphasis, some are left still asking, “Does the biblical author’s single truth-intention mean anything at all?” Or, is his intention merely a springboard to greater and more exciting imaginative speculations?
When we ask such questions we quickly are met with the famous assertions we refuted earlier: “I have the same hermeneutical powers as the NT authors, and I have uncovered the Divine Author’s meaning that the NT authors missed.” Could it be that the NT authors dropped some grain in the corners of the interpretive field for those coming behind them to glean (i.e., Ruth 2:2)? We remain unconvinced.
Closing the Gate on Allegory
The previous example, at the least, opens the gate for allegory to enter in. Yet, we are still left wondering, “Is there a disciplined way to preach Christ from the Book of Ruth which is grounded in biblical authority?” Certainly.
The single truth-intention of Ruth’s author is as follows: To show how God providentially arranged the lineage of King David. The five-verse genealogy which closes the book makes that obvious. This truth-intention must be preserved and emphasized to the degree the biblical author emphasized it; and, in this case, the whole book is structured to bring us to those verses. Otherwise, we run the risk of doing violence to the original author’s intent.
That genealogy connects Boaz as the great-great grandfather of King David. King David is considered Israel’s greatest king, the one who united Israel. Subsequent revelation in the NT (Matt 1) traces Jesus Christ’s lineage through King David. Further, Peter proclaimed that One greater than King David has been exalted to the right Hand of God (Acts 2:24-36). This direct NT evidence removes any presumption and assures us we are grounding our proclamations in biblical authority. So, Boaz played a critical and providential role in bringing forth the Messiah, Jesus Christ, into the world. In the Divine Author’s progressive revelation, the brightness of this future development deserves and demands to highlighted.
This method retains and respects the uniqueness of the human author’s intent, reads the Bible forward (not backward), and exalts Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of God’s unfolding promise-plan. In response, every person is left to conclude: If God could use commoners like Boaz and Ruth to exalt a Man to His right Hand to share His throne and rule the new heavens and earth . . . then maybe He can use commoners like you and I to glorify the Promised One, too.
[1]Walt Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology (Baker: 1981), 161.
[2]My dissertation documented that over half the sermons at the Southern Baptist Conventionl Pastor’s Conference displayed strong allegorical tendencies. This was over a decade’s span. See Chipley McQueen Thornton, Allegorical Tendencies and Their Relation to the Doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture (2009).
[3]Walt Kaiser, Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament (Baker: 2003), 26.
[4]Mitchell L. Chase, “A True and Greater Boaz: Typology and Jesus in the Book of Ruth,” SBTJ 21.1 (2017): 85-96.
[5]Ibid., 91.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Related
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 15, 2023 21:03:54 GMT -5
Immediate Context & “Falling from Grace . . .”
Eternal SecurityExpository PreachingHermeneutics
Share
g3min.org/immediate-context-falling-from-grace/
CHIP THORNTON
Chain
The 1689 London Baptist Confession states of eternal security: True believers “can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (Ch. 17). Yet, Paul states in Galatians 5:4, You have fallen away from grace.” Can we fall from grace or not?
This dilemma sets the stage for a case study in “immediate context.” In previous articles, I have touched on canonical context, book context, and sectional context. Now, let us narrow the focus even more. What is the “immediate context?”
Immediate Context
The immediate context investigates how individual paragraphs relate to the larger section. Biblical authors write in chains of thought. We are not permitted to break any link in the thought-chain. Rather, we follow each link, tracing the connection between them. A few connecting clues we can seek:
Historical. There may be a connection of facts, events, or happenings.
Theological. A doctrine may be dependent on some historical fact.
Logical. A paragraph may be a sub-point within a larger argument.
Psychological. A parenthetical “aside,” which Paul includes often.
OT Example
Kaiser points to Exodus 6:14-27, which is within a larger section in which things weren’t going well for Moses.[1] Pharaoh had increased the work-load of the Israelites. The LORD encourages Moses, promising him (once again) to deliver the people from Egyptian slavery. Exodus 6:14-27 follows, which appears—at first glance—to be a meaningless genealogy. A closer examination reveals much more (see #1 above, the historical clue). The paragraph immediately preceding it (Exodus 6:10-12) and the paragraph immediately following it (Exodus 6:28-30) repeat the same point: “Tell Pharaoh king of Egypt . . . But Moses said, ‘I am of uncircumcised lips.’” This repetition is important an important clue. Why? When we examine the genealogy, we find it mentions only 3 of Jacob’s 12 sons (Reuben, Simeon, and Levi). Moses and his brother, Aaron, both came from Levi, so why mention Reuben and Simeon at all? It must be because Reuben and Simeon were as imperfect as Moses. Reuben slept with his father’s concubine. Simeon attacked a village without permission after his sister was raped. Now, the genealogy takes on a new light. God gently is reminding Moses (and us) that Reuben and Simeon had faults just as Moses did. The point is not to look at the man, but to look beyond the man to the God Who uses anyone He pleases to accomplish His will: Even this (flawed) Moses and this (flawed) Aaron can accomplish His will! You won’t see that unless you investigate how immediate context fits into the larger section.
NT Example
Galatians 5:4 is a simpler example. I was teaching in Paris, France when a student suggested a believer can lose his/her salvation. He appealed to Galatians 5:4, “You have fallen away from grace.” He had isolated that phrase from its immediate context, which led him into doctrinal error.
We patiently showed him the value of investigating the “immediate context.” From the beginning of the Galatians letter, Paul has been declaring salvation is by faith alone. Beginning in Galatians 5:2, he entertains a common objection (see #3 above, the logical clue). Namely, if someone says salvation comes by law-keeping (“circumcision,” verse 2), then they must keep every point of the OT Law to be saved. Otherwise, “you have fallen away from grace.” Paul presented a hypothetical impossibility to show how preposterous it is to suggest a true believer can lose his/her salvation. In fact, Paul is declaring the exact opposite: True believers cannot fall away from grace. The very idea is theologically and logically flawed.
Here’s the point he was missing. He had lifted a phrase and divorced it from its specific role in the section. His mistake was forgivable. We all make mistakes. But the tragedy of his mistake is he turned the whole letter on its head and made Paul’s words say the exact opposite of what Paul intended; and that doctrinal error leads to a false gospel, which was the very reason Paul wrote in the first place!
A Final Thought
How many other heresies have sprung from neglecting to investigate the immediate context? Too many, I’m afraid. Many are in hell today because someone forgot to look at the immediate context of God’s biblical writers. On the other hand, many are rejoicing in heaven today because others were diligent to do so. The importance of “immediate context” has eternal ramifications.
[1]Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Toward an Exegetical Theology (Baker Books, 1981), 83-84.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Related
Thinking Through the Entire Sermon
The Gospel is God’s Power to Save Sinners
Yesterday morning, I was able to preach the second of two sermons on Romans 1:16—focused primarily upon the power of the gospel to save sinners. Although Paul could have phrased his joy in the gospel in a positive manner, he used a negative construction to point out that while the…
The Most Misquoted Verse of our Day
AUTHOR
Chain
Chip Thornton
Pastor of FBC Springville, Alabama. Chip is a graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he earned his Ph.D. in expository preaching. He enjoys spending time with his family, has a passion for discipleship, and is committed to biblical exposition.
Sectional Context & If My People . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 4, 2023 12:27:15 GMT -5
MAR 10, 2021
HERMENEUTICS
PREACHING
The Impact of Syntax
Expository PreachingHermeneutics
Share
g3min.org/the-impact-of-syntax/?fbclid=IwAR36ApfVNp6oapkAwSpp7pwrx7SN6qXqks6pwNReL1SRZwRVrcJHT7WkqBM
CHIP THORNTON
brown wooden blocks with numbers
When I worked in the legal field, I quickly discovered: words matter, phrases matter, sentences matter, and paragraphs matter. The way you organize them matters, too. I learned this most profoundly when the inheritance of a multi-million dollar estate hung on the correct placement of a single word in a paragraph. When you write an important message, the way you construct it is critical to getting your point across. We choose our words carefully, and rightly so. The Bible is no different.
God chose His Words carefully, too. 2 Timothy 3:16 states, “All Scripture is breathed-out by God.” In Greek, the word “Scripture” is γραφή (graphe). It means God’s writings. It is the graphe, the actual words that form the sentences and paragraphs, which are breathed-out by God. That is an important point to remember. Theology is not said to be breathed-out by God. Context is not said to be breathed-out by God. Only the graphe, the actual writings, are declared to be breathed-out by God. The others are important, to be certain, but it is the text itself which must concern us most.
Up until now, I have focused on context: canonical context, book context, sectional context, and immediate context. Now, we must begin examining that which God crystallized from His breath: the text itself.
