17. Avoiding Spiritual Compromise (Exodus 32:1-35)
Related MediaLife of Moses (17)
June 17, 2018
Exodus 32 is one of the scariest chapters in the Bible. It ranks up there with 2 Samuel 11, where David, the man after God’s heart, fell into adultery and murder; and with the Gospel accounts of the apostle Peter’s denials of Christ.
It’s scary because prior to Exodus 32, Aaron had some spiritual experiences that far exceed anything that any of us have ever had. He had seen God bring the ten plagues on Egypt. He watched God part the Red Sea for Israel and then bring it back over the pursuing Egyptian army. He saw the pillar of fire and the cloud that God provided for Israel’s protection in the wilderness. He had eaten the daily manna and had drunk water from the rock. At God’s invitation, Aaron, along with his sons and the elders of Israel had gone up on the mountain to see the God of Israel and to eat and drink in His presence (Exod. 24:9-11).
But then, after all of these displays of God’s glory and power, while Moses was on the mountain meeting with God, Aaron quickly yielded to the people’s request and fashioned the golden calf for Israel to worship. My initial reaction is to ask, “How could he do that? How could a man who had had these amazing encounters with God have so easily fallen into idolatry?”
But then I read 1 Corinthians 10, where Paul cites Exodus 32 and other sins of Israel in the wilderness. Then he applies it to us (1 Cor. 10:11-12): “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.” In other words, if I think that I could never do what Aaron did here, then I’d better think again! I’m vulnerable to Aaron’s sin, and so are you!
The sin of making and worshiping around the golden calf, as I understand it, was not total apostasy. Israel was not, in their minds, totally rejecting God to follow pagan idols. Rather, it was syncretism. They were tweaking the worship of the true God so that it fit more in line with their liking. After Aaron made the golden calf, the people proclaimed (Exod. 32:4), “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” Their sin was not total apostasy, but rather spiritual compromise. They wanted their “god” to look more like the gods of other nations. They didn’t like the scary, unseen God of Exodus 19, who came down on Mount Sinai in fire, smoke, lightning, thunder, earthquake, and loud trumpet blasts. They wanted a more user-friendly god like other nations had. So they came up with a compromise god. Had it not been for Moses’ strong leadership, selfless prayer, and spiritual discipline, God would have disowned Israel and started over with a new people. Thus we learn:
To avoid spiritual compromise, God’s people need strong leaders who do not compromise the truth, who pray selflessly, and who exercise necessary spiritual discipline.
1. To avoid spiritual compromise, God’s people need strong leaders who will not compromise the truth.
Aaron’s weak leadership allowed Israel to fall into this horrible compromise. If he had stood firm and confronted the people’s demand to make a god for them, this whole incident might have been avoided. To correct Aaron’s compromise and get Israel back on track, Moses had to take bold action. Exodus 32 reveals at least seven ways that spiritual compromise can seep into a congregation of God’s people if the leaders are weak:
A. Spiritual compromise happens when you view salvation as a human endeavor rather than as an act of God.
The people began their request to Aaron by attributing their deliverance from Egypt to Moses. They call him (Exod. 32:1), “the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt.” In Exodus 16, the people grumbled against Moses and Aaron because they lacked food. God graciously promised to rain bread from heaven on them and to give them meat to eat. As a result, Moses said (Exod. 16:6), “At evening you will know that the Lord has brought you out of the land of Egypt.” But they didn’t learn the lesson. So now they attribute their deliverance from Egypt to Moses.
But it gets worse. In verse 4, referring to the golden calf, they say, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” Psalm 106:19-22 describes this travesty:
They made a calf in Horeb
And worshiped a molten image.
Thus they exchanged their glory
For the image of an ox that eats grass.
They forgot God their Savior,
Who had done great things in Egypt,
Wonders in the land of Ham
And awesome things by the Red Sea.
The Bible consistently proclaims that salvation is not the work of a great leader, like Moses or Paul, much less a manmade idol! Spiritual leaders are just instruments through whom God works (1 Cor. 3:5). Salvation requires God’s mighty power to impart life to those who were dead in their sins. As Paul put it (Eph. 2:4-5), “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) …” Or (Jonah 2:9), “Salvation is of the Lord.”
B. Spiritual compromise can happen even with leaders who should know better.
You would think that Aaron, brother of Moses, would have been strong enough to resist the pressure to make this golden calf. But in the New Testament Paul had to confront Peter when he quit eating with the Gentiles to placate the Judaizers. Even Barnabas got carried away with their hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-13). If men of the spiritual stature of Peter and Barnabas could compromise the gospel under pressure, then we all need to be on guard!
This is one reason the local church should be governed by a plurality of elders. It’s not a foolproof system, in that sometimes all of the elders get swept into error because an influential pastor veers off course and they follow him. Paul warned the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:28-31):
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.
Paul warned Timothy (1 Tim. 4:16), “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching.” None of us are immune to spiritual compromise and so we must always be on guard.
C. Spiritual compromise happens when you become impatient waiting on God.
Moses spent forty days on the mountain with the Lord and the people got tired of waiting. They said (Exod. 32:1), “as for this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” They knew that he had gone up into the fire, smoke, lightning, and thunder on the mountain to meet with God. Maybe they thought that he had died up there, but no one was about to go up there to find out! So even though they were eating the manna every day, drinking water from the rock, and under the protective cloud, they wanted God to move faster. So they asked Aaron to make a god to go before them.
When you get in a hurry and demand a quick fix to issues that may take time, you expose yourself to spiritual error. Waiting on God is hard. There are plenty of religious hucksters selling spiritual snake oil with the promise of instantly solving your problems. Almost always they are false teachers. The biblical way of growth is slower (1 Tim. 4:7): “Discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness.” And, “Wait for the Lord” (Ps. 27:14). Spiritual shortcuts almost always lead to spiritual compromise.
D. Spiritual compromise happens when leaders want to please the people rather than please God.
Aaron was a more dynamic speaker than Moses, which is why God appointed him to be Moses’ spokesman. But apparently, he was a “nice” man who didn’t like confrontation. So when the people asked him to make a god who would go before them, he compliantly went along with their demand. When he heard them proclaim this idol to be their god who brought them up from Egypt, rather than confronting them, he built an altar and proclaimed a feast unto the Lord (v. 5). Maybe he was hoping for a compromise that wouldn’t upset the people: “You can have your idol, but bring your burnt offerings and peace offerings and let’s have a feast to the Lord! You can have it both ways!”
But rather than helping the people turn back to the Lord, this compromise quickly degenerated into a drunken orgy, including sexual immorality (the Hebrew words imply this). The King James Version translates “out of control” (v. 25) as “the people were naked.” It was like an unrestrained pagan rock concert! That’s how quickly things can go downhill when spiritual leaders are people-pleasers rather than God-pleasers.
E. Spiritual compromise happens when you want a safer, user-friendly “god” who will work for you.
The God whom Israel had encountered before Moses went up on the mountain was downright scary! You can’t negotiate with or manipulate a God like that to get what you want. You can’t work out better terms for the covenant, where things are a little more equal. All you can do is submit to such awesome power!
R. C. Spoul observed (Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology [Baker], pp. 19-20, cited by Philip Ryken, Exodus [Crossway], p. 977):
The cow gave no law and demanded no obedience. It had no wrath or justice or holiness to be feared. It was deaf, dumb, and impotent. But at least it could not intrude on their fun and call them to judgment.
A golden calf is a safer, more user-friendly god! You can use a god like that to get what you want. If he doesn’t come through, then set him aside and make another god. Sooner or later you’ll find one you like! But when you aren’t happy with God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture and you remake Him to be more user-friendly, you’re compromising the true faith in Christ Jesus.
F. Spiritual compromise happens when you excuse your sin and don’t accept responsibility for it.
Verse 4 reports how Aaron took the gold earrings from the people and fashioned it with a graving tool to make a molten calf. But when Moses angrily confronted him, Aaron lamely replied (v. 24), “I said to them, ‘Whoever has any gold, let them tear it off.’ So they gave it to me, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf.” That’s funny, but very sad! He makes it sound as if he just threw the gold into the fire and a miracle took place: Out came this carefully crafted calf! It’s like the arguments for evolution: In spite of the fact that the human body is obviously intricately designed, nobody actually formed it! Take it by faith: Out came this body!
Ever since Adam and Eve sinned, sinners have tried to pass off the blame for their sin on others. Adam blamed Eve and even God for giving him Eve. She blamed the serpent. On and on it goes! “Hey, I was just an innocent bystander when this calf popped out of the oven. What could I do?” As Matthew Henry observed (Matthew Henry’s Commentary [Revell], 1:414), “Sin is a brat that nobody is willing to own.”
G. Spiritual compromise happens when you refuse to submit to God’s ways.
God told Moses (Exod. 32:9), “I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people.” Literally, “they are a stiff-necked people.” Like a stubborn animal that refuses to submit to the yoke, stiff-necked people refuse to submit to the Lord and His ways with them. They think that their ways are right and everyone else, including God, is wrong. Israel’s “stiff necks” are seen in their repeated grumbling against the Lord, in spite of His repeated, gracious dealings with them.
You’re especially vulnerable to spiritual compromise when the Lord’s way with you involves difficult trials. As we’ve seen, waiting on the Lord is hard. We want to go straight to the Promised Land, not wander around in the hot, barren wilderness. To avoid spiritual compromise, you’ve got to submit to God’s ways (1 Pet. 5:6-11).
So, Aaron’s weak leadership and his aversion to confrontation and conflict allowed Israel to jump into idolatry before they even left the camp at the base of Mount Sinai. To get them back on course, God used Moses’ strong leadership, including his prayer:
2. To avoid spiritual compromise, God’s people need strong leaders who will pray selflessly for God’s glory through His people.
God told Moses (Exod. 32:10): “Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.” That’s an interesting verse, because if Moses had obeyed God’s command, he would have sinned! Instead, God’s command drove Moses to prayer. As a result (Exod. 32:14), “the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.” The King James Version reads, “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” (I have a sermon on Moses’ prayer, “The Man Who Caused God to Repent,” [5/26/02], where I develop more thoroughly the following three points plus one more.)
Suffice it to say here that God’s “repentance” looks at things from our point of view. It seems to us as if God changed His mind in response to our prayers, when actually His purpose has been ordained from eternity. He never changes. But in ways we cannot understand, He uses our prayers to accomplish His sovereign will. To be strong leaders who get God’s compromised people back on track, we should pray as Moses did here.
A. Strong leaders pray that God’s person will be exalted.
In verse 7, the Lord tells Moses, “Go down at once, for your people, whom you brought up from the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves.” Then He tells Moses (v. 10) that He will destroy Israel and make a great nation out of Moses. In fact, God even offered to make a mightier and greater nation out of Moses (Deut. 9:14). Why did God do this? I believe that it was a test to prove Moses’ character as the leader of the nation and the mediator of the covenant of the Law. If Moses had agreed to God’s “Plan B,” it would have revealed Moses’ desire for personal glory.
But Moses passed the test with flying colors! God referred to Israel as your people whom you brought up from Egypt. But when Moses prayed, he turned it around (Exod. 32:11): “O Lord, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?” He goes on to base his prayer on God’s reputation with the Egyptians. He says, in effect, “If You destroy Your people, You’ll look bad to the Egyptians!” In other words, Moses prayed that God’s person would be exalted through His people.
God’s glory should drive our prayers, especially when we’re concerned about His people who have fallen into sin or compromise with the world. When Christian marriages are in trouble, pray for healing, not just so that everyone will be happy, but so that God’s person will be exalted.
B. Strong leaders pray that God’s promises will be enacted.
Moses (v. 13) reminds God of His covenant promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel (Jacob). We need to be careful to interpret God’s promises in their context and in light of the full revelation of Scripture. And we need to remember that just because God promised to do something does not mean that He will to do it the instant we ask. Moses did not live to see the fulfillment of God’s promise to give Abraham’s descendants the land of Canaan. But, pray God’s promises back to Him: “Lord, you promised that You will build Your church. I ask you to build Your church in this difficult situation!”
C. Strong leaders pray that God’s people will be established
Moses’ prayer (vv. 11-13) was after God told him what the people had done, but before he went down and saw it for himself. After he saw how bad things really were, he went back up the mountain to see if he could make atonement for their sin (v. 30). He then prayed (Exod. 32:31-32), “Alas, this people has committed a great sin, and they have made a god of gold for themselves. But now, if You will, forgive their sin—and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written!”
That’s an amazing prayer, similar to what Paul prayed (Rom. 9:3) when he said that he was willing to be accursed if it would have resulted in the salvation of Israel! I cannot honestly say that I’d volunteer to give up my salvation for the salvation of others! But Moses wanted that badly for God’s people to be established. Our heartfelt prayers should be for God’s kingdom to come and His will to be done in His church for His glory.
Thus to avoid spiritual compromise, God’s people need strong leaders who will not compromise the truth and who will pray selflessly for God’s glory through His people. Finally,
3. To avoid spiritual compromise, God’s people need strong leaders who will exercise necessary spiritual discipline.
Moses cared so deeply for these sinning people that he was willing to be blotted out of God’s book if that’s what it took for them to be restored. And yet at the same time, he was the righteously angry avenger of the sinners. He smashed the stone tablets, signifying that Israel had broken God’s covenant. Then he burned the calf, ground it to powder and made the Israelites drink it. This showed that the manmade calf had not led Israel out of Egypt. And it showed the people that they must suffer the consequences of their sin. Then he confronted Aaron and issued a challenge (Exod. 32:26): “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me!” There are only two sides: the Lord’s side and the devil’s side. Spiritual compromise puts us against the Lord. When we’ve fallen into compromise, the way back is to turn from our sin and stand on the Lord’s side.
Then (v. 27) Moses charged the Levites who joined him to go through the camp and kill everyone, including close friends and relatives, who wouldn’t repent of worshiping the golden calf (implied). You wonder, “Why didn’t Moses execute Aaron?” We know that the Lord was angry enough with Aaron to destroy him, but Moses prayed for Aaron and God graciously spared him (Deut. 9:20). Perhaps the Lord knew that Moses needed Aaron’s continued help. Perhaps Aaron repented. He later became the high priest who made annual atonement for Israel’s sins.