Theology is not said to be breathed-out by God. Context is not said to be breathed-out by God. Only the graphe, the actual writings, are declared to be breathed-out by God.
The Impact of Syntax
What is syntax? Walt Kaiser says syntax is, “The way in which words are put together so as to form phrases, clauses, and sentences.”[1] We particularly are interested, at this point, to distinguish between “main” points and “supporting” points (or sub-points). We want to emphasize what the graphe (Scripture) emphasizes; nothing more, nothing less.
Analogy of Antecedent Scripture
In examining syntax, we must keep in mind the “analogy of antecedent Scripture.” I will write on this in more detail in a later article, but it’s so important I wish to plant the seed here. We all have heard preachers who read a preaching-text, and then jump all over the Bible to explain it. Theologians call this “systematic theology,” which at times is helpful. However, if our objective is to determine what this author is saying in this text, then we must (initially) limit ourselves to the Scripture this author knew at the time he wrote. That’s only fair, isn’t it? We can’t expect Paul, for instance, to know what was written in the book of Revelation when the book of Revelation wasn’t written until after Paul was dead. And notice, I said “initially.” There will come a time when we look at subsequent revelation (that is, Scripture written after this author wrote). Initially, though, we limit ourselves only to the graphe our biblical author knew at the time he wrote. This concept will become important later on in the interpretive process. For now, just keep it in mind.
Identify the Literary Type
Part of the syntax analysis will be determining the literary type. Common sense tells us we cannot analyze poetry the same way we analyze a didactic epistle.
There are five basic literary types (though some biblical books have variations of these types within them):
Prose. This is the most common. It is the plain speech of an author. Most of Paul’s letters are written in prose.
Poetry. We all know what poetry is. It comprises about one-third of the OT.
Narrative. The author shares events. Biblical books like Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Acts were written as historical narratives.
Wisdom. Wisdom literature addresses basic questions of life. Biblical books like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon are examples of wisdom literature.
Apocalyptic. Apocalyptic literature often addresses future events using symbolic language, heavenly visions, and/or past-tense verbs to describe things that have yet to occur (because the author is describing future events that he saw). The book of Revelation is the classic example.
Watch Those Chapter Divisions
We must remember the graphe is God-breathed. The chapter and verse divisions are not. They were dropped-in later as reference points. Often, though, they can trick our minds into interrupting an author’s thought-flow.
For example, the casual reader comes to 1 Corinthians 13 and hears comforting words concerning love: “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast . . .” Verses from this passage are found on greeting cards, funeral tracts, yearbook signings, wedding announcements, and the like. Actually, these “Hallmark moments” misuse these verses by divorcing them from their syntactical framework. The “love” chapter is charming, but it wasn’t meant to charm. It was meant to challenge. It is sandwiched between chapters 12 and 14. Chapter 12 exposes the jealous, selfish ambition of the Corinthians. Chapter 14 exposes the abuse of spiritual gifts (namely, tongues) fueled by that same jealous, selfish ambition. Tucked in-between, the Spirit unmasks the inner motives of their hearts with a caricature (personification) of love.
Think of it this way. I went to an art district in Paris, France recently. It had dozens of the world’s great artists and their paintings on display. I don’t know enough about art to appreciate it the way I should. Therefore, I was attracted to an artist in the corner. He didn’t paint priceless pieces of art at all. He drew caricatures. You sit, and he draws a cartoonish picture of you. The finished work exaggerates your imperfections. Paul is painting a caricature of the Corinthians, a caricature that draws attention to their lack of love Indeed, if we properly preserved the biblical author’s syntax, it would be the last thing we would want on a Hallmark wedding announcement. In effect, we would be announcing the bride and groom’s lack of love (which was Paul’s point)!
1 Corinthians 13 is a lovely literary piece, in that it speaks preeminently of love. A syntax analysis, though, reveals it is a “lovely rebuke” meant to expose their lovelessness (and ours). You might not notice that on the first reading of the letter. I had to read it many times before I discovered it.
Perhaps that is the salient point toward which I’m aiming. Syntax doesn’t always settle-in on the first reading. I read Romans 46 times in a row (not in one day!) before I ever looked at a commentary. Why? I wanted the syntax ingrained in my consciousness before I looked elsewhere. Once I read the commentaries, it became obvious to me which ones had taken the time to let the syntax settle-in. Most jumped right in and started parsing individual words without ever considering how they are connected to the larger thought-unit, much less the entire letter.
Take the necessary time to read an entire book—over and over again—before you preach it. You won’t regret it. You’ll begin to feel the impact of syntax, and it will sharpen your preaching.
[1]Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Toward an Exegetical Theology (Baker Books, 1981), 89.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Related
The Men Who Wrote Scripture Were Not Inspired by God
If God Didn’t Mean What He Said, Then Why Didn’t He Say What He Meant?
What Is Inspiration?
AUTHOR
brown wooden blocks with numbers
Chip Thornton
Pastor of FBC Springville, Alabama. Chip is a graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he earned his Ph.D. in expository preaching. He enjoys spending time with his family, has a passion for discipleship, and is committed to biblical exposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 15, 2023 17:25:24 GMT -5
MAR 24, 2021
HERMENEUTICS
PREACHING
The Syntax of Psalm 1
Expository PreachingHermeneutics
Share
g3min.org/the-syntax-of-psalm-1/
CHIP THORNTON
Hebrew
Lately, I’ve been pounding at the anvil of syntax. Few people write about syntax today because it is a technical topic. It doesn’t generate many re-tweets, re-posts, or shares because it doesn’t address hot-button issues (BLM, CRT&I, LGBTQ, etc.). Yet, it does address them. It addresses them in the most fundamental way. The root cause of all of those acronyms is a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s syntax; and without a knowledge of God’s syntax, we merely are engaging the world’s issues the world’s way using the world’s logic and language.
Syntax is where the action is when we are searching for God’s self-revelation, which is the only thing capable of destroying the world’s “arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5). Those above-referenced acronyms don’t represent mere human “ideologies;” they represent “cosmic powers” and “spiritual forces of evil.” Those powers and forces must be crushed under the weight of the syntactical constructions breathed-out by God.
Without a knowledge of God’s syntax, we merely are engaging the world’s issues the world’s way using the world’s logic and language.
I performed a syntactical analysis on an epistle (a letter) in a previous article. Now, I’d like to show how to do so on a different genre: A Psalm. Common sense tells us we cannot approach an epistle the same we approach poetry.
Gospel Reminder
Lest we be accused of merely preaching “morality,” we must frame our preaching within the context of the gospel while preserving the biblical author’s original intent. I typically do this by pointing to Paul’s classic Ordo Salutis (“Order of Salvation”). It describes how God saves sinners.
Election. God’s sovereign choice of a people for Himself.
The Gospel Call. The Holy Spirit summons sinners to God.
Regeneration. The Holy Spirit resurrects the spiritually dead.
Conversion. The sinner repents & turns to Christ by faith.
Justification. God legally declares the sinner as righteous.
Adoption. God formally accepts the redeemed into His family.
Sanctification. The Holy Spirit conforms them into Christ’s image.
Perseverance. Believers persist in obedience until death.
Physical Death. The redeemed sinner’s mortal body expires.
Glorification. The saint receives an immortal body.
Every text falls within one of these categories. Most of the Psalms fit in the “Sanctification” category.
Disassemble Psalm 1
Let’s perform a syntactical analysis in alignment with the five-step process set-forth in my previous article (see link above). Psalm 1 reads:[1]
1 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; 2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD, on His law he meditates day and night.3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.
4 The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous; 6 for the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.
First: Isolate the main proposition (also called central idea).
Main proposition: Righteous people will walk in godliness.
Second: Identify the supporting propositions (also called sub-points).
Supporting Idea #1: God’s approved ones (1:1-3). Blessed is the man . . .
Sub-supporting Idea: He has consistent conduct (1:1b). . . . who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
Sub-supporting Idea: He has constant delight (1:2). . . . but his delight is in the law of the LORD, on His law he meditates day and night.
Sub-supporting Idea: He has quality character (1:3). . . . He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.
Supporting Idea #2: God’s disapproves others (1:4-6). The wicked are not so . . .
Sub-supporting Idea: His has poor character (1:4b). . . . but are like chaff that the wind drives away.
Sub-supporting Idea: He has a sad end (1:5). Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;
Sub-sub-supporting Idea: The Lord knows his ways (1:6a)
Sub-sub-supporting Idea: The Lord judges his ways (1:6b).
Third: Analyze the proper weight given to each in the passage.
Fourth: Search out all natural divisions in the paragraph (studying particles, conjunctions, etc.).
1:1 not, nor, nor
1:2 but
1:3 natural division: example of righteous.
1:4 natural division: clear break (wicked).
1:5 therefore (signals conclusion)
1:6 for (signals purpose)
1:6 but (signals contrast)
Fifth: Reassemble the text (see below).
Reassemble Psalm 1
Central Theme: Godly Character Produces a Godly Life
I. God Approves of Some (1:1-3)
Those with Consistent Conduct (1:1b)
Those with Constant Delight (1:2)
Those with Quality Character (1:3)
II. God Disapproves of Others (1:4-6)
The Wicked Have Poor Character (1:4)
The Wicked Have A Sad End (1:5)
The Lord Knows Their Ways (1:6a)
The Lord Judges Their Ways (1:6b)
A Final Thought
Someone once suggested to me, “You could preach the same sermon in a Jewish synagogue as you could in a Christian congregation, and no one would know the difference.” This is where the Ordo Salutis comes to our rescue (this particular passage speaks to daily sanctification). I will discuss in a later article how to deliver the message in a Christocentric context without violating the biblical author’s single meaning.
My concern here was to analyze how God’s breathed-out syntactical constructions shaped His single meaning. How that single meaning integrates with and flows from the larger gospel message is another article for another day.
[1]Walt Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology (Baker Books, 1981): 171. Kaiser diagrams this passage in Hebrew and shows the constructions in a helpful way. My article sticks with the English, recognizing most haven’t studied Hebrew.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 18, 2023 18:47:06 GMT -5
Immediate Context & “Falling from Grace . . .”
Eternal SecurityExpository PreachingHermeneutics
Share
g3min.org/immediate-context-falling-from-grace/
CHIP THORNTON
Chain
The 1689 London Baptist Confession states of eternal security: True believers “can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (Ch. 17). Yet, Paul states in Galatians 5:4, You have fallen away from grace.” Can we fall from grace or not?
This dilemma sets the stage for a case study in “immediate context.” In previous articles, I have touched on canonical context, book context, and sectional context. Now, let us narrow the focus even more. What is the “immediate context?”
Immediate Context
The immediate context investigates how individual paragraphs relate to the larger section. Biblical authors write in chains of thought. We are not permitted to break any link in the thought-chain. Rather, we follow each link, tracing the connection between them. A few connecting clues we can seek:
Historical. There may be a connection of facts, events, or happenings.
Theological. A doctrine may be dependent on some historical fact.
Logical. A paragraph may be a sub-point within a larger argument.
Psychological. A parenthetical “aside,” which Paul includes often.
OT Example
Kaiser points to Exodus 6:14-27, which is within a larger section in which things weren’t going well for Moses.[1] Pharaoh had increased the work-load of the Israelites. The LORD encourages Moses, promising him (once again) to deliver the people from Egyptian slavery. Exodus 6:14-27 follows, which appears—at first glance—to be a meaningless genealogy. A closer examination reveals much more (see #1 above, the historical clue). The paragraph immediately preceding it (Exodus 6:10-12) and the paragraph immediately following it (Exodus 6:28-30) repeat the same point: “Tell Pharaoh king of Egypt . . . But Moses said, ‘I am of uncircumcised lips.’” This repetition is important an important clue. Why? When we examine the genealogy, we find it mentions only 3 of Jacob’s 12 sons (Reuben, Simeon, and Levi). Moses and his brother, Aaron, both came from Levi, so why mention Reuben and Simeon at all? It must be because Reuben and Simeon were as imperfect as Moses. Reuben slept with his father’s concubine. Simeon attacked a village without permission after his sister was raped. Now, the genealogy takes on a new light. God gently is reminding Moses (and us) that Reuben and Simeon had faults just as Moses did. The point is not to look at the man, but to look beyond the man to the God Who uses anyone He pleases to accomplish His will: Even this (flawed) Moses and this (flawed) Aaron can accomplish His will! You won’t see that unless you investigate how immediate context fits into the larger section.
NT Example
Galatians 5:4 is a simpler example. I was teaching in Paris, France when a student suggested a believer can lose his/her salvation. He appealed to Galatians 5:4, “You have fallen away from grace.” He had isolated that phrase from its immediate context, which led him into doctrinal error.
We patiently showed him the value of investigating the “immediate context.” From the beginning of the Galatians letter, Paul has been declaring salvation is by faith alone. Beginning in Galatians 5:2, he entertains a common objection (see #3 above, the logical clue). Namely, if someone says salvation comes by law-keeping (“circumcision,” verse 2), then they must keep every point of the OT Law to be saved. Otherwise, “you have fallen away from grace.” Paul presented a hypothetical impossibility to show how preposterous it is to suggest a true believer can lose his/her salvation. In fact, Paul is declaring the exact opposite: True believers cannot fall away from grace. The very idea is theologically and logically flawed.
Here’s the point he was missing. He had lifted a phrase and divorced it from its specific role in the section. His mistake was forgivable. We all make mistakes. But the tragedy of his mistake is he turned the whole letter on its head and made Paul’s words say the exact opposite of what Paul intended; and that doctrinal error leads to a false gospel, which was the very reason Paul wrote in the first place!
A Final Thought
How many other heresies have sprung from neglecting to investigate the immediate context? Too many, I’m afraid. Many are in hell today because someone forgot to look at the immediate context of God’s biblical writers. On the other hand, many are rejoicing in heaven today because others were diligent to do so. The importance of “immediate context” has eternal ramifications.
[1]Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Toward an Exegetical Theology (Baker Books, 1981), 83-84.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2024 18:57:55 GMT -5
Closing the Gate on Allegory
Expository Preaching
Share
g3min.org/closing-the-gate-on-allegory/
CHIP THORNTON
Lion Gate
We detailed earlier how, historically, an issue that has plagued interpreters is the relationship between the human author(s) of Scripture and the Divine Author. What is the relationship between the two?
First, since the Divine Author chose to communicate His will for mankind through human authors, then the human author’s meaning (often called the “literal meaning”) is the Divine Author’s meaning. What’s more, the Divine Author chose to give us the Bible progressively. Therefore, we must respect the way in which God progressively revealed Himself. This makes the “Analogy of Antecedent Scripture” all-the-more important to close the gate on the allegorical tendencies we have witnessed throughout history.
Analogy of Antecedent Scripture
The Analogy of Antecedent Scripture acts as one gatekeeper which protects against multiple meanings rushing-in to corrupt the biblical author’s single truth-intention. Kaiser notes:
The only correction that we know for past and present abuses that have taken place in the name of doing theological exegesis is to carefully restrict the process to (1) examination of explicit affirmations found in the text being exegeted and (2) comparisons with similar (sometimes rudimentary) affirmations found in passages that have preceded in time the passage under study.[1]
This means we read the Bible forward, not backward. That is, we must (initially!) limit any theological observations (or proof-texts) to scriptures the biblical author knew at the time he wrote. Indeed, we must be deliberate not to allow later revelation to alter the biblical author’s intent. Once our exegesis is complete, however, we would be remiss if we failed to trace-out any subsequent theological developments in our summaries or conclusion. Again, this is only reasonable since it respects the way God gave us the Bible: progressively.
Abuses creep in when we begin interpreting the Bible backwards.
So serious are we about this point that we must sound an alarm: The greatest threat to accurate Christian proclamation is a violation of the Analogy of Antecedent Scripture, and the last 50 years of preaching bear that out. Today, we see pastors/theologians who decry allegory while actively, though oftentimes unwittingly, engaging in it![2] Largely, this is done by imposing later theological grids, developments, or proof-texts of which the biblical author was unaware at the time he wrote. To objectively critique this methodology nearly always elicits two quick but bold assertions: (1) I merely am exposing the Divine Author’s meaning and (2) I merely am employing the same hermeneutical powers as did the NT apostles.
To this, Kaiser responds:
The whole approach is wrongheaded historically, logically, and biblically . . . The tendency to interpret the Bible backward is a serious procedural problem, for it will leave a large vacuum in our teachings and provide seedbeds for tomorrow’s heresies.[3]
Indeed, our previous article (Is Every Text Pregnant with Meanings?) documented those seedbeds and the terrible heresies that sprang from them.
Perhaps you have experienced the frustration of someone taking your words out of context. Anyone who has knows the experience can be maddening. It stands to reason, then: We should offer the biblical human authors the same courtesy we expect from others. Perhaps a couple of examples will illustrate.