Thankfully, we are never required to take such drastic measures to discipline sinning Christians! But we are required to confront believers who fall into sin and if they refuse to repent after we’ve gone through the biblical process, to remove them from the church (Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5). If we fail to exercise necessary discipline, the leaven of sin and compromise will spread through the church and God’s name will be dishonored.
Conclusion
Moses’ death on behalf of Israel could not have atoned for their sins, because Moses had sins of his own. But God sent One whose death could atone for sinful people: the Lord Jesus Christ. He never sinned, but on the cross He bore God’s wrath against sinners. Paul wrote (2 Cor. 5:21), “He [God] made Him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” That is God’s gracious, free gift to you if you will trust in Jesus Christ.
Application Questions
- What are some ways that you’ve seen churches compromise with the world? How have you been tempted to compromise?
- How much spiritual compromise should a Christian tolerate in a local church before he leaves? Give biblical support.
- What types of “user-friendly” gods have you encountered in supposedly Christian churches?
- Have you observed church discipline done rightly? Done poorly? Describe the differences.
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2018, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
Related Topics: Christian Life, Leadership, Prayer
The Need Of The Savior
Related MediaThe thought of need occurs frequently in our lives—perhaps all too frequently in some cases. It is not surprising, then, that it appears quite often (in several forms) in the Bible. It is found frequently in the Psalms. Thus a psalmist is cited as complaining that he is “poor and needy; may the Lord think of me. You are my help and my deliverer” (Ps. 40:17).1 Another psalmist says, “I am poor and needy; come quickly to me, O God” (Ps. 70:5; cf. Ps. 86:1). A psalmist in desperate need asks the Lord, “How long, O LORD? Will you be angry forever? (Ps. 79:5a) He then goes on to implore the Lord: “Help us, O God, our Savior, for the glory of your name; Deliver us and forgive our sins for your name sake” (Ps. 79:9). Still another suffering psalmist pleads with God:
Rescue me from my enemies, O LORD,
for I hide myself in you.
Teach me to do your will,
for you are my God;
May your good Spirit
lead me on level ground (Ps. 143:9-10).
As Futato remarks, “The psalmist wants deliverance in real time and space.”2 Perhaps more fully, Alexander points out that not only is this “a prayer for external safety” but the psalmist asks that he may experience “spiritual guidance without which such is unattainable”.3
Fortunately, those of us who are in need have access to the great Lord who answers those needy individuals who cry out to him. The needy are not forgotten (cf. Ps. 9:18). For,
He will deliver the needy who cry out,
the afflicted who have no one to help.
He will take pity on the weak and needy
and save the needy from death. (Ps. 72:12-13; cf. Ps. 107:41-43).
Indeed, the Lord hears the cry of the needy (Ps. 69:33) and comes to their aid (Ps. 113:7). Thus David remarks, “I know that the LORD secures justice for the poor and upholds the cause of the needy” (Ps. 140:12; cf. Ps. 12:5). In another Psalm the author, who was in desperate need, called on the name of the Lord for help and found that,
The LORD is gracious and righteous;
our God is full of compassion.
The LORD protects the simple-hearted;
when I was in great need, he saved me.
Be at rest once more, O my soul,
for the LORD has been good to you (Ps. 116:5-7).
As Van Gemeren remarks, “the ‘name’ signifies everything a human needs in life and death, as the Lord has promised to be the God of those who call on him (Joel 2:32) and to deliver his children in their distress.”4
Regardless of their difficulty, those in need can find that they will “not always be forgotten, nor the hope of the afflicted ever perish” (Ps. 9:18). If the Lord is so gracious and helpful, believers should likewise do their best to follow his example and be available to help those in need. In the New Testament the apostle Paul points out that some believers are especially gifted to contribute, “to the need of others” (Rom. 12:8). This includes what people communicate to others so as to build “others up according to their needs” (Eph. 4:29). Rather than finding fault with others, believers should make it their habit to be helpful and encourage others, especially their fellow believers.
All the above passages serve as instructions for the committed believer. Therefore believers should not shrink back at laying their troubles before the Lord so as to seek his advice and leading. So it is that in yet another Psalm David pleads with the Lord, “Out of the goodness of your love, deliver me for I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me” (Ps. 109:22). In so doing, he feels that the Lord is his real help in the midst of his troubles (Ps. 109:30-31).
The book of Proverbs declares, “Blessed is he who is kind to the needy” and “Whoever is kind to the needy honors God” (Pr. 14:21, 31). A grand example of these verses is the “wife of noble character” found in Proverbs 31:10, for she is praised as one who “opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy” (Pr. 31:20). May all of us have a heart of genuine compassion that seeks to help others, especially in their time of great need.
May we, then, not only follow our privileged position as believers, but go to the Lord and lay our troubles before him praying earnestly for the needs of others. As the hymn writer says:
I need Thee ev’ry hour, most gracious Lord;
No tender voice like Thine can peace afford.
I need Thee ev’ry hour, in joy or pain;
Come quickly and abide, or life is vain.5
1 All scriptures references are from the NIV.
2 Mark D. Futato, “The Book of Psalms,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, ed. Philip W., Comfort, (Carol Stream, Il., Tyndale House, 2009), 7, 423.
3 Joseph A. Alexander, Commentary on Psalms, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1991), 558.
4 Willem A. Van Gemeren, “Psalms”, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 5, 726.
5 Annie S. Hawks, I Need Thee Ev’ry Hour (vv. 1,3)
Related Topics: Christian Life, Devotionals
18. God’s Presence: Dangerous, but Essential (Exodus 33:1-17)
Related MediaLife of Moses (18)
June 24, 2018
Most of us rightly think of God as our loving Father. He loves us more than any earthly father ever could. But do you ever think of God as dangerous? Apparently, C. S. Lewis did. In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Susan and Lucy ask about Aslan the lion (who represents Jesus Christ), “Is he safe?” Beaver replies, “Who said anything about safe? ’Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”
Lewis continues, “People who have not been in Narnia sometimes think that a thing cannot be good and terrible at the same time. If the children had ever thought so, they were cured of it now. For when they tried to look at Aslan’s face they just caught a glimpse of the golden mane and the great, royal, solemn, overwhelming eyes; and then they found they couldn’t look at him and went all trembly. . . .” (Cited by David Mathis, desiringgod.org/articles/the-secret-of-aslan.)
In our quest to know the living and true God, it’s important to know Him as He has revealed Himself in the totality of His Word. If we just pick and choose the parts about God that we like, such as His love and grace, and ignore the rest, we miss something important that we need to know about God for our spiritual growth. For example, when people say, “I don’t believe in the judgmental God of the Old Testament; I believe in the loving God of the New Testament,” they’re revealing that they don’t know much about the Bible. The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. He is both loving and judgmental against all sin. As Paul exclaims (Rom. 11:22), “Behold then the kindness and severity of God!” So people who believe in a God of love, but not a God of judgment, are making a golden calf. They’re not submitting to God’s revelation in the Bible, but setting themselves up as judge over the Bible.
Exodus 33 is the aftermath of Israel’s terrible sin with the golden calf. In Exodus 33:1, God tells Moses to move on, along with “the people whom you have brought up from the land of Egypt.” He doesn’t call them “My people whom I brought up,” but “the people whom you have brought up.” He promises to send His angel with them to take them to the Promised Land, but God says that He Himself won’t go up with them so that He doesn’t destroy them on the way because of their stiff necks (Exod. 33:3). Moses, however, prays and says in effect, “God, if You don’t go with us, then let us stay right here in this barren desert.” The desert with God is better than the Promised Land without God! We learn …
God’s presence is dangerous, but essential for His people.
God is omnipresent, present everywhere at all times. But here I’m talking about His immediate presence, or experiencing His presence. His presence is dangerous, because He is holy and not to be trifled with! Uzzah found that out when he reached out to steady the ark (the symbol of God’s presence) so that it wouldn’t fall off the cart. God struck him dead on the spot (2 Sam. 6:6-7)! In the “non-judgmental” New Testament, Ananias and Sapphira found that out when they lied about a donation to the church and they both died in front of Peter (Acts 5:1-11). Don’t mess with God’s presence! He’s dangerous!
But God’s presence is essential because without Him, we’re destitute. Without Him, we can look like a thriving church with a huge church campus and programs for every age group. We can have a multimillion dollar budget that supports missionaries all over the world. We can be written up in all the church growth magazines. On the personal level, you can be successful in business, live in a mansion, send your kids to the best universities, and serve in the church. But without God’s presence, it’s all hollow and in vain.
God’s presence is dangerous, but essential. Commenting on our text, Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote (Revival, 157-158): “Men and women, when they are truly awakened, begin to realise that there is nothing so serious as to be without the presence of God.” The text reveals the peril, privilege, priority, and promise of God’s presence.
1. The peril of God’s presence is that He is not safe if we are not submissive.
God’s refusal to go personally with Israel into the Promised Land stemmed from their persistent grumbling and their quickly turning from Him to worship the golden calf. Even though in response to Moses’ prayer God relented and agreed to go with Israel, He eventually did destroy many because of their sins. The ten spies who brought back a negative report on the land died in a plague (Num. 14:36). Those involved in Korah’s rebellion died when the earth swallowed them alive (Num. 16:31-33). Later, when the people again grumbled, God sent “fiery” serpents among them so that many died (Num. 21:5-6). Still later, when Israel joined themselves to Moab in idolatry and immorality, God killed 24,000 (Num. 25:1-9). Eventually, the entire generation that came out of Egypt died in the wilderness because of their unbelief (Num. 14:22-23).
Of course, when God kills people because of their sins, it’s not that He has an anger problem (see Philip Ryken, Exodus [Crossway], p. 1018)! His wrath is His settled opposition to all sin. His holiness requires that He must judge all sin. Sometimes, for reasons that we cannot always know, He brings temporal judgment on sinners through war, plagues, or natural disasters. When that happens, the godly suffer along with the ungodly. At other times, in mercy He allows sinful people to continue in their ways, withholding judgment until after they die. But all sin will be judged.
This means that either you will pay for your own sins at the judgment or you trust in Jesus, who died on the cross to pay the penalty you deserve. If your trust is in Christ and His death for you, then you don’t need to fear God’s judgment. Your sins are paid in full! But, you do need to fear God’s discipline. There’s a difference between punishment and discipline. Punishment means that the sinner pays for his sins. The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Sinners will incur the second death, which is eternal separation from God in hell (Rev. 20:11-15). But, discipline comes from God’s fatherly hand to train His children in righteousness (Heb. 12:5-11). It is corrective rather than punitive.
When we sin, the Lord calls us to repent. Exodus 33:4-6 records one of the few times that stiff-necked Israel repented (v. 4): “When the people heard this sad word, they went into mourning, and none of them put on his ornaments.” And it was not just a momentary gesture, but ongoing (v. 6). The people’s ornaments had been the occasion for them to sin with the golden calf (Exod. 32:2). But now, in response to God’s command (Exod. 33:5), they took off their remaining ornaments. Later (Exod. 35:22), they will bring those ornaments as an offering to help build the tabernacle. That which had been the cause of their sin later was transformed into a source for their worship.
That’s a good description of genuine repentance. If money was your idol, turn it into good by giving it to the Lord’s work (Eph. 4:28). As Philip Ryken says (ibid. p. 1021), “When the Holy Spirit convicts us of any sin, we need to take off whatever is leading us into sin and never put it on again.”
True repentance also involves mourning over your sins (Exod. 33:4; 2 Cor. 7:10). Jesus said (Matt. 5:4), “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” God is present with us so that we can have a relationship with Him. Sin interrupts that relationship and puts distance between Him and us. That rupture in our fellowship with a loving Father should cause us to mourn over our sins and turn back to God in ongoing, heartfelt repentance. The peril of God’s presence is that He is not safe if we are not submissive.
2. The privilege of God’s presence is that we might have fellowship with the invisible God so that we might be distinct from all other people.
A. The privilege of God’s presence is that we might have fellowship with the invisible God.
In verse 3, God offered to bless the people with the Promised Land, but without His presence. That’s exactly what many people want (Ryken, p. 1020). They want God to give them whatever they need for a happy life, but they really don’t care about a daily walk in fellowship with Him.
Think about it: Could that describe you? You want happiness, inner peace, loving relationships, a fulfilling job, and a good church to attend. But as long as you have those things, life is good. You don’t really care about a daily relationship with God.
Thankfully, in this situation, it wasn’t good enough for Israel or for Moses. Israel mourned the news that God would not go with them and showed their repentance by stripping off their ornaments. Moses sought the Lord and prayed (Exod. 33:13), “Now therefore, I pray You, if I have found favor in Your sight, let me know Your ways that I may know You, so that I may find favor in Your sight. Consider too, that this nation is Your people.” He went on to add (Exod. 33:15), “If Your presence does not go with us, do not lead us up from here.” God’s presence was even more cherished than the blessing of the Promised Land!
Verses 7-11 seem to interrupt the flow of the narrative, but I think they’re here to show how Moses enjoyed intimate fellowship with the Lord. The tent here was not the tabernacle, which was yet to be built. The tabernacle would be placed in the center of the camp and even Moses could not enter the inner sanctuary of the tabernacle. Only Aaron, the high priest, could go in there and just once a year, to make atonement for Israel’s sins.
Moses called this tent “the tent of meeting” (v. 7): “And everyone who sought the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp.” But it seems as if not everyone could enter the tent. They had to go through Moses, their mediator. When he went out to the tent, everyone would stand at the door of their own tents, watch, and worship (vv. 8, 10). The pillar of cloud would descend as Moses entered the tent and the Lord would speak with Moses (v. 9).
The people must have wondered what took place inside that tent! Verse 11 tells us: “Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses returned to the camp, his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.” Apparently Joshua stayed there to guard the tent from any intruders. When it says that the Lord spoke with Moses “face to face,” it does not mean literally, since no man can see God’s face and live (Exod. 33:20). It means that Moses enjoyed intimate fellowship with God there. It was a sacred place where Moses met with God.