A Good Example
Romans 10:13 is a clear case of “intertextuality:” i.e., one biblical author citing another biblical author who preceded him in time. Paul states: For “everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved.” He is citing the OT prophet, Joel (Joel 2:32). Obviously, Joel informed the Apostle Paul’s theology. So let’s investigate Joel’s assertion. Joel 2:32 states: And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the Name of the LORD shall be saved [Paul cites this part of the verse]. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls [Paul did not cite this part of the verse]. Joel 2:32b, which part Paul did not cite, tips us off to something important: Joel actually defines who will call upon the Name of the LORD. Namely, those whom the LORD effectually calls. Paul didn’t bring this part to the attention of his hearers. It was unnecessary. He had treated God’s elective purposes already in Romans 9, but Joel’s theology certainly informed Paul’s. The Analogy of Antecedent Scripture gives us a valuable piece of direct evidence to that effect. We are on solid footing with this direct piece of evidence to assert: Just as the elect in Joel’s day would be saved by faith alone, so the elect in Paul’s day will be saved by faith alone.
A Not-So-Good Example
Theologians have long-suggested Boaz is a type of Christ even though no NT author makes that connection. Mitchell L. Chase recently argues as much and builds his case based on seven “correspondences:” (1) Boaz was from Judah’s tribe; Christ was from Judah’s tribe; (2) Boaz was from Bethlehem; Christ was born in Bethlehem; (3) Boaz redeemed Ruth; Christ redeems sinners; (4) Boaz welcomed foreigners; Christ welcomes Gentiles; (5) Boaz was overly-kind; Christ is overly kind; (6) Boaz kept the law; Christ kept the law; and, (7) Boaz provided abundantly; Christ provides abundantly.[4]
All these “coincidences” sound alluring until we ask a simple question, “Is this what the human author of Ruth intended to convey?”
In fairness to Chase, he begins with the human author’s intent: To show how God providentially arranged the lineage of King David. At this point, however, he begins interpreting the Bible backward, imposing later revelation onto Ruth’s author. So alluring and exciting are his analogies that we even start to think, “All these connections can’t be merely coincidences, can they?” Chase himself states, “It cannot be coincidental that go’el appears twenty-two times in the Book of Ruth, the precise number that the word appears in Leviticus.”[5]
Yet, if it were that obvious, how did the NT authors miss it?
Yet, if it were that obvious, how did the NT authors miss it?
Have we, in all this excitement, perhaps inadvertently shifted the emphasis from the biblical author’s single truth-intention to the reader’s probability recognitions? And, amidst this shift of emphasis, some are left still asking, “Does the biblical author’s single truth-intention mean anything at all?” Or, is his intention merely a springboard to greater and more exciting imaginative speculations?
When we ask such questions we quickly are met with the famous assertions we refuted earlier: “I have the same hermeneutical powers as the NT authors, and I have uncovered the Divine Author’s meaning that the NT authors missed.” Could it be that the NT authors dropped some grain in the corners of the interpretive field for those coming behind them to glean (i.e., Ruth 2:2)? We remain unconvinced.
Closing the Gate on Allegory
The previous example, at the least, opens the gate for allegory to enter in. Yet, we are still left wondering, “Is there a disciplined way to preach Christ from the Book of Ruth which is grounded in biblical authority?” Certainly.
The single truth-intention of Ruth’s author is as follows: To show how God providentially arranged the lineage of King David. The five-verse genealogy which closes the book makes that obvious. This truth-intention must be preserved and emphasized to the degree the biblical author emphasized it; and, in this case, the whole book is structured to bring us to those verses. Otherwise, we run the risk of doing violence to the original author’s intent.
That genealogy connects Boaz as the great-great grandfather of King David. King David is considered Israel’s greatest king, the one who united Israel. Subsequent revelation in the NT (Matt 1) traces Jesus Christ’s lineage through King David. Further, Peter proclaimed that One greater than King David has been exalted to the right Hand of God (Acts 2:24-36). This direct NT evidence removes any presumption and assures us we are grounding our proclamations in biblical authority. So, Boaz played a critical and providential role in bringing forth the Messiah, Jesus Christ, into the world. In the Divine Author’s progressive revelation, the brightness of this future development deserves and demands to highlighted.
This method retains and respects the uniqueness of the human author’s intent, reads the Bible forward (not backward), and exalts Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of God’s unfolding promise-plan. In response, every person is left to conclude: If God could use commoners like Boaz and Ruth to exalt a Man to His right Hand to share His throne and rule the new heavens and earth . . . then maybe He can use commoners like you and I to glorify the Promised One, too.
[1]Walt Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology (Baker: 1981), 161.
[2]My dissertation documented that over half the sermons at the Southern Baptist Conventionl Pastor’s Conference displayed strong allegorical tendencies. This was over a decade’s span. See Chipley McQueen Thornton, Allegorical Tendencies and Their Relation to the Doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture (2009).
[3]Walt Kaiser, Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament (Baker: 2003), 26.
[4]Mitchell L. Chase, “A True and Greater Boaz: Typology and Jesus in the Book of Ruth,” SBTJ 21.1 (2017): 85-96.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2024 17:14:59 GMT -5
MAY 05, 2021
HERMENEUTICS
PREACHING
Is Christ in Every Text?
Critical Race TheoryExpository PreachingHermeneutics
Share
g3min.org/is-christ-in-every-text/
CHIP THORNTON
Magnifying glass
One of my seminary colleagues once told me, “We must preach like the apostles preached. They proof-texted freely and showed Christ in every text.” I looked at him strangely and replied, “But I’m not an apostle. I’m called to preach what the apostles wrote.”
Most proof-texting (or cross-referencing) is innocent enough. However, it quickly can be a dangerous game that, without controls, leads to destructive heresies and a different Christ (2 Cor. 11:4). Ask Paul. He dealt with unbridled proof-texters nearly everywhere he went: Galatia (Gal. 1:8), Corinth (2 Cor. 11:13), Colossae (Col. 2:16-23), and Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3-7; 2 Tim. 2:16-18) to name a few.
Does this mean we must never proof-text? No, but we need a carefully thought-out strategy before we proof-text:
“Initially” limit yourself to the “analogy of antecedent Scripture.”
Preserve the biblical author’s original intent in your preaching-text.
Introduce any subsequent revelation in summaries and conclusions.
I’m not an apostle. I’m called to preach what the apostles wrote.
Antecedent Scripture
I’ve written elsewhere of the “analogy of antecedent Scripture.” Briefly, that principle suggests: If our single aim is to determine the biblical author’s original intent (and it is), we “initially” must limit proof-texts to passages the biblical author knew at the time he wrote. This is only reasonable. For example, Paul couldn’t have known the contents in the book of Revelation when he wrote Romans since Revelation hadn’t been written. It would be unfair, then, to superimpose passages from Revelation onto Romans (eisegesis). However, it is justifiable to cite antecedent passages that informed the biblical author’s meaning.
Subsequent Revelation
May we ever cite texts written later? Absolutely: (1) once our initial study is complete, and (2) we have determined our biblical author’s original intent, then (3) it is (entirely) appropriate to consider any subsequent revelation that may cast light upon our preaching-text. In fact, it would be disingenuous to withhold it. I only caution: It’s best to introduce any subsequent revelation in summaries or conclusions so as not to lose the uniqueness of the preaching-text. This upholds the sufficiency of Scripture while at the same time declaring the whole counsel of God.
Canonical Center
One other issue must be considered: How does this passage fit within the controlling theme of the Bible? I discussed this, too, in a previous article, but it all comes to bear at this point in the interpretive process. Walt Kaiser defines the canonical center of Scripture this way:
[T]he plan of God . . . that he would form a nation and out of that nation he would bring the one through whom salvation would come to all the nations.[1]
The Bible is the spectacular narrative of how God freely gifted that promise to sinful mankind and fulfilled that promise in His Son, Jesus Christ. Every paragraph of Scripture, then, feeds into this canonical center and—in some way—serves to advance God’s glorious redemptive purpose in Christ.
But Isn’t Christ in Every Text?
The rage for the last 20 years or so has been to find Christ in every text. Often, this is done by anachronistically proof-texting or superimposing later events onto texts. This practice was fueled by a slew of preaching books in the late 1990’s/early 2000’s like Graeme Goldsworthy’s Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture. The idea is the whole Bible is centered on Christ. The trick to preaching, they suggest, is to find Christ in every text, and draw Him out. Proponents call this the “Christocentric” approach (as if our approach is not Christocentric).
Proof-texting quickly can be a dangerous game that, without controls, leads to destructive heresies and a different Christ.