Three brief applications: First, there are different levels of intimacy with God. Moses knew God in a way that even Aaron and their sister, Miriam, did not (Num. 12:1-8). Only Peter, James, and John saw Jesus transfigured into His glory and they were not permitted to speak of what they saw until after Jesus was risen (Matt. 17:1-13). Paul had the unique experience of being caught up to the third heaven where he heard things that he was not permitted to speak (2 Cor. 12:4). All the rest of us can do is read about these extraordinary experiences and let them motivate us to seek to know God more deeply than we already do.
Second, those who seek the Lord must go through the Mediator. The Israelites who sought the Lord would go outside the camp to the tent and go through Moses. It involved some deliberate effort to go out there. Maybe they had to wait in line, since Moses could only handle a few requests at a time. But we have a Mediator who can handle all our requests at once! Paul says (Eph. 2:18), “for through Him we both [Jews and Gentiles] have our access in one Spirit to the Father.” Hebrews 13:13 exhorts, “So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.”
Third, it’s helpful to have a specific place and time where you meet with God. If you can, have a designated spot where you can get alone with God to fellowship with Him through His Word and prayer. As you read His Word, ask Him to teach you His ways so that you may know Him (Exod. 33:13; Ps. 25:4). God’s ways are how He deals with people, and His ways are not our ways (Isa. 55:8). He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, his beloved son, providing the ram at the last minute, as an illustration of how He would sacrifice His own Son (Gen. 22:1-14). He put Joseph in an Egyptian dungeon after he obeyed God by resisting the advances of Potiphar’s wife. His way with Joseph was puzzling at the time, but later God used him to provide for His people during a famine (Ps. 105:16-19; Gen. 50:20).
So make sure to obey Psalm 105:4: “Seek the Lord and His strength; seek His face continually.” Seek to have daily fellowship with the living God.
B. The privilege of God’s presence is so that we might be distinct from all other people.
As God’s people, we are to be in the world, but not of the world (John 17:15-16). In his excellent book, The Presence of God [Crossway], Ryan Lister argues (p. 25) that the objective of redemption is that “God is working to establish a people and a place for his presence.” He shows that this major theme ties the whole Bible together. God’s presence was lost in the Garden when Adam and Eve sinned. But God’s ultimate objective is the New Jerusalem, where (Rev. 21:3), “The tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them.”
In verses 1-3, God distanced Himself from the people because of their sin with the golden calf. But Moses, through his prayer, sought to secure God’s presence again with His people. In verse 13, after asking to know God’s ways and find favor in His sight, Moses reminds the Lord, “Consider too, that this nation is Your people.” In verse 14, the Lord responds using a singular pronoun: “My presence shall go with you, and I will give you rest.” But Moses wasn’t content with that. So he went on (vv. 15, 16) to ask for God’s presence to lead the people from there and to go with them all. God’s presence would distinguish Israel from all the other people who were on the face of the earth (v. 16).
We should experience God’s presence not just individually, but also corporately. Paul asks (1 Cor. 3:16), “Do you not know that you [plural] are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you [plural]?” The church is now the temple where God dwells. Unbelievers who come into our church gatherings should sense that God is in our midst (1 Cor. 14:25). But for that to happen, we have to be distinct from the world. In 2 Corinthians 6:16, Paul again states that the church is the temple of God and that God dwells in our midst. Then he commands (2 Cor. 6:17), “Therefore, ‘Come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord.” Paul concludes (2 Cor. 7:1), “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” Ryan Lister (ibid. p. 312) sums up,
These “temple” texts reveal that the Holy Spirit, who resides in the church community, is at work to create a community defined by the presence of God. That presence, once confined to the temple, is now fulfilled by the Holy Spirit in the church. According to the New Testament, the gathering of the church is, in some sense, a new temple for God’s presence in this world to continue the work of redemption and make way for the new heaven and new earth.
Thus, the peril of God’s presence is that He is not safe if we are not submissive. The privilege of God’s presence is that we might have personal fellowship with the invisible God so that we might be distinct from all other people.
3. The priority of God’s presence is that we cannot function without Him.
You would think that an angel of God would have been sufficient. The angels are impressive beings with the power to strike the men of Sodom blind and then bring down brimstone on their city! But Moses was not satisfied with the angel’s presence. He prays (Exod. 33:15), “If Your presence does not go with us, do not lead us up from here.” In other words, “Angels won’t do! Without Your presence, God, we’re done!”
By praying that, Moses was acknowledging his own insufficiency and His need for God’s all-sufficiency. We need God’s presence for joy (Ps. 16:11): “In Your presence is fullness of joy.” We need His presence for protection (Ps. 31:20): “You hide them in the secret place of Your presence from the conspiracies of man.” We need His presence to deliver us from despair (Ps. 42:5): “Why are you in despair, O my soul? And why have you become disturbed within me? Hope in God, for I shall again praise Him for the help of His presence.” We need His presence for our good (Ps. 73:28): “But as for me, the nearness of God is my good.”
But, it’s obvious that experiencing God’s presence is not automatic. With Moses, we need to seek God’s presence, both personally and as a church. Finally,
4. The promise of God’s presence is for those who find favor in His sight, whom He knows by name.
Just as God is omnipresent, so He is omniscient: He knows everything and everyone. But Moses reminds God that He has said (Exod. 33:12), “I have known you by name, and you have also found favor in My sight.” The Lord affirms (v. 17), “I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name.”
For God to know you by name is a special privilege. It implies a special intimacy with God, unhindered by sin. It’s similar to Paul’s prayer (Eph. 3:17), “that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.” Doesn’t Christ dwell in every believer’s heart? Yes, but there is a special sense of Christ dwelling in those who find favor in His sight, whom He knows by name. As Jesus said (John 14:23), “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.” The promise of God’s presence is for those who love and obey Jesus. He knows them by name.
Conclusion
Experiencing God’s presence will help you to walk more carefully in this corrupt world. In one of his books, Watchman Nee uses the illustration that if you have a few coins in your pocket, you can walk down the street in a rather light-hearted, carefree manner. But if you’ve just been to the bank and have thousands of dollars in your pocket, you’ll walk differently. You may still whistle a tune, but you’ll walk more carefully. Every once in a while, you’ll stop and put your hand in your pocket, just to make sure that the treasure is still there.
Even so, an awareness of God’s presence will keep you from sin. How can you sin if you are aware that God is present with you? You don’t want to lose the experience of His presence (Ps. 51:11). Our Lord has promised (Matt. 28:20), “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” But experiencing His presence is not automatic. We need to walk in holiness, enjoying daily fellowship with Him. His presence is dangerous, but essential!
Application Questions
- What is the difference between God’s punishment and His discipline? Why is this distinction important?
- Is repentance and mourning over our sin a one-time experience at conversion or an ongoing experience? How does this fit in with joy in the Lord?
- How can we guard against the temptation of wanting God’s blessings without His presence?
- Is God’s presence an objective truth that we are to believe apart from subjective feelings or should we feel it? What should a Christian do if he doesn’t feel it?
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2018, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
Related Topics: Basics for Christians, Character of God
Session 7 - Traditions in Christian Theology
Related Media
Session Overview
Session Reading (for self-study students)
- Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pp. 47-53
- Roger Olsen, Mosaic of Christian Belief, pp. 49-69
Related Topics: Introduction to Theology
Session 8 - Sources of Theology
Related Media
Session Overview
Session Reading (for self-study students)
- Roger Olsen, Mosaic of Christian Belief, pp. 71-88
Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word)
Session 9 - Does God Still Speak Today?
Related Media
Session Overview
Session Reading (for self-study students)
- Roger Olsen, Mosaic of Christian Belief, pp. 29-48
Related Topics: Canon
Session 10 - Unity and Diversity
Related Media
Session Overview
Session Reading (for self-study students)
- None
Session Assignments (for self-study students)
- Quiz 2
Related Topics: Inerrancy, Inspiration
9. Defining Rest (Hebrews 4:1-10)
Related Media1 Therefore we must be wary that, while the promise of entering his rest remains open, none of you may seem to have come short of it. 2 For we had good news proclaimed to us just as they did. But the message they heard did them no good, since they did not join in with those who heard it in faith. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my anger, ‘They will never enter my rest!’” And yet God’s works were accomplished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” 5 but to repeat the text cited earlier: “They will never enter my rest!” 6 Therefore it remains for some to enter it, yet those to whom it was previously proclaimed did not enter because of disobedience. 7 So God again ordains a certain day, “Today,” speaking through David after so long a time, as in the words quoted before, “O, that today you would listen as he speaks! Do not harden your hearts.” 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken afterward about another day. 9 Consequently a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God. 10 For the one who enters God’s rest has also rested from his works, just as God did from his own works (Hebrews 4:1-10).2
Introduction
When I was in college, I worked on the night maintenance crew. We cleaned the student union center from midnight Friday night to 8 a.m. Saturday morning. On one particular Friday night, one of the members of our work crew wasn’t to be found, so we decided to search the building to find him. It turned out that he had curled up under a piano and was getting his rest. This is not the kind of “rest” we will be talking about in this lesson. Sleeping on the job is not “rest.”
I fear there are some Christians who may be “sleeping on the job.” If so, this message will not provide any comfort for them. The “rest” we are talking about is not the kind that you find a couple of weeks in the summer, in a hammock, or in bed. Speaking of beds, have you noticed how often mattresses are advertised on T.V.? There are foam mattresses with a memory (probably better than mine) and a plethora of others. And then there are the sleeping pills that we “can ask our doctor about to see if they are right for us.”
We know that it is important for our bodies to get a proper night’s rest, and if we don’t, there are unpleasant consequences. But if physical rest is important to our physical well being, spiritual rest is even more important to our spiritual well being. In our last lesson, we saw how the author of Hebrews warned us about failure to enter God’s rest, due to unbelief, a hardened heart, and disobedience. We now know how we can fail to rest, but it isn’t entirely clear just what that “rest” is. I believe the first ten verses of Hebrews 4 will give us a much better definition of rest. That is the goal of this lesson.
Our Approach in this Lesson
We will begin this lesson with an overview of chapters 1-4. We will then return to last week’s lesson and the text of Hebrews 3:1-19, which is the basis for our text. Then we will concentrate on our text – the first ten verses of chapter 4. There are several terms on which the author builds his argument, so we will seek to define them, and then determine how these help us to understand what “rest” means for us. We will conclude with some areas of application.
Overview of Chapters 1-4
The Book of Hebrews begins with the declaration that while God has spoken in various ways through the Old Testament prophets, He has now spoken fully and finally in His Son (Hebrews 1:1-4). The Son is characterized by a seven-fold description (verses 1-4), which is then buttressed by citations from Old Testament texts (verses 5-14). The thread which unifies chapter 1 is that the Son is superior to the angels. Chapter 2 begins with an exhortation to pay even more careful attention to the revelation which has come through the Son. The remainder of the chapter deals with the results of the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. To briefly summarize the benefits of the incarnation, it enabled the Son to die in the sinner’s place, paying the penalty for his sins, and restoring him (or her) to the glory and authority which God gave man at creation. Furthermore, it enabled Him to become a faithful and merciful high priest. His humiliation and exaltation is God’s provision for man’s redemption and restoration.
Chapters 3 and 4 will establish the superiority of the Son to Moses. The first six verses of chapter 3 set out the argument and provide three examples of the superiority of the Son. Verses 7-19 of chapter 3 continue to show the Son’s superiority to Moses, but in a more subtle way than verses 1-6. The author cites the last half of Psalm 95, in which the psalmist warns the people of his day, based on the failure of the Israelites to enter Canaan. The warning was against failing to enter God’s rest, due to unbelief, hardness of heart, and disobedience. The subtlety of the argument is that Moses did not lead the Israelites into Canaan; indeed, he and Aaron didn’t enter the land either. The author wants his readers to know that there is still a rest available to us, but there is likewise a danger of failing to enter this rest, for the same reasons that earlier generations failed.
We have seen indications of more than one “rest” in chapter 3. There is the “rest” of entering the land of Canaan, which the first generation of Israelites failed to attain. Then there is the “rest” which is available for the readers of Psalm 95. This must be a different rest because the readers are now dwelling in the Promised Land, and “rest” is still being offered. There is also “God’s rest,” which will be more fully explained in chapter 4. And so as we come to chapter 4, we find that it is tightly related to chapter 3. In chapter 4, the author will cite fragments of his quotation from Psalm 95 in chapter 3. It is these repeated words and phrases which provide us with the key to understanding the author’s meaning of “rest.” Chapter 4 will conclude with an exhortation to strive to enter “God’s rest,” with an emphasis on the Word of God (verses 12-13) and on the high priestly ministry of our Savior (verses 14-16).
Tracing the Argument of Chapters 3 and 4
There are two keys to understanding the argument of chapters 3 and 4. The first is the superiority of the Son – Jesus Christ – to Moses. This is introduced in 3:1-6. The second is the superiority of the rest which Jesus has achieved to the “rest” which Israel, under the leadership of Moses, did not attain (indeed, a rest to which Moses himself did not attain). This superior rest is the focus of verses 7-19. A few observations of these verses will prove helpful when we come to our text in chapter 4.
First, verses 7-19 continue the theme of the superiority of Christ to Moses. We can see from the incidents underlying Psalm 95 that neither the first generation of Israelites nor Moses himself entered into the rest God had for them.
Second, these verses address the danger of falling back into Judaism. If the danger facing the Hebrews was drifting from Christ and the New Covenant and falling back into Judaism and the Old Covenant, then verses 7-19 deal with this issue. Consider verse 8:
“Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the wilderness” (Hebrews 3:8, NET Bible, emphasis mine).
“Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me, As in the day of trial in the wilderness” (Hebrews 3:8, NASB95, emphasis mine).
“Do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert” (Hebrews 3:8, NIV, emphasis mine).
The NET Bible provides us with the most literal translation of verse 8. One could thus read it with two slightly different meanings. Either the readers are warned not to sin as those in the past sinned in the day of testing, or, the readers are warned not to sin as they did in the day of testing. The first understanding is reflected by the translation of the NASB; the second by the translation of the NIV. The NET Bible remains somewhat neutral by rendering the verse literally, allowing the reader to go either way.