We agree the whole Bible centers on Christ in this way: Every text in Scripture “points” to Christ. However, to dig underneath the text for a deeper (oftentimes, superimposed) Christocentric meaning is allegory. No one likes to hear that, but that method seeks a “deeper” meaning than the biblical author intended. A better approach is to read the Bible forward, not backward. Rather than searching for Christ in every text, our task is to decipher the biblical author’s original intent and show how that intent is fulfilled in God’s promise-plan (which finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ). Or, as Spurgeon once recounted, “[F]rom every text of Scripture there is a road to . . . Christ.”[2]
David & Goliath
Kuruvilla’s excellent article, “David v. Goliath (1 Samuel 17): What the Author is Doing with What He is Saying,” illustrates the fallacies of the “Christ-in-every-text” approach. He cites Goldsworthy’s approach: David is a type of Christ (the Anointed One) and Goliath is a picture of sin and death. Thus, Goldsworthy suggests, the David & Goliath episode serves to foreshadow that “God’s Christ (Anointed One) wins the victory over sin and death on behalf of his people.”[3] Peter J. Leithart, a Presbyterian (PCA) theologian, goes further:
The fact that he is described as wearing ‘scales’ indicates that Goliath was a serpent. Once again there is a serpent in the garden-land of Israel. . . . David was the new Adam that Israel had been waiting for, the beast-master taking dominion over bears and lions and now fighting a ‘serpent.’[4]
To these unsubstantiated speculations, we ask, “Is this what the biblical author of Samuel intended?” Of course not. We get this neither from his grammar nor his historical context. The only possible way we get this is to superimpose later events. The biblical author of Samuel highlighted how God used David’s child-like faith in the promise-plan to preserve the nation, Israel. Of course, we know the rest of the story: That nation, Israel, brought forth the One Who would redeem souls from all nations–Jesus Christ!
Searching for Christ in every text seems innocent–and even virtuous–at first. Well-intentioned souls dove in, head-first, with excitement. However, the unintended consequences of such allegorical tendencies are far-reaching. If no NT author makes those connections from the David & Goliath episode (and no NT author does), then we implicitly are grooming hearers to trust human speculation rather than the sufficiency of Holy Scripture. Worse, we unwittingly have asked listeners to trust the word of man rather than the Word of God; and, apparently, they did.
Abiding Implications
This leads us to our present state of confusion. We have sowed allegorical seeds to the wind, and we are reaping the whirlwind of postmodernism. For instance, modern evangelicals no longer reinterpret individual texts Christocentrically (through the cross-event). After a while, that became old and stale to them since every sermon sounded the same. Their thoughts turned to a new way of finding Christ in every text. Now, they reinterpret texts “Christo-missionally,” (through Christ’s mission). To them Christ’s mission is not so much to save sinners (though they agree He does) as it is to take-up the cause of “the oppressed” against “the oppressors.” Every passage in Scripture, then, is reinterpreted in the light of personal experience, not the biblical author’s intent, a move Southern Baptists leaders surreptitiously pushed through with Resolution 9 in Birmingham in 2019. Resolution 9, too, seems innocent enough on a cursory reading. However, upon closer examination, it offers license to take the biblical narrative of David and Goliath in the same direction as the homosexual rector of Episcopal Church of Holy Communion (Missouri), Mike Angell. In his June 21, 2015 sermon, Angell proclaims:
Our Goliath isn’t a person, it’s an ideology, it’s a system. Our Goliath was created as women and men from Africa were forced into chattel slavery. My ancestors enhanced the racial biases they inherited. They created and codified a system of race that haunts us today. . . . It feels like we are on the front lines, still, and still our Goliath wakes up in the morning to taunt us. The Bible tells us that Goliath walked back and forth jeering at the Israelites for forty days. Forty days is the Bible’s way of saying “a really long time,” too long. We have been waiting for the end of racism for too long. Why won’t this Goliath leave us alone?[5]
David, in this scheme, represents anyone who has the courage to stand up against systemic racism. This example might have gone unnoticed had not Angell won the internationally recognized John Hines preaching award for this type of allegorical preaching. Of course, that homily was in 2015. Today, we’ve moved beyond that to demanding atonement: i.e., white congregations must pay reparations to black congregations. Princeton theologian, Keri Day, is demanding $500 million from white churches and synagogues. She grounds such an astounding demand in no less than Christ’s authority; namely, Jesus’ encounter with Zaccheus in Luke 19. Indeed, she claims salvation cannot be complete without reparations (you can view her demands here). Again, we might dismiss such banter as “radical” or “fringe” positions but for the fact that Day is a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary.
How did we get to this place? Partly, it is because we didn’t think carefully through two things: (1) how to proof-text properly and (2) how properly to introduce any subsequent revelation. Unbridled proof-texting, cross-referencing, and a mishandling of God’s progressive revelation, in large part, brought us to our current woes. Now, in all-out postmodernism, Holy Scripture indeed has become a wax nose which each man/woman shapes to his/her own liking. The only solution is to this crisis: Preserve the sufficiency of each text in Holy Scripture, and show how it advances God’s promise-plan, which finds its fulfillment in Christ.
[1]Walt Kaiser, Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament (Baker: 1981), 32
[2]A quote often is attributed to Spurgeon is, “I take my text and make a beeline to the cross.” Spurgeon never appears to have made this comment, but he certainly agreed with it in principle. In Spurgeon’s 1859 sermon, “Christ is Precious to Believers,” he favorably recounts an old Welsh minister telling a young minister, “[F]rom every text of Scripture there is a road to . . . Christ. And, my dear brother, your business is when you get to a text, to say, ‘Now, where is the road to Christ?’”
[3]Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel and Kingdom (Winston: 1981), 73.
[4]Peter J. Leithart, A Son to Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel (Canon: 2003), 98, 100.
[5]Angell was formerly Assistant Rector at Assistant Rector at St. John’s Church, Lafayette Square, Washington, DC. The John Hines preaching award “celebrates the ministry of preaching and its importance in our Church by recognizing outstanding sermons that are deeply grounded in scripture and focused on the seen and unseen needs of the worshipping community, the nation and the world.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 1, 2024 18:59:08 GMT -5
Fault Lines: A Book for Me and All Men to Read
Black Lives MatterCRTRacial UnitySocial JusticeSufficiency of ScriptureWoke
Share
g3min.org/fault-lines-a-book-for-me-and-all-men-to-read/
CHIP THORNTON
Fault Lines
Once in a while, a book rises up which brings clarity to a culture in chaos. In 1528, William Tyndale wrote a book on how a Christian should interact with the government entitled, The Obedience of a Christian Man. King Henry VIII is said to have delighted in it and exclaimed, “This is a book for me and all kings to read.”[1] Voddie Baucham, Jr.’s new book, Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism’s Looming Catastrophe, is that type of book.
This is a book for me and all men to read.
Baucham addresses the motive and agenda of Critical Theory (CT), Critical Race Theory & Intersectionality (CRT/I), and Critical Social Justice (CSJ). These technical acronyms provide the substance of the “woke” movement we hear about in mainstream society. He argues that CT/CRT/I is not merely a different viewpoint or even a political viewpoint. Rather, it is a religious movement: the “Cult of Antiracism.”[2] This is precisely why every person must read Fault Lines. Before we embrace something which sounds appealing, we must know: (1) where and why it originated; (2) what it stands for; and (3) and what implications it has on the Gospel and Christ’s Bride, the Church. An honest reading of Fault Lines will serve as a great awakening from the deception of “woke” theology.
An honest reading of Fault Lines will serve as a great awakening from the deception of “woke” theology.
A Compelling Truth-Claim
In the most compelling sentence in the book, Baucham states, “I believe the current concept of social justice is incompatible with biblical Christianity.”[3] Such a seismic claim is one that many Christians affirm, but they have trouble articulating why.
Baucham justifies that claim with a diagnosis of the current condition of society (and evangelicalism), and he addresses that condition with the sword of biblical truth. The tentacles of CT/CRT/I run deep—through culture, history, economics, religion, social issues, families, and political theory—and Baucham skillfully extracts and exposes each tentacle in a remarkably coherent and understandable way. He buttresses his argument with original sources from academicians, historians, theologians, historical figures, media outlets, pop culture, social media platforms, and statisticians—all of which he filters through the lens of Holy Scripture.
8 Lasting Impressions
Even for one familiar with the CT/CRT/I philosophies, Fault Lines left me with several lasting impressions.
In CT/CRT/I, racism is not predicated on the content of your character, but on the color of your skin. This is something white people still haven’t grasped. The “woke” rulers of this age assert: If you are white, it doesn’t matter if you follow Jesus’s “Golden Rule.” You remain a racist simply because you are white. In fact, they assert, “The sin of ‘systemic racism’ is imputed to you, and there is nothing you can do about it.” CT/CRT/I declares to whites: Racism is not “what you do.” Racism is “who you are.”
CT/CRT/I is not merely a worldview, but a religion. This is, perhaps, where evangelical leaders have been hoodwinked. CT/CRT/I has its own view of sin, of law, of gospel, of new birth, of truth, of martyrs, etc. Baucham calls it the “Cult of Antiracism.”
CT/CRT/I has gifted critical thinkers that provide intellectual girth to their assertions. These thinkers have crafted a brilliant strategy in which any objection or critique is seen as evidence their assertions are true. Baucham equally as brilliantly pinpoints the fallacies in their arguments. He casts light on the major CT/CRT/I academicians, their arguments, and their end-game.
CT/CRT/I proponents muzzle objective truth. One new piece of information I gleaned is the scientific method now is deemed racist.[4] The reason why is because it is grounded in objective truth (facts, statistics, verifiable data, etc.), which leaves no place for the individual’s “personal experience.” This is unacceptable for CT/CRT/I proponents. Even a flier at the Smithsonian Museum of African American History now refers to the scientific method as “an element of whiteness.”[5]
Trusted evangelical leaders are parroting CT/CRT/I academicians. The most surprising element of the book is the degree to which evangelical leaders quote, almost word-for-word at times, CT/CRT/I academicians and their views, many of which are incompatible with Holy Scripture. Unsuspecting souls (especially young people) who follow their social media accounts are being led into a cultic ideology with seemingly virtuous quips like, “If you say nothing, you are part of the problem,” and “Silence is violence.” Baucham, in a loving spirit and with gospel compassion, shows those quips arise from a legalistic foundation of heretical ideas incompatible with the Bible. Holy Scripture centers on “grace not race,” on “sin not skin.”
These same evangelical leaders, perhaps unwittingly, have mixed biblical truth both with errors and with misplaced priorities. Part of the deception is CT/CRT/I’s appeal to Holy Scripture (when it suits them). They even claim to believe Paul’s cardinal doctrine of “justification by faith alone,” but they make a spiritually fatal error: They downgrade “justification by faith alone” from its central place of prominence in the gospel, and they upgrade other things. They essentially make absolute devotion to CSJ a litmus test or sacrament, as it were, for salvation.[6] They never deny “justification by faith alone” (which is what makes them so slippery). They simply don’t mention it. Rather, it is pushed aside for matters of greater urgency: racism. Once downgraded in this way, “justification by faith alone” filters farther and farther away from the nucleus of the gospel until it becomes a different gospel altogether.
CT/CRT/I is a “plug and play” model. When the prevailing worldview is defined in terms of “oppressed” vs. “oppressors,” the same arguments that work for race also apply for gender and sexuality. The implications on the Church are obvious. Step 1 is to condition us to these radical ideas through the highly emotional “race” debate: To convince contemporary white Christians they must make atonement (i.e., abdicate leadership positions and pay reparations) for the sins of previous generations (with which they had nothing to do). Step 2 is the next natural step: Women, too, feel oppressed by a church culture that will not allow them to be pastors (despite what Holy Scripture commands). Therefore, women must be ordained as pastors (and paid reparations) to make atonement for the sin of oppression. Step 3 is the Holy Grail: LBGTQIA+ likewise feel oppressed by the church culture. Therefore, they must be ordained as pastors (and paid reparations), too. And why stop with people? Step 4 is coming: The Bible itself has oppressed people for centuries and given rise to whole civilizations which have done the same. Therefore, the Bible must be either reinterpreted (a move Southern Baptists adopted in 2019 with Resolution 9), rejected, or destroyed. It’s a slippery slope, but if the first argument is won, this is where it leads.
Social justice is not biblical justice. This is the single thread that, if you keep pulling at it, unravels the whole “woke” scheme. For CT/CRT/I to stand, “inequity must equal injustice.”[7] But does it? CT/CRT/I uses the terms “inequity” and “injustice” interchangeably, but those two words have different meanings entirely. This blending of terms is the kernel from which all other “woke” deceptions pop.
This blending of terms is the kernel from which all other “woke” deceptions pop.
The whole system is predicated upon it. It’s such a subtle parsing of words that few catch it. Charles Murray (quoted by Baucham) notes CR/CTR/I doesn’t see “equality in the sense of America’s traditional ideal—all are equal in the eyes of God, have equal inherent dignity, and should be treated equally under the law—but equality in the sense of sameness.”[8] Therefore, “sameness” demands we all must have the same size paycheck, the same size house, the same size car, etc., and if we don’t . . . then injustice (sin) has occurred and someone must be held accountable.
Biblical justice, on the other hand, is less concerned with the principle of “sameness” (equity) and more concerned with the principle of upholding the standard of the law (God’s Law and man’s law–see Rom 13). Yet, upholding the law carries with it a sense of personal responsibility, and that notion is repulsively off-limits in the CT/CRT/I worldview. It’s never “my” fault; rather, it’s the “system’s” fault, which carries us all the way back to the blame game in the Garden of Eden: Adam blamed the woman; Eve blamed the serpent; and, the serpent had already blamed it on the “system” God designed (Gen. 3:1-5).
Baucham’s book, taken in totality, is nothing less than a courageous, brilliant, and magisterial defense of (1) the Gospel of Jesus Christ and (2) the sufficiency of Holy Scripture in the face of an all-out assault on the Gospel.
A Time for Clarity
Some time ago, Josh Buice and I were eating lunch with a fine Christian man. The man recognized where this movement was trending. He looked at us and genuinely requested, “Promise me this: Promise me you won’t let the Southern Baptist Convention become an arm of the Republican Party again.” I responded, “That’s not the issue. It’s not a matter of the Southern Baptist Convention becoming an arm of the Republican Party. It’s a matter of the Southern Baptist Convention becoming an arm of the Democratic Party.”
I’m afraid the situation has worsened. Fault Lines argues it now is a matter of the Southern Baptist Convention fast-becoming an arm of the “Cult of Antiracism Party.” For, when Resolution 9 was passed in Birmingham in 2019, Southern Baptists actually endorsed a hermeneutic by which secular ideas/experiences (not the biblical author’s intent) inform biblical interpretation. If Resolution 9 is not repealed, the effects will be catastrophic, and we will reap the whirlwind of postmodernism.
Even so, Baucham is not suggesting Christians should not be concerned with racism in all forms. We absolutely should. Fault Lines shows us racism must be addressed in a biblical way, but “antiracism” must never become our Gospel. Otherwise, we’ve unwittingly been swept into a cult, and that is the present danger few people recognize. The pure gospel entrusted to us must remain fixed on personal sin(s)—original and actual—and Christ’s atoning work on the cross which frees us from sin’s reign (not holds us in slavery to it).
Fault Lines shows us racism must be addressed in a biblical way, but “antiracism” must never become our Gospel.
The Coming Quake
In 2019, I was fast asleep in the mountains of Chunchi, Ecuador. I awoke in the dead of night to a rumbling sound. It got louder and louder. In the darkness, I looked at the large armoire in my hostel. It was rocking back and forth. I jumped up and opened the door. People were rushing about.
It was an earthquake.
I know what the rumblings of an earthquake feel like. Baucham is right: It’s coming. “These fault lines are so deeply entrenched, and the rules of engagement are so perilously complex,” he says, “that the question is not if but when the catastrophe will strike.”[9] Even so, come Lord Jesus.
[1]David Daniel, William Tyndale: A Biography (Yale University Press, 1994), 246.
[2]Voddie Baucham, Fault Lines (Salem Books, 2021), 66.
[3]Ibid., 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 8, 2024 20:52:08 GMT -5
Does Jesus Care About Syntax?
Expository PreachingHermeneutics
Share
g3min.org/does-jesus-care-about-syntax/
CHIP THORNTON
Luke 1
Does Jesus care about syntax? We need only to look at the parable of the prodigal son to see that He does. We tend to read His parables as their own, isolated units. Yet, often more is going on outside the parable than inside it. Take the example of the prodigal son parable (Luke 15:11-31). You must cycle through 3 different “intents” to determine the single meaning:
The parable’s intent;
Jesus’ intent in telling it; and,
Luke’s intent for including it.
The first two are important, but the third—Luke’s intent—is our final destination. To get there, Jesus’ syntactical arrangement is vital.
Does Jesus care about syntax? The arrangement of His parable-set in Luke 15 suggests He does.
The Prodigal Son
The prodigal son in Luke 15:11-31 often is viewed as one of the most beautiful passages in Scripture: A heartwarming story of heart-felt repentance, glorious renewal, and jubilant restoration. It’s about a wayward son who realizes the unconditional love of his father. It’s about music and dancing and happy times . . . but is it truly about happy times?
A closer look reveals a rather sad ending, not a happy one. We do see repentance, renewal, and restoration of the younger brother. Yet, when we ask ourselves (1) “What is Jesus’ purpose in the story?” and (2) “What was Luke’s purpose for including it?” we discover Jesus’ purpose is not to highlight the happy times. Quite the opposite: His purpose was to uncover the jealousy of the older brother. You see, everyone in the whole chapter is happy and excited except for one person: the older brother. He’s angry, jealous, critical, and unforgiving. To see it, you must consider the syntax.
The Prodigal Son’s Context
Luke 15:1-2 provides the context. Jesus was talking to sinners and tax collectors. The hyper-critical Pharisees begin grumbling about Jesus eating with such sinners. Jesus responds with three parables, but it’s really one story.