What difference does it make? Well, the warning certainly becomes more personal with the rendering of the NIV. But how can one be guilty of the sins of a bygone generation? Consider these verses:
34 “For this reason I am sending you prophets and wise men and experts in the law, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, 35 so that on you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar” (Matthew 23:34-35, emphasis mine).
51 “You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did! 52 Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold long ago the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become! 53 You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it” (Acts 7:51-53, emphasis mine).
Do you notice how both Jesus and Stephen linked the guilt of those in previous generations with the guilt of a later generation? In both instances above, the audience that was being condemned was Jewish. These folks rejected Jesus and chose to identify themselves with the Jews and the Judaism of a bygone day. They identified themselves with the old by clinging to it, while rejecting the new. They also identified with the older generation by repeating their sins. And so it is that they became guilty of those sins, partners with that unbelieving and hard-hearted generation in their sin.
Is the author of Hebrews saying this as well? Is he saying that those who are tempted to fall back into Judaism will also fall back into the sins of the past? If so, this is a strong argument against doing so. Let the readers take note of what it means to identify with the rebels of the past, rather than with the Redeemer.
Third,we should note that the entire first generation3 of Israelites failed to enter their rest (verse 16). If an entire generation failed, then the warning based upon their experience carries more weight. Have you listened to the commercials for prescription drugs lately? After urging us to ask our doctor about the usefulness of a certain medication, they go on to list all of the possible side effects. Why don’t these side effects scare us to death? Because we assume that they are few and far between. If only 5% of those who take a pill have their hair fall out, then I conclude that it probably won’t happen to me, especially if the pill will fulfill all the promises that are made concerning its benefits. But when 99.9999% of that generation failed, then the danger must be great indeed.
Fourth, this generation failed for forty years. Israel’s unbelief and disobedience was a persistent practice. It was the rule, and not the exception.
Fifth, the Israelites failed under Moses’ leadership, after hearing God speak to (and through) Moses, and after seeing many miracles in confirmation of Moses’ authority.
Sixth, God was angry with this generation, and this resulted in their death in the wilderness (which is exactly what they asked for – Numbers 14:2), and thus their failure to enter into rest.
Seventh, the offer of “rest” remains till “today.”
Eighth, the danger of failing to enter rest also remains till “today.”
Ninth, the fundamental problem is that of “unbelief.”
The Keys to Understanding Our Text
There are several “keys” to understanding our text. The first is those “key terms,” which are found in Psalm 95 and to which our author repeatedly refers. We will look more carefully at these terms in a moment. The second is to understand how the psalmist connected the dots – how he understood and applied Israel’s failure to enter into rest to his own day. We should learn how to interpret and apply Scripture from the Scriptures. What better way to understand our text than to grasp how the psalmist came to his interpretation and application. The third key is to understand how our author interpreted and applied the lessons of Psalm 95 to his day. Surely his method of interpreting and applying Scripture is instructive to us as to how we should understand and apply Hebrews 3 and 4 today.
Key Terms
“Today”
Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Oh, that today you would listen as he speaks!(Hebrews 3:7, citing Psalm 95:7b)
But exhort one another each day, as long as it is called “Today,” that none of you may become hardened by sin’s deception (Hebrews 3:13).
As it says, “Oh, that today you would listen as he speaks!Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion” (Hebrews 3:15, referring to Psalm 95:7b).
So God again ordains a certain day, “Today,” speaking through David after so long a time, as in the words quoted before, “O, that today you would listen as he speaks! Do not harden your hearts” (Hebrews 4:7, referring once again to Psalm 95:7b).
When the author of Psalm 95 said, “today,” he was somehow keeping the offer made to the first generation current. Whatever was “today” in Psalm 95 is still “today” today.
When the writer to the Hebrews cites from Psalm 95:7, he calls attention to the word “today.” He makes the point that while the “rest” that the first generation of Israelites failed to enter was dwelling in peace in the Promised Land, there was still a “rest” being offered in Psalm 95. It was still “today.” Thus, for the psalmist, the offer of rest remains, as does the danger of failing to enter into it. And when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews uses Psalm 95, he does so in a way that makes it clear that there is still an offer of rest, and that it will be embraced and experienced or lost.
“Today” thus calls attention to at least of couple of applications. First, there is an urgency regarding the offer of rest. It must be seized while it is today, for a “tomorrow” is coming when it will be too late, just as there was for the ancient Israelites. Second, rest appears to be a day-by-day, “one day at a time” experience. It is not something that we believe for the moment, but rather something we believe and lay hold of day after day.
God’s Word
God’s Word is a key ingredient in the Book of Hebrews (as we will point out in our next lesson), although it is referred to by means of several different expressions. In addition to being called “the Word of God,” (4:12), it is sometimes referred to as “what God has spoken” (1:1-3), “what we have heard” (2:1), or “good news” (4:2). It is even referred to as “so great a salvation” (2:3) and as “God’s voice” (3:7).
God’s Word is the Father’s full and final revelation through the Son, the crowning conclusion to previous revelations through the prophets (1:1-4). It is the message of salvation to which we are exhorted to give much more careful attention (2:1-4). Israel’s unbelief and disobedience was in spite of God’s Word revealed to and through Moses, which was confirmed by the many miracles associated with the exodus from Egypt (3:7-19). Belief in God’s Word is the key to “rest” (4:3), just as “unbelief” is the reason why men fail to enter into God’s rest (3:19). While the “good news” that the ancient Israelites received was not the full-blown gospel that we have heard, it was nevertheless good news that did them no good because they failed to believe it and act upon it.
Faith
Faith is also known as belief, just as the absence of faith is unbelief. Faith is a key concept in the Book of Hebrews, as will be dramatically evident when we get to chapter 11. It is an evil heart of unbelief that falls away from the living God (3:12, see also verse 19), while those who enter God’s rest do so by faith (4:3). Unbelief leads to a hardened heart, which leads to rebellion and divine discipline.
Community
Community is not a term that is found in our text, or even in the Book of Hebrews. But it is a concept which is emphasized as vitally important to the believer. It is very possible that the concept of “community” is referred to in verse 2 of chapter 4:
For we had good news proclaimed to us just as they did. But the message they heard did them no good, since they did not join in with those who heard it in faith4 (Hebrews 4:2, NET Bible; emphasis mine).
For we also have received the good news just as they did; but the message they heard did not benefit them, since they were not united with those who heard it in faith (CSB, emphasis mine).
For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened (ESV, emphasis mine).
Other translations render this verse differently:
For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard (NASB, emphasis mine).
For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it (NKJV, emphasis mine).
So we have two ways of understanding this verse, due to a measure of ambiguity in the Greek text. (1) The good news did not do some any good because they did not identify themselves with people of faith. Or, (2) The good news did not do some any good because they did not personally embrace it by faith. Perhaps the ambiguity is deliberate, so that both meanings apply.
It is pretty clear that the Word does us little good if we refuse to believe it. But the writer to the Hebrews also wants us to realize that our faith and Christian walk is not a solo proposition but a choir event. When we come to faith in Christ, we are joined with Christ and with other believers (see 1 Corinthians 12:12-14; Ephesians 2:11-22; 1 Peter 2:4-5, 9-10). This is why the author can employ Psalm 95, a psalm which summons the community of faith to worship. This is also why he expects the saints to gather regularly to encourage one another and to watch for those who are drifting:
12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has an evil, unbelieving heart that forsakes the living God. 13 But exhort one another each day, as long as it is called “Today,” that none of you may become hardened by sin’s deception (Hebrews 3:12-13).
23 And let us hold unwaveringly to the hope that we confess, for the one who made the promise is trustworthy. 24 And let us take thought of how to spur one another on to love and good works, 25 not abandoning our own meetings, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging each other, and even more so because you see the day drawing near (Hebrews 10:23-25).
Rest
There are several kinds of rest referred to in Hebrews. The first rest mentioned is the “rest” the first generation of Israelites failed to enter, namely entrance into the Promised Land and rest from its enemies (Hebrews 3:11). Then there was the “rest” to which the psalmist referred in Psalm 95 that was available in his time (“today”). And there is the “rest” which was available to those whom the author of Hebrews was writing in his day:
Therefore we must be wary that, while the promise of entering his rest remains open, none of you may seem to have come short of it (Hebrews 4:1, emphasis mine).
That rest was not merely the rest of possessing the Promised Land, but a great rest, a “sabbath rest.” The source of this rest is God, who after having completed the work of creation, rested on the seventh day. This rest is the rest from our labors. It is the “rest” which is the key to the rest which is available to us today.
There is still a “rest” that is available to us “today.” I would understand this to have present and future dimensions, just as salvation has. There is surely a “salvation rest,” a resting from our works in an effort to earn God’s favor, when we come to faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus on the cross of Calvary. And there is the eternal rest which all Christians will experience. But there must also be what we might call a “sanctification rest,” a rest from striving as Christians in the power of the flesh, in a futile effort to attain godliness. I believe that we see this in Romans 7 and 8. Chapter 7 is the description of a Christian trying to live up to God’s standards in the power of the flesh, and failing badly. Chapter 8 is the solution. The Christian is to live in the power of the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit that raised the dead body of Jesus from the grave. By the working of His Spirit in us, we are able, to some degree, to live a godly life (see Romans 8:1-17). This is resting in Him, or we might even say, abiding in Him (see John 15:1-14). This is the key to fruitfulness.
The Argument of Hebrews 4:1-10
So, having reviewed the argument of Hebrews 1-4, and having noted the terms and concepts foundational to this argument, let us briefly trace the author’s argument in the first ten verses of chapter 4.
The ancient Israelites, along with those who lived in the days of the psalmist, had the promise of rest, a rest which could only be attained by faith. Because the first generation of Israelites failed so badly to enter God’s rest – in spite of the extent of revelation from God, and miracles to confirm it – we should have a keen sense of our own fallibility, and thus the danger of a failure in our faith and walk (4:1).
We are not that different from those ancient Israelites. Just as they received the good news of a promise of entering the land of Canaan, so we have received an even greater revelation of good news, the good news of salvation by faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Just as the “good news” the ancient Israelites received did them no good because of their lack of faith, so our “good news” is only profitable through faith. It requires not only initial faith on our part, but on-going faith. This kind of faith is encouraged and stimulated by our association with others who share the same faith (4:2).
The “rest” into which we enter is God’s rest, God’s Sabbath rest, such as we find in Genesis 2:2 – the rest God entered after He had finished His work of creation. It is this rest into which the ancient Israelites failed to enter, for “My rest” is God’s rest, God’s Sabbath rest. This is the rest some failed to enter, but which remains available to us today, a rest received by faith (4:3-6).
Just as the psalmist could seize upon the term “today” and apply it to his readers, so God has fixed a “today” for us, the same “today” as was offered in the psalms. And so we need to believe God and enter this rest, rather than to refuse to believe and fail to enter, as did the ancient Israelites. This “rest” must be more than merely entering Canaan because Joshua did lead the second generation of Israelites into the Promised Land, and yet many years later the psalmist spoke of a rest that was still available, a greater rest. And that rest was God’s “Sabbath rest,” a rest still available, a rest of ceasing from futile works in an effort to earn God’s favor. The one who has entered God’s rest has set aside striving in the flesh, and has trusted in the work God has finished, in Christ (4:7-10).
Conclusion
When I think of the Old Testament law, with all of its requirements and stipulations, it makes me tired. How could one ever please God by the works of the law? No one ever could, for the purpose of the law was not to provide men with a list of works by which one could be saved. The purpose of the law was to demonstrate to men that they could never save themselves, but must be saved some other way. And that way was the promised Messiah, Jesus the Christ:
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. 21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – 22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 24 But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. 26 This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness (Romans 3:19-26).
4 But “when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, 5 he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us in full measure through Jesus Christ our Savior. 7 And so, since we have been justified by his grace, we become heirs with the confident expectation of eternal life” (Titus 3:4-7).
8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).
This is why our Lord could say,
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy to bear, and my load is not hard to carry” (Matthew 11:28-30).
How different this was from what the Jewish religious leaders did:
1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore pay attention to what they tell you and do it. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach. 4 They tie up heavy loads, hard to carry, and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing even to lift a finger to move them” (Matthew 23:1-4).
The concept of rest is such a beautiful thing to one who is weary of striving to please God in his (or her) own strength. To trust in Jesus is to cease from one’s own labors, one’s own efforts, and receive the fruit of the work which Jesus did on the cross of Calvary. For a Hebrew Christian to entertain thoughts of retreating back to Judaism, of going back under the law, was to set aside rest for fruitless works.
Have you entered that “rest,” my friend? Have you experienced the rest which only Christ can give? Have you ceased from fruitless efforts to win God’s favor? If not, I urge you to do so “today” by acknowledging your sin and your inability to please God. And then simply trust in the only provision God has made for sinners to be forgiven and to enter into His rest. Trust in Jesus.
My Christian friend, are you resting in what Christ has done for you? Or are you striving in the power of your own flesh to please God, just as Paul describes in Romans 7:
15 For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate. 16 But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good. 17 But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. 18 For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want! 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me. 21 So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. 23 But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? (Romans 7:15-24)
Praise God the answer immediately follows:
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. 1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit. 6 For the outlook of the flesh is death, but the outlook of the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is your life because of righteousness. 11 Moreover if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his Spirit who lives in you (Romans 7:25-8:11).
For the Christian, there is not only the rest of salvation, but the day-to-day rest of dependence upon God for living the Christian life. There are many things which can interfere with our “resting” in Christ. As I write this message (a little while after having preached it), the stock market has taken a serious downward turn. Do I lose my rest because of this? Do I worry and fret about the future, or do I rest in God’s promises:
25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Isn’t there more to life than food and more to the body than clothing? 26 Look at the birds in the sky: They do not sow, or reap, or gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you more valuable than they are? 27 And which of you by worrying can add even one hour to his life? 28 Why do you worry about clothing? Think about how the flowers of the field grow; they do not work or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these! 30 And if this is how God clothes the wild grass, which is here today and tomorrow is tossed into the fire to heat the oven, won’t he clothe you even more, you people of little faith? 31 So then, don’t worry saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ 32 For the unconverted pursue these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But above all pursue his kingdom and righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (Matthew 6:25-33).