First, a sheep that was lost and then found. There was great rejoicing. Next, a coin that was lost and then found. There was great rejoicing. Finally, a son who was lost and then found. There was great rejoicing . . . but then the scene turns ugly: The closing scene of a jealous, hyper-critical, bitter older brother leaves a lasting impression. That the situation is left unresolved is equally troublesome. Luke 15:25-32:
25 Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, “Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.” 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, “Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!” 31 And he said to him, “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.”
Do you see what Jesus is saying? This whole 3-parable set is in response to a condescending comment by the Pharisees, “This man receives sinners and eats with them” (15:2). Jesus points His divine finger at the Pharisees and says, in effect: “You, Pharisees, are acting like the older brother!” This “break” in the parable-pattern is the syntactical clue which sets-off the unforgiving, critical spirit as the main point.
The Prodigal Son’s Syntax
Jesus is telling the Pharisees: You are the older brother. You are the “angry” ones (15:28). You are resentful—he refused to go in (15:28). You claim you have served your father these many years (15:29). You claim you never disobeyed the commands (15:29). You did this ritual and followed these rules and those regulations, but your heart is calloused. You’ve got critical spirits, resentful spirits, prideful spirits. Look at the personal pronouns of the older brother: “I” have served you (15:29); “I” never disobeyed (15:29); You never gave “me” a young goat (15:29).
Syntactically, Jesus structures all three parables in the set to feed into that final scene. If the question is, “Why do I eat with the sinners and tax collectors?” The answer comes in the third parable: Because “it is fitting to celebrate and be glad, for” these sinner and tax collectors (like the younger brother in the parable) were spiritually dead and now are alive; they were spiritually lost and now have been found. You (Pharisees) are acting like the older brother: hyper-critical and selfish while sinners joyfully receive God’s grace by faith.”
If there were any doubts, Jesus makes it plain in Luke 16:14: The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed Him. And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination to God.”
The Parable’s Relevance
The root problem was diagnosed by the father in the parable: A jealous, unforgiving heart. The father really got to the heart of the matter: “I forgave your brother,” he pleads, “Why can’t you?” And so it was with the Pharisees: Jesus was saying, “God has forgiven these sinners and tax collectors. Why can’t you?” To discover the abiding relevance, we must filter through the three intents.
Parable’s intent: Uncover the jealous, unforgiving heart of the brother.
Jesus’ intent: Uncover the jealous, unforgiving heart of the Pharisees.
Luke’s intent: Luke’s stated purpose is found in 1:4: To provide certainty of faith to Theophilus. This parable-set serves that purpose by showing why the Pharisees were seeking to silence Jesus: Their jealous, unforgiving hearts despised Jesus and all He represented, which ultimately led them to murder Him. This provides certainty to Theophilus (and all Christians) of Jesus’ complete innocence and the world’s hostility toward the Righteous One, as well as those who identify with Him.
Does Jesus care about syntax? The arrangement of His parable-set suggests He does.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
AUTHOR
Luke 1
Chip Thornton
Pastor of FBC Springville, Alabama. Chip is a graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he earned his Ph.D. in expository preaching. He enjoys spending time with his family, has a passion for discipleship, and is committed to biblical exposition.
The Syntax of Psalm 1
Word Meanings Matter
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2024 20:31:38 GMT -5
Context, Context, Context
Expository PreachingExpository PreachingHermeneutics
Share
g3min.org/context-context-context/
CHIP THORNTON
Pool Balls
Ilive in a town reminiscent of The Andy Griffith Show. It is a wonderful, fast-growing community just outside of Birmingham, Alabama. Real estate is booming. Even small houses are selling for enormous rates. A little house in the middle of town recently listed for a huge asking price. I asked a real estate agent, “How can such a small house command such a large price tag?” His response, “Location, location, location. Location is everything.” In hermeneutics, we have a similar saying, “Context, context, context. Context is everything.”
I’d like to get into the nuts-and-bolts of a term we’re learning, hermeneutics. It begins with a proper study of context. The general idea is that we begin with a passage of Scripture. We want to understand how that passage fits within the larger section, the book itself, and Scripture as a whole. It’s best to work backward, actually: from the broader perspective (the message of the whole Bible) and focus-down toward the narrower (the specific meaning of our specific preaching-text). Let’s begin with that broader perspective, which we call “canonical analysis.”
Canonical Analysis
The “canon” simply means the entire Bible. Canonical analysis, then, seeks to discover the controlling theme of the Bible. When God gave us the Bible, He gave it to us in chunks spread-out over time: 66 separate books written over a time-span of about 1500 years, but it is 1 story. He had a single purpose in mind. Our first task is to determine that purpose. Once we discover it, then we can see how our book (and, later, our preaching-text) flows from that single purpose. It functions much like the cue ball in the image above. The controlling theme is the driving force. Everything else takes its “cue” from it.
This controlling purpose must come to us “exegetically.” I discussed that term in a previous article. Simply put, it must spring forth (the “ex” in exegesis) from the text rather than be imposed “into” the text (the “eis” in eisegesis). Once everything is taken into consideration, the controlling theme that springs forth from the whole of Scripture is as follows:
“[T]he plan of God can be defined as a word or declaration from God that he would form a nation and out of that nation he would bring the one through whom salvation would come to all the nations.”[1]
Walt Kaiser
Of course, we know that “One” as the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus came out of Israel (the tribe of Judah). He brought salvation to people of every nation. The Bible is the stunning story of how God fulfilled that single promise. The OT calls it the “covenant” God gave to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3). The NT—especially Paul—calls it the “promise.” Once this promise-plan was given, the rest of the Bible is the spectacular unfolding of how God fulfilled it in His Son, Jesus Christ. Every paragraph in Scripture, then, either (1) feeds into, (2) flows out of, or (3) in some way serves to advance this controlling theme.
David vs. Goliath
Everyone knows the story of David & Goliath. When we understand the controlling theme of the Bible, then the meaning of the David vs. Goliath episode becomes clear. The focus is not: Because David defeated the giant in his life, you can defeat the “giants” in your life, too. Rather, the promise-plan was in serious jeopardy. The giant, Goliath, defined the terms of battle in 1 Samuel 17:8: “Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me. If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants. But if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall be our servants and serve us.”
Do you see it? The issue at stake was God’s promise-plan! If Goliath wins, the promise-plan perishes. If David wins, the promise-plan is preserved. David recognized this clearly. His last words before bull-rushing the uncircumcised Philistine: “The battle is the LORD’s, and He will give you into our hand” (1 Sam 17:47). David’s trust in God’s promise-plan was greater than his fear of the giant. You see? This is not about defeating the “giants” in your life so much as it is about trusting God’s faithfulness to fulfill His promise-plan “in spite of” the giants in your life. That canonical context changes the whole perspective!
David’s trust in God’s promise-plan was greater than his fear of the giant.
Context Matters
I taught this in Senegal, Africa. The following day, an humble African man named Abraham approached me (pictured below).
Abraham was distressed. In his beautiful broken accent, he shared, “I was supposed to preach David vs. Goliath on Sunday. No one ever taught me about the promise-plan of God. I didn’t sleep last night. I re-wrote my sermon. May I preach it in class and get your critique?”
This was quite the surprise, but his last words were, perhaps, the most powerful.
He told me, “I almost preached in the Name of God something God did not say.”
Stop and think about that for a moment: “I almost preached in the Name of God something God did not say.” What made Abraham’s comment so powerful is it revealed how much he cared. To him, to misrepresent the King’s revealed will was unthinkable. To him, it wasn’t sufficient merely to proclaim “truth:” he must proclaim the specific truth that springs forth from the King’s written edict; and there’s a difference. If we are to refine and sharpen our accuracy in representing the King’s proclamations, where does it begin? Context, context, context.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2024 20:42:34 GMT -5
Context, Context, Context
Expository PreachingExpository PreachingHermeneutics
Share
g3min.org/context-context-context/
CHIP THORNTON
Pool Balls
Ilive in a town reminiscent of The Andy Griffith Show. It is a wonderful, fast-growing community just outside of Birmingham, Alabama. Real estate is booming. Even small houses are selling for enormous rates. A little house in the middle of town recently listed for a huge asking price. I asked a real estate agent, “How can such a small house command such a large price tag?” His response, “Location, location, location. Location is everything.” In hermeneutics, we have a similar saying, “Context, context, context. Context is everything.”
I’d like to get into the nuts-and-bolts of a term we’re learning, hermeneutics. It begins with a proper study of context. The general idea is that we begin with a passage of Scripture. We want to understand how that passage fits within the larger section, the book itself, and Scripture as a whole. It’s best to work backward, actually: from the broader perspective (the message of the whole Bible) and focus-down toward the narrower (the specific meaning of our specific preaching-text). Let’s begin with that broader perspective, which we call “canonical analysis.”