Your conduct must be free from the love of money and you must be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you and I will never abandon you” (Hebrews 13:5).
Persecution is on the rise, not only in distant places, but in our own country. Are you resting in our Lord’s promises, or are you filled with doubts and worries? We need to believe in God’s Word:
10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. 11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things about you falsely on account of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad because your reward is great in heaven, for they persecuted the prophets before you in the same way. 13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled on by people. 14 You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 People do not light a lamp and put it under a basket but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they can see your good deeds and give honor to your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:10-16).
32 But remember the former days when you endured a harsh conflict of suffering after you were enlightened. 33 At times you were publicly exposed to abuse and afflictions, and at other times you came to share with others who were treated in that way. 34 For in fact you shared the sufferings of those in prison, and you accepted the confiscation of your belongings with joy, because you knew that you certainly had a better and lasting possession. 35 So do not throw away your confidence, because it has great reward. 36 For you need endurance in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised. 37 For just a little longer and he who is coming will arrive and not delay. 38 But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, Itake no pleasure in him. 39 But we are not among those who shrink back and thus perish, but are among those who have faith and preserve their souls (Hebrews 10:32-39).
National elections are coming soon, and many are concerned (downright worried) about the outcome. We can and should rest in the knowledge that it is God who raises up kings and who puts them down. It is He who holds the heart of the king in His hands:
The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord like channels of water;
he turns it wherever he wants (Proverbs 21:1).
We can forsake our rest because of worries about our families and even about our ministries. These are areas in which God desires to lead us to rest, rather than leave us to trust in futile works of the flesh. Let us rest in Him, who has done all the work for our salvation and sanctification, and who promises to lead us to eternal rest.
1 Copyright © 2008 by Robert L. Deffinbaugh. This is the edited manuscript of Lesson 9 in the series, Near to the Heart of God – A Study of the Book of Hebrews, prepared by Robert L. Deffinbaugh on September 7, 2008. Anyone is at liberty to use this lesson for educational purposes only, with or without credit.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the NET Bible. The NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION, also known as THE NET BIBLE, is a completely new translation of the Bible, not a revision or an update of a previous English version. It was completed by more than twenty biblical scholars who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The translation project originally started as an attempt to provide an electronic version of a modern translation for electronic distribution over the Internet and on CD (compact disk). Anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection will be able to use and print out the NET Bible without cost for personal study. In addition, anyone who wants to share the Bible with others can print unlimited copies and give them away free to others. It is available on the Internet at: www.netbible.org.
3 With the exception of Joshua and Caleb.
4 It is interesting to recall how those who rebelled against God identified themselves with rebel leadership, while those who were faithful identified themselves with Moses and those who remained faithful to God. I am thinking here of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in Numbers 16:1-35.
Related Topics: Comfort
37. Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?
The Effect of Our World View
There have been a tremendous philosophical and theological shifts in history. For most of history, tradition and the church dominated western civilization. With the reformers came a rejection of the tradition and corruption of the church and an emphasis was placed on the sufficiency of scripture. Their slogan was “sola scriptura” or scripture alone. Scripture was the authority, there was absolute truth with right and wrong defined and people were held responsible for their actions. Everyone was religious, either Jewish, catholic or protestant, and their theology affected their culture.
Then came the Enlightement where human reason ruled and the conclusions of finite minds was that there was either no supernatural being or at least He was not involved in human affairs. Scripture was rejected as being from God since He probably didn’t exist or had not revealed himself. Consequently, there were no absolutes. The shift in theology often parallels the shift in the culture. During the enlightenment, the German scholars, who didn’t believe in the supernatural (divine revelation included), took the supernatural events and predictive prophecy out of the Bible by claiming that the books were all written after the events happened, not before, and by claiming that the supernatural stories (like Jonah being swalled by a fish) were just myth.
Now we have come to an age sometimes called postmodernism. In this age experience has replaced both scripture and reason. The emphasis in society is on self and self-fulfillment. In almost every commercial you hear the message that “you deserve better.” There is still no right or wrong. There are no absolutes. People are not held accountable for their actions. Their crimes are blamed on society. There is also more acceptance of the supernatural as seen in the new age movement, channeling spirits, the popularity of TV shows about angels, etc.
Our latest philosophical shift is represented
The doctrines of the past were just intellectual truth rarely applied and therefore fruitless. The study of scripture should have resulted in the worship of God and the stirring of the emotions, but it rarely did. Consequently, some have returned to the reading of the puritans and reformers because they are intrigued by their emotional response to God and their worship of God. Others are turning to a different source--a search for miracles. The charismatic and signs and wonders movements stir the emotions through experience, and so some chase after the emotional highs and scripture is often neglected. The pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other. Both extremes are wrong. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I think it is helpful to recognize cultural shifts because our cultural world view affects our theology. We need to do some self-examination and understand why we might be attracted to this or that theology. We need to recognize that there is a world view that drives us and it drives our understanding of Scripture. It ought to be the other way around, but it often is not. What I hope is that we are open minded enough to let scripture shape our world view. What we need to be real careful of is adopting a theology that goes against 1930 years of orthodox church history. So we need to study the arguments and be sure before we jump into something new.
Five Views
Pentecostalism
In 1901 a Pentecostal revival began in the United States which taught that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the NT are still in effect today. The one they were and are most concerned with was and is the gift of tongues. Although the original Pentecostal doctrine taught that the Holy Spirit was given at a “second blessing,” most modern Pentecostals would agree that the new believer receives the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. But after conversion, the Holy Spirit comes in special empowering experiences, sometimes known as the baptism of the Spirit or sometimes called “the second blessing.” When they talk about being “refilled” they do not mean you get more of the Holy Spirit. You get more of His power. When this happens a person will speak in tongues as a “sign” that they have received this second blessing. They teach that all Christians should seek this experience and consequently speaking in tongues becomes a main focus of many Pentecostals.
Charismatics
In the 1960’s the Charismatic movement began. This was a renewal movement among evangelicals that emphasized that all the gifts were still active - tongues, miracles, healings, etc. They have not formed their own denominations, but have existed within existing denominations. Pentecostals and Charismatics are very similar in their theology.
The Vineyard Movement
In the 1980’s another movement began. It is sometimes known as the Third Wave. (Pentecostalism being the first and Charismatics being the second). It is more commonly known today as the Vineyard Movement. It was begun by and made popular by C. Peter Wagner and John Wimber and Jack Deere. They believe that all the spiritual gifts are functioning today. Their emphasis is not on tongues, it is on miracles and prophecy. Like the Charismatics, they teach that the Holy Spirit can “come in varying degrees of intensity” after salvation, so that the believer is overwhelmed, empowered, etc. These later events are identified as being “filled with the Spirit.” They teach that one can get more of the Spirit at various times in the Christian experience to help with such things as martydom, persecution, special tasks, etc. Another manifestation of getting more of the Spirit would be the ability to perform miracles, healings, speak in tongues, prophecy, etc.
They teach that the proclamation of the gospel, done properly, is done with signs and wonders. Thus it is also called the Signs and Wonders movement. So, Third Wave, Signs and Wonder Movement and Vineyard Movement all refer to the same thing.
John Wimber, founder of the Vineyard movement, in his revised book on Power Evangelism, writes:
The explanation of the gospel -- the clear proclamation of the finished work of Christ on the cross -- comes with a demonstration of God’s power through signs and wonders. Power evangelism is a spontaneous, Spirit-inspired, empowered presentation of the gospel. Power evangelism is preceded and undergirded by demonstrations of God’s presence, and frequently results in groups of people being saved. Signs and wonders do not save; only Jesus and substitutionary work on the cross saves.
Through these supernatural encounters people experience the presence and power of God. Usually this takes the form of words of knowledge...healing, prophecy, and deliverance from evil spirits. [(John Wimber and Kevin Springer, Power Evangelism: Revised and Expanded with Study Questions (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1992), p. 78.]
All of the above groups think that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit continue to be in effect today. So we can call them Continuationists. From this point forward I will use the term Continuationist to include Pentecostals, Charismatics and Vineyard people. Although there are some differences, they all believe that sign gifts are still active today.
Cessationist
Many believe that individuals having the gifts of apostle, prophecy, healing, tongues, or performing miracles at will have ceased. These people are called Cessationists. Continuationists claim that cessationists put God in a box, but that is not true. Cessationists teach that God can still do miracles. He does still heal people when people pray. God, through the Holy Spirit can do anything He wants. But they believe, from their study of scripture and history, that God has chosen to “circumscribe His activity and to structure it according to certain patterns...”18
The Open but Cautious View
Another view which I had not heard of until I read the book, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? is the “open but cautious” view. This view recognizes that there are no explicit verses in the New Testament that say that miraculous gifts have ceased, and so, this group wants to stay open to the possibility that the miraculous gifts may still exist, but at the same time, they are uncomfortable with the teachings and practices of the charismatic and vineyard movements. I would guess that this is the view held by most evangelicals. It is probably held by most evangelicals because they too are uncomfortable with what they’ve seen practiced among Pentecostals, Charismatics and Vineyard people, but they don’t want to be accused of putting God in a box, and so they remain open, but cautious. When I read the position of the Open but Cautious view in the book Are Miraculous Gifts for Today, I could see little difference between it and the Cessationist position. In reality, these people are practical cessationists.
Thus, we can divide the debate into two parts—the Continuationists and the Cessationists. It is a very difficult debate to sort through. I’ve spent numerous hours reading the arguments on both sides, trying to keep an open mind and study the passages used to support each side. What is confusing is that both sides use the same verses to prove their case. Which group has the correct interpretation? They can’t both be right. It is impossible to go to the Bible and be totally objective. If you were raised a Charismatic, you will understand verses one way. I was raised a cessationist, so I automatically see things the other way. Right now, I would have to say I fall in the open but cautious view. I am a practical cessationist. After reading the arguments of both sides, I can understand how each side feels scripture supports their conclusions.
The Arguments
The Proof Texts
Right up front I will say that I don’t think we can go to any specific verse to prove that the miraculous gifts have ceased or to prove that they are still in effect today. That is probably why there is such a big debate about this. Here are some of the more commonly used verses in the debate
1 Cor 13:8-10
1 Cor 13:8-10 says that gifts of prophecy will be done away, tongues will cease and knowledge will be done away ... when the perfect comes. Both sides use this verse for support. Charismatics say that the perfect is the return of Jesus at His second coming, therefore, tongues, prophecy, etc. will continue until that time. Some cessationists have taught that the perfect is the Bible (i.e., the completion of the canon). If you take it to mean the completion of the canon, that makes for a very neat package that proves cessationism, but it is very doubtful that Paul is talking about the completion of the canon. What Paul is talking about in the context is our imperfect knowledge and how that will change when the perfect comes. Understanding the “perfect” to be the completed canon implies that Scripture is only sufficient when we have the completed canon. Just having the OT or a few letters from Paul was not enough. I don’t think anyone wants to say that. I certainly don’t get that impression when I read the Psalms. And the prophets didn’t excuse the people’s wickedness because they didn’t have the completed canon. I doubt that Paul even had the concept that there would be a completed NT canon some day. He thought Jesus would be back in his life time. Also, in the context, it implies that when we have the completed canon, we will no longer know only partially. Our knowledge will then be complete. That obviously isn’t so. I think we have to conclude that “the perfect” refers to the return of Christ. Therefore, this verse doesn’t prove that miraculous gifts will cease when the last book is added to the Bible. BUT, and a very important BUT, it also doesn’t prove that they will continue until Jesus returns as Continuationists say. Paul does say these gifts “will pass away,” and the Greek emphasizes that tongues will “cease,” so I would say that it argues more for cessationism than for continuation, but that doesn’t tell us when they will pass away. It doesn’t say they will pass away in the first century. We will have to look elsewhere for support.
Heb 2:3-4
The context is this: These Jewish Christians are wanting to return to the old Jewish law. The writer of the book of Hebrews is trying to convince them not to. Part of his argument is that in the same way that the law was confirmed by supernatural signs (vs 2)19, so also was the gospel about Jesus confirmed by supernatural signs. Therefore it is also from God and supercedes the old.
Both Continuationists and Cessationists use this verse for support. The debate about the grammar in this verse. In the statement: “God, bearing witness by signs and wonders and various miracles…” the word “bearing witness” is a present participle. Continuationists argue that since this is a present participle, the miracles were still being worked among the readers of Hebrews.20 The problem with this is that 90% of the time, participles in a genitive absolute construction are temporal and linked to the main verb. Our main verb in this passage is the aorist verb “confirmed.” Aorist tense means past tense. Thus the “bearing witness” should be understood to be simultaneous with the apostles attestation of the message by signs and wonders. In other words, those who heard (the Lord first hand, i.e. the apostles) confirmed their message by performing signs and wonders.
What about the “us” in verse 3? Undoubtedly, there were many first generation believers in the congregation that had witnessed the miracles performed by the apostles. The “us” doesn’t require that all the people witnessed the miracles, just that some of them had.
So, the verse does refer to miracles worked among the readers of Hebrews. But it does not say that the miracles were still occurring. It also does not say that the Hebrew readers were performing signs and wonders. The emphasis is that this was all past tense.
In fact, the writer of Hebrews could have made his argument much stronger if he had just pointed to miracles currently taking place among the Hebrews. Instead, he can only point to miracles performed by the apostles. Since he didn’t point to their current experience, the logic is that miracles must have ceased by then. Compare Gal 3:5, written much earlier. There Paul points to miracles occurring among the readers as proof that the new system of faith is superior to the old system of law. Why didn’t the writer of Hebrews do the same? I recognize that this is an argument from silence, and we have to be very careful when making such an argument, because one can argue almost anything from silence, but to me this silence is deafening. The problem is Continuationists can’t hear it.
This verse is also significant in that it shows that the purpose of signs and wonders was one of authenticating that the messengers and their new revelation were from God.
Matt 12:39
Matt 12:39 “An evil and wicked generation looks for a sign” Luke 11:29 “This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign…” Some use these verses to prove that there are no more signs and wonders.21 They say any generation that looks for a sign is evil. And since the Third wave people are looking for signs, then they are evil.
Is that what the verses are saying? Let’s first look at the meaning of the verses in their context. Jesus had been performing miracles (signs) for two years. The leaders accuse Him of operating by the power of Satan and then ask for a sign. Jesus is saying that a generation of people that demands that he do miraculous signs to prove to them who he is, in order that they might believe is a wicked generation. Even if he did give them a sign (which he had been doing) they would not believe.
The question we need to ask is this: Are the Continuationists demanding that they see miracles in order to believe the gospel to be true? No! They already believe. They simply affirm that He wants to work in the lives of believers and perform supernatural works for those who believe. If you come to the Bible with a preconceived idea that miracles don’t exist, then this sounds like a great catch-all verse. But I think that from the context, all we can say from these verses for sure is that the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees, religious leaders of that generation, who watched Christ preach and perform miracles for two years, was a wicked generation because it still wanted more proof. It was just an excuse for them for not believing.
If Continuationists are teaching that people need to see miracles to believe, then I would say they are wrong. And this verse might apply then. But what would apply more is the recognition that Jesus performed numerous miracles, raised Lazarus from the dead, was himself resurrected, but most did not believe. In fact, several times, Jesus criticized people who only believed after they saw a sign and praised those who believed without seeing. If a continuationist says we need miracles for people to believe, then I have to ask, “If it didn’t work for Jesus, why do they think it will be any different today?
The real clincher to me for proving this verse is worthless in arguing against Continuationists is Acts 4:29-31. There the apostles prayed for God to work miracles.
2 Cor 12:12
2 Cor 12:12 is often used to prove that miracles were only done by apostles and that it was the sign of a true apostle. The logic is that this would be no argument for Paul’s apostleship if anyone could do miracles. The problem with this view is that the Greek grammar does not support only that interpretation. It allows it, but does not prove it. The first word “signs” is in the nominative case, but the “signs, wonders and miracles” are in the dative case. If Paul wanted to say that the signs of an apostle were “signs, wonders and miracles” he could have been more precise by putting them in the nominative in apposition to the first word “signs.” The NIV wrongly translates the verse this way.
In fact the signs of an apostle that Paul is talking about with the first “signs” word are probably the changed lives that resulted from Paul’s preaching; the transformed Christ-like life of Paul; his sufferings, hardships and persecution, spiritual power in conflict with evil, his jealousy over the welfare of the churches, not taking material advantage of churches, etc.22 There are numerous verses in 1 and 2 Corinthians that show these are what Paul considered to be the most important signs of an apostle. It also makes more sense to understand that these “signs” were worked with “patience” or “perseverance.” It doesn’t take patience to do miracles. It takes patience to go without pay, to suffer hardship and persecution, to disciple and preach, etc. I think the miraculous signs were also evidence of his apostleship, but less important to Paul. The verse should better be translated, “The signs of a true apostle were worked among you with all perseverance accompanied by signs and wonders and miracles.”
This verse does not prove that signs were unique to apostles. It does not prove that only apostles performed signs, wonders and miracles. I think the false teachers, claiming to be true apostles, could have been performing signs (perhaps by Satan’s power) and trying to lead the Corinthians astray. Paul points to something they couldn’t fake, personal self-sacrife and the changed lives of others, as proof of his apostleship. In contrast to Paul, these super apostles were lording it over the flock ruling like kings - not functioning as servants.
This verse does point us to two important principles. First, Paul downplays the importance of the miraculous and emphasizes his personal life and the changed lives of his converts. Second, we see the importance of examining the message, the focus of the message, the results of the message in the audience, the life of the messenger, etc. These evidences are more important proof than signs and wonders.
Summary
Well, I’ve just shown that some of the most used verses to prove cessationism are also used to prove the continuation of the miraculous gifts. I think Hebrews 2:3-4 is pretty strong for cessationism, but it doesn’t prove it. What are we to do? I think we could look at the historical argument.
The History of Salvation
When I refer to the history of salvation, I’m referring to those periods in history when it is real obvious that God is working in history to bring about the salvation of man.
Also, we need to distinguish those special periods when miracles were performed by individuals from God’s sovereign power and providence. Sprinkled throughout history are the miraculous acts of God Himself. E.g. Joshua had miracles take place (i.e. sun stood still), but Joshua didn’t do it. The writing prophets performed no miracles even though they were getting divine revelation from God. Hezekiah’s life was extended. That was miraculous, but Hezekiah didn’t do it.
Through the ages, as God has unfolded His plan of Salvation, there have been several turning points where some big changes were made. At these points, various individuals were instrumental in bringing about the changes.
The first big event in the history of salvation was when God picked Abraham from among the nations and promised that He would bless the world through Abraham’s descendents. The ultimate fulfillment of this promise was the birth of Jesus, His death, resurrection, ascension, and giving of the Spirit at Pentecost. There were not a lot of people that needed to be convinced of this revelation -- just Abraham, and he believed, therefore, no miracles were performed.
In history there really were only five periods in which miracles occurred regularly and were performed by an individual.
Let me point out that some Continuationists teach that just because miracles weren’t mentioned in between these periods doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.23 They argue that they did occur, but were not recorded in scripture. That statement is an argument from silence. We’ve already discussed the danger of using “arguments from silence.” If we go to the Bible to try to observe some sort of pattern in God’s dealings with man, we have to analyze the evidence that we are given. We can’t just ignore it. Which attitude is correct? “I don’t care if the Bible only mentions three people in the OT with the ability to perform miracles. I think it happened all the time.” or this: “Why is it that only three people in the OT performed miracles? What could the reason be?”
One explanation or reason is this: There are special periods when God is more obviously at work to bring about the salvation of mankind, and it is at those times when God chooses to use certain individuals in miraculous ways to authenticate the messenger and his message. Therefore, the ability to perform miracles is not the norm throughout history. Yes, miracles did occur throughout history, but not miracles performed by a miracle worker.
A related argument made by Continuationists is that Cessationists define the “miraculous” too narrowly. If we limit our definition to signs performed through human agency, then we can claim that miracles only happened at three distinct times in history and consequently leave out most of the miracles in the Bible which prove that miracles are normative. What about the sun standing still for Joshua, the Virgin Birth, Jesus’ resurrection, the earthquake that delivered Paul and Silas from jail, the instantaneous death of Herod in Acts 12:23, etc.24 It’s true we don’t count those, but I don’t see any signs and wonders people claiming to have experienced anything on par with the sun standing still, earthquakes, virgin births, people being raised from the dead, etc. If miracles are normative throughout history and those are “normal” miracles, then where are those types of miracles. The miracles that occur today are healing miracles brought about by laying on of hands and prayer, or someone’s life being saved because a dog walked in front of a car and kept the car from going into the intersection just as an armored truck sped through the intersection. Certainly, God caused that dog to be there. Certainly, God healed the person of the cancer overnight. But do these qualify as gifts of miracles. Couldn’t the healing also be attributed to what James talks about when he says, “If anyone is sick, call the elders and have them pray…”
The Argument from the closed Canon
Continuationists argue that none of the spiritual gifts have ceased. At the same time mainstream Continuationists would all agree that we have a completed canon. No new inspired revelation is being given today to be added to the end of our Bible. The gift of apostle and prophet involved the giving of revelation which was recorded in scripture. If we aren’t receiving new revelation, then at the least there is some measure of discontinuity or cessationism. Either the revelatory gifts have changed in quality or they have ceased. If those gifts have ceased, then why can’t other gifts cease? Especially those gifts that typically accompanied the messenger and new message to authenticate them as being from God.
The continuationist argues that they haven’t ceased, they just changed in quality. That brings us to our next point.
The Argument from the inferiority of modern sign gifts
As far as I can tell all continuationists agree that modern tongues, prophecy, and healing gifts are not the same as first century gifts. Tongues were a known language then, they are gibberish now. Prophecy was infallible and often incorporated into scripture, it is now ok to make mistakes when prophecying and nobody has added anything to scripture in 1900 years. Those with the gift of healing could do so at will then, now it is only an occasional thing and usually the result of prayer. And Gordon Fee, a charismatic scholar admits that nobody knows what the difference is between a word of wisdom and a word of knowledge.
This raises a couple of questions in my mind:
(1) How can we have gifts of prophecy, tongues, etc. coming from the Spirit that are not inspired and infallible. If it is directly from the HS, then it is inspired and there can be no errors.
(2) Does the Holy Spirit who gives gifts to unify and edify work in such an ambivalent, uncertain and confusing way?25 There is no confusion about the exercise of the other gifts.
The Argument from Acts
The book of Acts is extremely important to the Continuationists’ argument. They see the events of Acts as being normative for the church throughout the Church age. Since the Holy Spirit filled people and they spoke in tongues in Acts, that should happen today. Since the apostles and others in Acts prophesied and performed miracles, then we should do that today.
They like to take you to Acts 4:8, 31; 13:9, 52 to show that the same group that was filled with the Spirit at Pentecost was again filled with the Spirit on other occasions. They use that as proof that believers can have several fillings. What I find interesting is, for a Continuationist, being filled with the Spirit results in speaking in tongues or prophecying or performing miracles. When I go read those verses they cite in Acts that describe this subsequent filling of the Spirit, I notice that, in all these verses, whatever being filled with the Spirit meant, it didn’t involve speaking in tongues. In fact the result of all these fillings was that they spoke the Word with boldness. So, if the Continuationsts want to go to Acts for proof of subsequent fillings of the spirit as their model for what the Holy Spirit is doing, they should be also use it as the model for what they should be doing when they receive those extra fillings. They need to be doing public evangelism after each filling instead of speaking in tongues or prophecying. What they have done is take the event at Pentecost where the people were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues and then found several other places that mentioned believers being filled with the Spirit to prove that it still happens today. What they refuse to see is that only at Pentecost was miraculous phenomenon the result.
They take you to Acts 4:29 where there was prayer for the ability to do signs and wonders and say that we should pray for that too.26 However, the context shows that it was the apostles who prayed for the signs and the apostles who performed them. As already discussed, the apostles are in a class all by themselves.
What we have to recognize is that the book of Acts is just what its name implies - the acts of the apostles. In Eph 2:20 Paul says that the Church is built on the foundation “of the apostles and prophets.” Acts describes the building of the foundation of the church. We are not still building the foundation today. To carry the building analogy a little farther, we use different tools to lay a foundation than we use to put up the frame, sheet rock, cabinets, etc.
One thing to keep in mind when studying the book of Acts is this: The salvation provided by Christ—His death, resurrection, ascension, sending the Spirit at Pentecost was one big salvation event made up of several components. The giving of the Spirit at Pentecost was the culmination of the salvation event. It is not necessarily descriptive of a process that is normative for today. To go to Pentecost for proof of what the church should experience today is very debatable.
Additionally, using the miracles of the apostles in Acts as proof that all believers can do miracles and speak in tongues is also debatable. If miracles were common among all Christians in Acts, why was it that they had to bring their sick to the apostles for healing (Acts 5:12-16)? Acts gives us the historical account of how Jesus’ command in Acts 1:8 was fulfilled by his apostles. It is the account of the apostles spreading the gospel in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the end of the earth (Rome). What the apostles did was unique. The gift of apostle was a temporary gift that only a dozen men had who were responsible for establishing the church. When the gift of apostle ceased, it makes sense that the miraculous gifts ceased.
The Argument from Church History
Throughout church history belief in the continuationation of the sign gifts existed only among a very few fringe denominations or sects. One could always argue that these continuationists were the true remnant and that most of the Christian world was wrong, but I have a hard time believing that all the church fathers, the reformers, the pilgrims, the great missionaries and preachers of the past 200 years missed it.
The Argument from the Emphasis of Scripture
I think one of the strongest arguments against the Pentecostals, Charismatics and Vinyard movements is that the emphasis in scripture is on walking by the Spirit and producing the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, etc. When Paul deals with the use of the sign gifts in the church, it is to downplay their importance and re-emphasize love (which is the summary word for the fruit of the spirit) and to emphasize the other gifts. If we examine the Continuationist groups who think miracles and tongues are still in effect today, we see that for the most part their emphasis is on the miraculous gifts. Every Christian can have them, should seek them and is not complete until he or she has them. We have to examine the fruit of their teachings. And when we do, we see that they have terribly missed the emphasis of scripture.
The emphasis on scripture is that being filled with the Spirit means forsaking our attempt to control life and submitting to God’s control. The Holy Spirit’s control gives us a supernatural ability to love, have joy, peace, patience, etc. inspite of the circumstances. Nowhere does being filled with the Spirit result in speaking in tongues and doing miracles except in Acts, which we have already shown is not a good book to use to determine what is normal for today.
Another emphasis from scripture is the importance of studying scripture and applying it. I was recently listening to a series of tapes of Jack Deere’s book, Surprised by the Voice of God. In it he describes how he converted from a Cessationist to a Continuationist. He began hanging out with John Wimber and a few other Vineyard people and witnessed their prophecies, healings, etc. and began praying that God would speak to him. One day he had his own vision and began pursuing God’s voice in his church meetings. He claimed that he was the best Bible teacher in his town, but in his church of 500, over an 18 month period, only two people were evangelized by his church, no one was cured of their need for prozack, etc. He says he realized that traditional Bible Church teaching was not changing lives. It wasn’t until they started listening for the voice of God and several people started prophecying in the church meetings that lives started changing and God became real. For some reason, people couldn’t receive comfort from scripture, but they could receive comfort and believe the words of the modern prophets. These words and illustrations from Deere’s book certainly seem to me to deemphasize the role of scripture in attaining life and godliness. Just because his church was lifeless, does not mean that no one experiences God with only scripture to guide them.
It is obvious from recorded church history that mainstream Christianity did not experience the sign gifts. Jack Deere teaches that the reason for this is because there was a conspiracy to cover up all the miraculous events that have happened in the past 1900 years and that they really were common occurrences.
How is it that we need prophecy and tongues and healings for God to minister to us and change lives here in the 20th century when it didn’t happen for the past 1900 years.