Canonical Analysis
The “canon” simply means the entire Bible. Canonical analysis, then, seeks to discover the controlling theme of the Bible. When God gave us the Bible, He gave it to us in chunks spread-out over time: 66 separate books written over a time-span of about 1500 years, but it is 1 story. He had a single purpose in mind. Our first task is to determine that purpose. Once we discover it, then we can see how our book (and, later, our preaching-text) flows from that single purpose. It functions much like the cue ball in the image above. The controlling theme is the driving force. Everything else takes its “cue” from it.
This controlling purpose must come to us “exegetically.” I discussed that term in a previous article. Simply put, it must spring forth (the “ex” in exegesis) from the text rather than be imposed “into” the text (the “eis” in eisegesis). Once everything is taken into consideration, the controlling theme that springs forth from the whole of Scripture is as follows:
“[T]he plan of God can be defined as a word or declaration from God that he would form a nation and out of that nation he would bring the one through whom salvation would come to all the nations.”[1]
Walt Kaiser
Of course, we know that “One” as the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus came out of Israel (the tribe of Judah). He brought salvation to people of every nation. The Bible is the stunning story of how God fulfilled that single promise. The OT calls it the “covenant” God gave to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3). The NT—especially Paul—calls it the “promise.” Once this promise-plan was given, the rest of the Bible is the spectacular unfolding of how God fulfilled it in His Son, Jesus Christ. Every paragraph in Scripture, then, either (1) feeds into, (2) flows out of, or (3) in some way serves to advance this controlling theme.
David vs. Goliath
Everyone knows the story of David & Goliath. When we understand the controlling theme of the Bible, then the meaning of the David vs. Goliath episode becomes clear. The focus is not: Because David defeated the giant in his life, you can defeat the “giants” in your life, too. Rather, the promise-plan was in serious jeopardy. The giant, Goliath, defined the terms of battle in 1 Samuel 17:8: “Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me. If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants. But if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall be our servants and serve us.”
Do you see it? The issue at stake was God’s promise-plan! If Goliath wins, the promise-plan perishes. If David wins, the promise-plan is preserved. David recognized this clearly. His last words before bull-rushing the uncircumcised Philistine: “The battle is the LORD’s, and He will give you into our hand” (1 Sam 17:47). David’s trust in God’s promise-plan was greater than his fear of the giant. You see? This is not about defeating the “giants” in your life so much as it is about trusting God’s faithfulness to fulfill His promise-plan “in spite of” the giants in your life. That canonical context changes the whole perspective!
David’s trust in God’s promise-plan was greater than his fear of the giant.
Context Matters
I taught this in Senegal, Africa. The following day, an humble African man named Abraham approached me (pictured below).
Abraham was distressed. In his beautiful broken accent, he shared, “I was supposed to preach David vs. Goliath on Sunday. No one ever taught me about the promise-plan of God. I didn’t sleep last night. I re-wrote my sermon. May I preach it in class and get your critique?”
This was quite the surprise, but his last words were, perhaps, the most powerful.
He told me, “I almost preached in the Name of God something God did not say.”
Stop and think about that for a moment: “I almost preached in the Name of God something God did not say.” What made Abraham’s comment so powerful is it revealed how much he cared. To him, to misrepresent the King’s revealed will was unthinkable. To him, it wasn’t sufficient merely to proclaim “truth:” he must proclaim the specific truth that springs forth from the King’s written edict; and there’s a difference. If we are to refine and sharpen our accuracy in representing the King’s proclamations, where does it begin? Context, context, context.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 22, 2024 8:05:38 GMT -5
A Biblical Framework For Personal Bible Study
CURTIS C. THOMAS
A Biblical Framework For Personal Bible Study
“… and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correction, and training in righteousness….” (2 Timothy 3:15–16).
The apostle Paul is now in his final imprisonment in Rome, awaiting his execution. He writes to young Timothy to fan into flame the gift God had given him, to hold firm to the faith, to beware of false teachers and to preach the Word in season and out of season. He reminds Timothy that he had been brought up in the Scriptures by his grandmother, Lois and his mother, Eunice (see 2 Timothy 1:5). As Paul is about to pass off the scene, he passes the torch on to Timothy, the young man whom he describes as one who looks not after his own interests but those of others, knowing that he has a genuine interest in the spiritual welfare of the believers (see Philippians 2:19–23). Paul says he has no one else like Timothy. What a tremendous commendation coming from the great apostle Paul!
How did Timothy achieve such a glowing recommendation from this great apostle? While Paul certainly had much to do with it (as he took Timothy along on his journeys, teaching and modeling Christianity before him), Timothy’s spiritual foundation began in his own home, as his grandmother and mother taught him the Scriptures. They had to have been thoroughly acquainted with the inspired Word of God (the Old Testament), which was able to teach, rebuke, correct and train one in righteousness.
While churches, Bible colleges and seminaries are very useful, the training must begin at home. And that requires those of us who are parents to know the Bible ourselves if we are to pass God’s Word on to our children. We can’t depend solely upon the pastors, Sunday School teachers and others to train our families. That is our responsibility. And we cannot carry out that responsibility unless we, ourselves, are in the Word regularly.
There are many ways to study the Word of God. But here are some rather simple suggestions in case you have not embarked upon a program to thoroughly acquaint yourself with the Bible:
• Make sure that you own both a literal translation and a good paraphrase of the Scriptures.
• Build yourself a basic library of Bible helps
• Plan to read the Bible through, from Genesis to Revelation, at least once a year. There are 1189 chapters in the Bible; covering approximately 3 chapters a day will get you through the Bible in a year. You may have time to go through it more than once a year.
• Choose an Old Testament book and a New Testament book in which to specialize each year. For the first year, I would recommend Genesis and either John or Romans.
• Read those two portions of the Bible over and over during the year. Once you think that you have a good grasp of what is in them, try to make your own outline of the contents.
• After you have gone through them a number of times and have completed your own outline, then begin to use some helps as follows:
√ Read through a Bible survey which summarizes these books.
√ Choose a good commentary to read on each book.
√ Consult language helps on many of the important words the biblical writers use.
√ Use a Bible handbook, a Bible Dictionary, a good Bible Atlas and a Bible encyclopedia to help you further understand names, events, doctrines, etc.
• Write down the general applications you have gleaned from your study of these passages. Then from that list, choose those applications on which you most need to work in your own life.
• Pay close attention to the context of each section or verse, always interpreting and applying a passage based on its context (otherwise, you may be interpreting the passage to teach one thing, whereas it may be teaching something totally different).
• Remember that Scripture is its own best interpreter. Compare other passages of Scripture where the subjects under study are being discussed.
• After you have completed your study of these two portions of Scripture, talk with others about what you have learned, to help ensure you have not gone astray on some issue.
• Then, next year start the cycle all over again, reading through the Bible verse by verse and then choosing another Old Testament and a New Testament book to study.
• Try to select a time of each day, when you are least distracted and most fresh, and commit yourself to a regular program of study.
• Do not attempt to go so fast that you skip right over important sections of the Bible.
You will be pleasantly surprised at how quickly you will become familiar with the Bible. While it will be tempting to initially choose a book like Revelation or Daniel, that is probably not a good place to start, especially if you are a new student in God’s Word.
The Bible is a divinely inspired, inerrant and authoritative book and is truly useful and profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training ourselves in righteousness. If we want sound, God-honoring churches we, the members, must be acquainted with the Scriptures. We cannot pass on the responsibility to our church leadership. Just as they must shepherd us so that we can carry out our individual ministries, we have an obligation to make certain that our churches and their leaders teach the Word of God accurately, requiring us to properly obey that Word.
Our most serious obligation is to our families, to bring them up in the fear and instruction of the Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4–9; Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:16). We cannot do that if we, ourselves, are not in the Word regularly.
Application
For Individuals:
1. Do you have a regular Bible study plan? Is it working?
2. Make an inventory of the helps you currently have and those which you need.
3. You may want to ask your spouse, or another person, to consider staying on the same track with you so that you will have another person with whom to talk regularly as you study portions of the Word.
4. Keep in mind that the purpose of your study is not just to fill your head with knowledge, but rather to train yourself in obedience.
5. God is His own interpreter. Pray regularly for His help in arriving at His truth.
For Groups:
1. Discuss the methods of Bible study which each of you has found helpful.
2. Which translations do you use and why?
3. Which Bible study tools have you found to be particularly useful?
Meditation
Prayerfully think through the meaning and implications of 1 Timothy 4:1-5 and Revelation 22:18-20.
This article is an excerpt from Curtis Thomas’
|
|