Summary
We could discuss this issue for the next six months and not solve the debate. Our purpose is not to prove that miracles don’t happen. It is to put miracles in perspective. We must remember that God can do anything He wants, with anyone He wants, anytime He wants. There are plenty of modern day stories of miraculous events in which God obviously got directly involved in a situation. We need to be careful not to become pharisaical and say this is what God cannot do, what God can do, or what God must do, etc. Miraculous things do happen, even today, but the question is whether or not people are going around performing miracles at their will, receiving direct revelation from God or speaking in tongues.
After saying all this, I realize that if you have personally experienced or know someone who has experienced tongues, miraculous healing or visions from God, then none of what we’ve said matters. What I want you to walk away with is the emphasis of Scripture on the other gifts and on applying Scripture.
18 Richard Gaffin, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Ed. Wayne Grudem, p. 25.
19 according to rabinic tradition
20 Samuel Storms, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today, p. 190.
21 I have heard this argument in my discussion with some local pastors. In fact, one pastor actually told me that he only needed one verse to prove that miraclulous gifts were finished and settle the whole debate -- Matt 12:39. Everything else in his theology is black and white too.
22 Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, Word Biblical Commentary, p. 435-37; also Charles Powell, paper read at 1996 ETS convention.
Related Topics: Apologetics, Miracles
6. The Contextual Method Of Biblical Interpretation
I. Its History and Development
A. Jewish Interpretation
The most consistent use of the method of Bible study known as the Historical-Grammatical-Lexical Method (in this Textbook called the Contextual/Textual method) began in Antioch, Syria, in the third century a.d. in reaction to the Allegorical Method, which had developed several hundred years earlier in Alexandria, Egypt. The Alexandrian Method was an adaptation of the method of Philo, a Jewish interpreter who lived from 20 b.c. to a.d. 55. Philo also lived in Alexandria. He, being a Jew of the Diaspora, was not very influential among the rabbis, but had a great impact among the Hellenistic intellectuals of Alexandria, which was the seat of learning in that day. Philo agreed with the rabbis that the Old Testament was given by God. He believed God uniquely spoke through the Hebrew Scripture and the Greek philosophers, especially Plato. Therefore, every aspect of the text had meaning—every sentence, clause, word, letter, and even the smallest embellishment or idiosyncrasy of the text.
The rabbis’ interpretation is characterized by a focus on “how to,” especially in relation to the Law of Moses. Philo, although using some of the same idiosyncrasies of grammar and spelling, found hidden meanings in the text as it related to Platonism. The rabbis were interested in applying the Mosaic Law to daily life, while Philo wanted to reinterrpet the history of Israel in light of his Platonic world view. To do this he had to totally remove the Old Testament from its historical context.
“In his mind many of the insights of Judaism, properly understood, do not differ from the highest insights of Greek philosophy. God reveals Himself to the chosen people of Israel but He revealed Himself in no radically different way from the way in which He reveals Himself to the Greek” (Grant and Tracy 1984, 53-54).
His basic approach was to allegorize the text if:
1. the text spoke of that which seemed to be unworthy of God (physicalness of God)
2. the text contained any perceived inconsistencies
3. the text contained any perceived historical problems
4. the text could be adapted (allegorized) to his philosophical world view (Grant and Tracy 1984, 53)
B. The Alexandrian School
The basics of Philo’s approach to interpretation were continued in the Christian School of Interpretation, which developed in this same city. One of its first leaders was Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 150-215). He believed that the Bible contained different levels of meaning in order to make the Scriptures relevant to different kinds of people, cultures, and periods of time. These levels were
1. the historical, literal sense
2. the doctrinal sense
3. the prophetic or typological sense
4. the philosophical sense
5. the mystical or allegorical sense (Grant and Tracy 1984, 55-56)
This basic approach was continued by Origen (a.d. 185-254), who probably was the greatest mind of the ancient church (Silva 1987, 36-37). He was the first textual critic, apologist, commentator, and systematic theologian. A good example of his approach can be found in his interpretation of Pro. 22:20-21. He combines it with I Thess. 5:23. In this way every passage in the Bible has three levels of interpretation.
1. a “bodily” or literal sense
2. a “soulish” or moral sense
3. a “spiritual or allegorical/mystical” sense (Grant and Tracy 1984, 59)
The hermeneutics of Alexandria held sway over most of the Church in the area of interpretation until the time of the Protestant Reformation. It can be characterized in its developed form by Augustine (a.d. 354-430) in his four levels of interpretation.
1. the literal—teaches historical events
2. the allegorical—teaches what you should believe
3. the moral—teaches what you should do
4. the mystical—teaches what you should hope
For the church as a whole, the non-literal (#2,3,4) contained the purist spiritual insight. However, the abuses of the non-historical, non-grammatical method led to the formulation of another school of interpretation. The Historical-Grammatical textual-focused school of Antioch of Syria (third century) accused the allegorist of
1. importing meaning into the text
2. forcing a hidden meaning into every text
3. putting forth fanciful and far-fetched interpretation
4. not allowing words and sentences to bear their obvious, normal meaning (Sire 1980, 107)
5. allowing human subjectivity to dominate the plain message of the original author
Allegory, when done by a well-trained, godly interpreter, can have great value. It is obvious that Jesus (Matt. 13:18-23) and Paul (I Cor. 9:9-10; 10:1-4; Gal. 4:21-31) both set a biblical precedent for this approach. However, when used as a tool to prove one’s pet theological doctrine or to defend one’s inappropriate actions, it becomes a great stumbling block. The major problem is that there is no means to substantiate the meaning from the text itself (Silva 1987, 74). The sinfulness of mankind has turned this method (and all methods to some extent) into a means to prove almost anything and then to call it biblical.
“There is always the danger of eisegesis, reading into the Bible the ideas which we have received from elsewhere and then receiving them each with the authority with which we have come to surround the book” (World Council of Churches Symposium on Biblical Authority for Today, Oxford, 1949).
“Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer back of the letter, there lurks deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculation which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine…with approbation the licentious system gradually attained such a height, that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was suffered to pass unpunished, but even attained the highest applause. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when he suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations. Scripture, they say, is fertile, and this produces a variety of meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign. Let us know then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which lead us away from the natural meaning” (John Newport dissertation, N.D., 16-17).
C. The Antiochian School
It is obvious that the Alexandrian school was justifiably open to the charge that its interpretations relied more on the cleverness of the interpreter than on the intent of the original inspired author. One could, and can, assert any interpretation and “prove” it from the Bible by using this method. The Antiochian method focuses on the plain, obvious meaning of the text of Scripture (Cole 1964, 87). Its basic focus is understanding the message of the original author. This is why it is call the Historical-Grammatical approach of hermeneutics. Antioch insisted on both a historical context and the normal use of human language. It did not eliminate figures of speech, prophecy, or symbols, but forced them to be linked to the purpose, historical setting, and style of the original author, along with the original author’s choice of genre.
“The school of Antioch insisted on the historical reality of the biblical revelation. They were unwilling to lose it in a world of symbols and shadows. They were more Aristotelian than Platonist” (Grant and Tracy 1984, 66).
Some early leaders of this school of interpretation were: Lucian, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and John Chrysostom. This school became involved in an over-emphasis on the humanity of Jesus. This has been labeled the Nestorian Heresy** (Jesus had two natures, one divine and one human)—and it was a heresy (cf. I John 4:1-3). For this reason the school lost its influence and many of its followers. Its headquarters moved from Syria into Persia so as to be beyond the discipline of the Roman Church.
**Site Editor's Note: To clarify, the Nestorian heresy not only said that Jesus had two natures, but that they could be separated into His human person and a divine person. i.e. that He was two persons. Orthodoxy, in the Chalcedonian Creed, on the other hand teaches that "our Lord Jesus Christ is...One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ:...". Orthodoxy does not separate Jesus into two persons, but rather sees His divine nature and human nature as being inseparably mixed in one person through the incarnation.
D. The Antiochian School’s Basic Tenets
Although the basic tenets of the Antiochian School were continued in isolated places, it burst forth again in full bloom in Martin Luther and John Calvin, as it had been in bud previously in Nicholas of Lyra. It is basically this historically and textually-focused approach to hermeneutics that this Textbook is attempting to introduce. Along with the added emphasis on application, which was one of the strengths of Origen, the Antiochian approach clearly distinguished between exegesis and application (Silva 1987, 101). Because this Textbook is primarily for non-theologically trained believers, the methodology will focus around the text of Scripture in translation rather than the original languages. Study helps will be introduced and recommended, but the obvious meaning of the original author can, in the vast majority of cases, be ascertained without extensive outside help. The work of godly, diligent scholars will help us in areas of background material, difficult passages, and seeing the big picture, but first we must struggle with the plain meaning of the Scriptures ourselves. It is our privilege, our responsibility, and our protection. The Bible, the Spirit, and you are priority! Insight into how to analyze human language on a non-technical level, along with the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, are the twin pillars of this contextual/textual approach. Your ability to be somewhat free to interpret the Bible for yourself is the primary goal of this Textbook. James W. Sire in his book Scripture Twisting makes two good points.
“The illumination comes to the minds of God’s people—not just to the spiritually elite. There is no guru class in biblical Christianity, no illuminati, no people through whom all proper interpretation must come. And, so, while the Holy Spirit gives special gifts of wisdom, knowledge, and spiritual discernment, He does not assign these gifted Christians to be the only authoritative interpreters of His Word. It is up to each of His people to learn, to judge and to discern by reference to the Bible which stands as the authority over even those to whom God has given special abilities.”
“To summarize, the assumption I am making throughout the entire book is that the Bible is God’s true revelation to all humanity, that it is our ultimate authority on all matters about which it speaks, that it is not a total mystery but can be adequately understood by ordinary people in every culture” (pp. 17-18).
We dare not naively trust any other person or denomination with the interpretation of Scripture, which affects not only life, but also the life to come. The secondary goal of this Textbook is gaining the ability to analyze the interpretations of others. This Textbook desires to provide the individual believer with a method for personal Bible study and a shield against the interpretation of others. Scholarly helps will be recommended, but must not be accepted without proper analysis and textual documentation.
II. Interpretative Questions
Our discussion of a historically informed and textually-focused methodology will revolve around seven interpretive questions which one must ask in the study of every Scriptural context.
1. What did the original author say? (textual criticism)
2. What did the original author mean? (exegesis)
3. What did the original author say elsewhere on the same subject? (parallel passages)
4. What do other biblical authors say on the same subject? (parallel passages)
5. How did the original hearers understand the message and respond to it? (historical application)
6. How does this truth apply to my day? (modern application)
7. How does this truth apply to my life? (personal application)
A. The First Interpretive Question
1. The need to read Hebrew and Greek to interpret Scripture.
The initial step is establishing the original text. Here we come face to face with the subject of the original languages of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Must one know these languages, and all of their textual variants, before one can adequately interpret Scripture? Let me share my presuppositions about the Bible again.
a. God wants mankind to know Him (the very purpose of creation, Gen. 1:26-27).
b. He has provided us with a written record of His nature, purpose, and acts.
c. He has sent us His supreme revelation, His Son, Jesus of Nazareth. The New Testament contains His life and teachings as well as their interpretations.
d. God speaks to the common person. He wants all humans to be saved (Ezek. 18:23,32; John 3:16; I Tim. 2:4; II Pet. 3:9).
e. The vast majority of the world will never know God’s revelation except in a translation (Sterrett 1973, 28).
f. We must not see scholars as infallible interpreters. Even scholars must rely on other scholars. Even scholars within the same field do not always agree (Triana 1985, 9).
g. Scholars can help us. Christian scholars are gifts of God given to the church (I Cor. 12:28; Eph 4:11). Yet, even without their help believers can know the plain, simple truth of the Scriptures. They will not have complete or exhaustive knowledge. They will not see the wealth of detail that a biblical scholar might perceive, but believers can know enough for faith and practice.
2. Use of modern translations
Modern translations are a result of scholarly research. They use differing philosophies in translation. Some are very free in translating concepts (paraphrasing) instead of words (word for word) or clauses (dynamic equivalent). Because of this wealth of research and effort, believers, by comparing these translations, have a variety of technical information available to them, even if believers do not understand the technical process or theories behind them. By comparing modern translations they are able to more fully understand the message of the original author. This is not meant to imply that there are not dangers.
“The person who reads the Bible only in English is at the mercy of the translator(s), and translators have often had to make choices as to what in fact the original Hebrew or Greek really intended to say” (Fee and Stuart 1982, 29).
“The Bible student can overcome this handicap (not knowing originals and having to use translations) by an educated use of the better commentaries. Above all, everyone must be aware of the dangers. The student should compare the translations as he studies the passage, and should take none of them for granted” (Osborne and Woodward 1979, 53).
I hope you have been encouraged by the above discussion about the adequacy of English translations. I would suggest that for the purposes of Bible study that you use at least two different translations which vary in translation theory. Primarily you will want to use one that is very literal (i.e., word for word) and compare it with an idiomatic translation (dynamic equivalent). By comparing these two types of translations, most of the problems in word meaning, sentence structure, and textual variants become obvious. When major differences occur, refer to technical commentaries and research tools.
3. Hebrew and Greek manuscript variants
Another thorny problem to be dealt with in the area of “what did the original author say?” concerns original manuscripts. We do not have any of the original writings of the biblical authors (autographs). As a matter of fact, we are removed by hundreds of years from those originals (autographs). Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, our oldest Old Testament manuscript was from the ninth century a.d., called the Masoretic Text. The Masoretes were a group of Jewish scholars who placed the vowels (vowel points) into a consonantal, Hebrew text. This project was not completed until the ninth century a.d. The Dead Sea Scrolls allow us to verify this Hebrew text back into the b.c. era. They confirmed the accuracy of our Old Testament based on the MT. This enables scholars to compare Hebrew manuscripts with their Greek translations: the Septuagint, and those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian. The point of all this is that there are many differences among all of these copies.
The New Testament is also involved in the same difficulty. We do not have the writings of the Apostles, as a matter of fact, our copies are several hundred years removed from them. The oldest manuscripts available of the Greek New Testament are fragments of certain books written on papyri. These date from the second and third centuries a.d. and none have the complete New Testament. The next oldest group of Greek manuscripts comes from the fourth through sixth centuries. They are written in all capital letters with no punctuation marks or paragraph divisions. After this comes thousands of manuscripts from later centuries, mostly the 12th - 16th (written in small letters). None of these agree completely. However, it needs to be strongly emphasized that none of the variants affect major Christian doctrines (Bruce 1969, 19-20).
This is where the science of textual criticism comes onto the scene. Scholars in this area have analyzed and classified these different texts into “families,” which are characterized by certain common errors or additions. If you would like more information on this subject read
a. The Books and the Parchments by F. F. Bruce
b. “Texts and Manuscripts of the Old Testament,” Zondervan’s Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 5, pp. 683ff
c. “Texts and Manuscripts of the New Testament,” Zondervan’s Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 5, pp. 697ff
d. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism by J. H. Greenlee
The problem of textual criticism is not solved, but the work thus far has surely helped to clear up much of the confusion in this area.
“Rarely will one repeat the labors of the textual critics, unless an alternate reading is mentioned as a footnote in the version commonly used” (Liefeld 1984, 41).
I have found that these manuscript problems can be readily found by noticing the marginal notes in our modern English Study Bibles. The Revised Standard Version and The New English Bible provide many interesting alternative translations. All modern translations provide alternate readings to some extent. Another helpful resource at this point is the new Twenty-Six Translations of the Bible edited by Curtis Vaughn, published by AMG Publishers. This three volume set provides the King James Version in bold print and three to five alternate translations from a pool of twenty-six translations. This tool quickly shows the textual variations. These variations may then be adequately explored in commentaries and other research tools.
4. The limits of human language
Still another factor involved in the question, “what did the original author say?” involves the ambiguities of human language. When human language, which is basically a set of analogous relationships between words and concepts, is forced to describe God and spiritual things, major problems arise. Our finitude, our sinfulness, our corporality, and our experience of time (past, present, future) all affect our language as we attempt to describe the supernatural. We are forced to express these concepts in human categories (Ferguson 1937, 100). One type of these metaphorical categories is anthropomorphisms (man-form). These categories were one reason why the rabbis, Philo and Origen (Silva 1987, 61), began to use allegory. In reality, our description and understanding of God and the supernatural is analogous only (i.e., negation, analogy, and metaphor). It can never be complete or exhaustive. It is presuppositional, but by faith Christians believe it is adequate.
This problem of human language is further complicated when put into a written form. So often the inflection of the voice or some bodily gesture helps us understand the subtleties of human communication, but these are not present in a written text. Yet, even with these obvious limits, we are still able, for the most part, to understand each other. Our study of the Bible will be limited by these ambiguities, as well as the additional problem of translating three separate languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek). We will not be able to know for certain the complete meaning of every passage. A good book in this area is God’s Word in Man’s Language by Eugene Nida. With the help of the Holy Spirit we will be able to understand the plain sense of most Scripture. Maybe the ambiguities are there to humble us and cause us to be dependent on God’s mercy.
B. The Second Interpretive Question (for a sheet on exegetical procedures, see pp. 96 and 97)
1. Outline the literary units
One way, possibly the best way, to understand a written document is to identify the author’s purpose and the major divisions (i.e., literary units) in his presentation. We write with a purpose and goal in mind. So too, did the biblical authors. Our ability to identify this overarching purpose and its major divisions will greatly facilitate our understanding of its smaller parts (paragraphs and words). A key to this deductive approach (Osborne and Woodward 1979, 21) is outlining (Tenney 1950, 52). Before one tries to interpret a paragraph within a biblical book, he needs to know the purpose of the literary unit of which it is a part in light of the surrounding passages and the structure of the whole book. I know that this procedure seems overwhelming at first, as far as putting it into practice, but it is crucial as far as interpretation is concerned.
“From the standpoint of the Bible or literature, the simplest error of reading is the failure to consider the immediate context of the verse or passage in question” (Sire 1980, 52).
“The principle of contextual interpretation is, at least in theory, one of the few universally accepted hermeneutical guidelines, even though the consistent application of the principles is a notoriously difficult enterprise” (Silva 1983, 138).
“The context does not merely help us understand meaning—it virtually makes meaning” (Silva 1983, 139).
“How the passage fits within that—what it contributes to the entire flow of that book and what the structure of that book contributes to it—constitutes a paramount interest of the literary context step in exegesis” (Stuart 1980, 54).
This task can be accomplished in a very simple way. One can do several steps of interpretation at one time. It is obvious that if one wants to interpret a passage in light of the original author’s intent, they need to read and become familiar with the author’s whole message (the book). As one reads the biblical book several times in order to gain familiarity with its contents, he should take notes of his observations. On the first reading look for the major purpose of the book and its genre. On the second reading note the large blocks of related material, which we call literary units. An example from the book of Romans reveals major themes.
a. Brief introduction and theme (1:1-17)
b. The lostness of all men (1:18-3:21)
c. Justification is a gift (4:1-5:21)
d. Justification affects our lifestyle (6:1-8:39)
e. The Jews’ relationship to justification (9:1-11:36)
f. Practical section of living out justification on a daily basis (12:1-15:37)
g. Greetings, farewells, and warnings (16:1-27)
“Try to construct an outline that genuinely represents the major units of information. In other words, the outline should be a natural, not artificial, outgrowth of the passage. Note which components are included within each topic (quantitative) and also the intensity or significance of the components (qualitative). Let the passage speak for itself. When you see a new topic, subject, issue, concept, or the like, you should start a new topic for your outline. After outlining the major divisions work on the more minor divisions such as sentences, clauses and phrases. The outline should be as detailed as you can make it without seeming forced or artificial” (Stuart 1980, 32-33).
Outlining to paragraph level (and beyond) is a key in allowing the original author to speak. It will keep us from majoring on minors or going off on tangents. Your finished outline can then be compared with a Study Bible, such as the NIV Study Bible or NASB Study Bible, a Bible encyclopedia, or a commentary, but only after you have read the book several times and developed your own tentative outline.
“This is the crucial task in exegesis, and fortunately it is something one can do well without necessarily having to consult the ‘experts’” (Fee and Stuart 1980, 24).
Once the large literary blocks have been isolated, then the smaller units can be identified and summarized. These smaller units of thought may be several paragraphs or even a chapter or more. In most literary genres the paragraph is a key (Liefeld 1984, 90) to interpretation. One should never attempt to interpret less than a paragraph. As a sentence forms the context for words, paragraphs form the context for sentences. The basic unit of purposeful writing is the paragraph. In high school we were taught how to isolate the topical sentence of a paragraph. This same principle will help us tremendously in biblical interpretation. Every paragraph has one major purpose in the author’s overall presentation of truth. If we can isolate this purpose and summarize its truth in one simple, declarative sentence, we can complete our outline of the author’s structure. If our interpretation is alien to the purpose or thrust of the original author, we are abusing the Bible and have no biblical authority!
“Do not trust the chapter and verse divisions. They are not original and are often completely wrong” (Stuart 1980, 23).
“Decisions about paragraphing are sometimes subjective, and you will find that the various editors’ groupings of contents do not always agree. But if you decide to start your passage where no editor has begun a paragraph or end a paragraph where no editor has ended a paragraph, then it is your responsibility to explain fully for your decision” (Stuart 1980, 45).
2. Note the historical and cultural setting
The previous discussion of literary units is valuable, not only for the first question, “what did the original author say” (textual criticism), but also for the second, “what did the original author mean?” (exegesis). These questions are related, but distinct. The first focuses on the words of the original author (textual criticism). The second focuses on three very significant aspects of interpretation which are related to meaning.
a. the historical background of the author and/or the events of the book
b. the type of literary form (genre) in which the message is given
c. the basic grammatical and linguistic aspects of the text
One of the characteristics of allegory is that it completely separates the interpretation of a text from its historical setting. It is a major tenet of the contextual/textual or Antiochian Method that one establish the historical context. This principle was reemphasized by Martin Luther. This emphasis on background material in interpretation has come to be called, in a broad sense, “higher criticism”; whereas the information about the original text has come to be called “lower criticism.” In higher criticism one tries to ascertain from both internal (the biblical book itself) and external (secular history, archaeology, etc.) the following items.
a. information about the author
b. information about the date of writing
c. information about the recipients of the writing
d. information about the occasion of the writing
e. information about the writing itself
(1) recurrent or unique terms
(2) recurrent or unique concepts
(3) basic flow of the message
(4) the form in which the message appears (genre)
“World view confusion…occurs whenever a reader of Scripture fails to interpret the Bible within the intellectual and cultural framework of the Bible itself, but uses instead a foreign frame of reference. The usual way in which it appears is for scriptural statement, stories, commands or symbols which have a particular meaning or set of related meanings within the biblical frame of reference to be lifted out and placed within another frame of reference. The result is that the original intended meaning is lost or distorted, and a new and quite different meaning is substituted” (Sire 1980, 128).
This type of information is often (but not always) helpful in interpreting the writing. This historical aspect of interpretation, like outlining, can be done to some extent without the help of the “experts.” As you read the biblical book, write down the historical background information from the Bible itself and it will amaze you the amount of information you have gleaned. As a matter of fact, most of this information is available only from the biblical book itself (usually the first few verses). There will often be many theories expressed in the commentaries which are actually presuppositions with little biblical or historical evidence. Once you have gathered all the information that is obvious to you from the biblical book, it is time to expand your insight by using one of the following types of research helps:
a. introductory books usually divided into separate books on the Old and New Testaments
b. articles in Bible encyclopedias, dictionaries, or handbooks, usually under the name of the biblical book
c. the introductions found in commentaries
d. the introductions found in Study Bibles
These types of research tools are meant to give you the historical setting in a brief amount of study time. Most often these materials will be relatively brief because we simply do not have much information about many aspects of ancient history. Also, this type of material will usually be written in non-technical language. Again, as is obvious to you, my basic approach to interpretation is to see the big picture first and then to analyze the parts in detail.
3. The type of literature (genre)
The next area of interpretation related to the meaning of the original author is related to the literary genre. This is a French term which means a specialized category of literature characterized by style, form, or content. This is significant because the style in which one chooses to write affects how we are to understand it. Often ridiculous interpretations of prophecy or poetry have been propounded on what one calls “the literal” method of interpretation. However, the “literal” method from Antioch means that we interpret human language in its normal meaning. If it is apocalyptic literature, it was not meant to be interpreted literally. This is also true of poetry, idioms, and figures of speech.
The basic unit of thought, which in prose is normally the paragraph, is modified by the genre. Some examples of this significant factor in the identification of capsuled units of thought for the purposes of interpretation follow.
a. For poetry the basic unit is the strophe or stanza, which is defined as a series of lines arranged together as a patterned unit (see Appendix Six).
b. For a proverb the basic unit is the central or summary theme of the verse in its relation to the same theme located within the same book, another book by the same author, or other wisdom literature. Here, the thematic subject, more than the isolated proverb, is the key to interpretation. Not only synonymous themes (the same), but also antithetical themes (opposites) or synthetical development (additional information) of the same theme are crucial to a proper interpretation of Hebrew wisdom literature (see Appendix Seven).
c. For prophecy the basic unit must be the entire oracle. This can vary from a paragraph, a chapter, several chapters, to an entire book. Again, the basic theme and style will isolate the prophetic unit (see Appendices Four and Five).
d. For the Gospel parallels the basic unit will relate to the type of literature involved. Usually the unit will relate to one event, one teaching session, one subject, etc. This could involve an event or a series of events, parable or a series of parables, a prophecy or a series of prophecies, but all focusing on one main theme. It is usually better to look at the literary flow of each Gospel instead of going to the parallel passages in other Gospels.
e. For letters and historical narratives the basic unit is usually the paragraph. However, several paragraphs usually form larger literary units. These must be identified and characterized as a whole literary unit before the smaller parts can be properly interpreted. Some examples of these larger literary units follow.
(1) Matthew 5-7 (Sermon on the Mount)
(2) Romans 9-11 (what about unbelieving Israel)
(3) I Corinthians 12-14 (spiritual gifts) [or I Corinthians 11-14 guidelines for public worship]
(4) Revelation 2-3 (letters to churches) or 4-5 (heaven)
Analysis of literary types is crucial to their proper interpretation (Fee and Stuart 1982, 105). As in outlining, and to some extent, the historical background, this can be done by the average reader with the help of a translation which identifies poetry and paragraphs (Fee and Stuart 1982, 24). The reason that classification of literary genre is so important is that besides the general guidelines for interpretation, there are special needs of each literary type. This is only logical. If each type represents a different mode of human communication, then it is obvious that there needs to be special treatment in order to arrive at the author’s intent. It is just as condemning to add to the biblical author’s intent as it is to detract from it.
4. Special interpretive procedures related to genre
Let me summarize some of the specific guidelines involved in these special genres.
a. Poetry
(1) Structure is important. Ancient Hebrew developed its poetic structure or pattern around thought (expressed in beats per line), not rhyme.
(a) synonymous (the same thought)
(b) antithetical (an opposite thought)
(c) synthetic (the development of thought)
(2) Poetry is usually figurative, not literal. It attempts to speak to our common human desires and experiences. Try to identify figures of speech (Sterrett 1973, 93-100) and understand their function or purpose.
(3) Try to get an overall impression of the literary unit and do not push the details or figures of speech in doctrinal formulations.
b. Proverbs
(1) Because they deal with daily life, look for the practical application.
(2) Parallel passages will be much more helpful here than context or historical setting. Try to compile a list of proverbs with the same practical application, as well as other passages which might modify or develop this same, opposite, or developed truth.
(3) Try to isolate the figures of speech and identify their purpose in the proverb.
(4) Be sure that you do not interpret the proverbs in a particularistic manner, but in the sense of a general truth.
c. Prophecy
(1) This type of genre must first be seen in light of its own historical setting. It is primarily related to its own day and the immediate history of that day. The historical setting is crucial in this genre.
(2) One must look for the central truth. To focus on a few details which might fit our day or the last days and ignore the overall message of the oracle is a common mistake.
(3) Often prophets do speak of future settings, possibly several. Because of the abuse of prophecy I feel it is best to limit the interpretation of Old Testament prophecy to the specific accounts recorded in the New Testament. New Testament prophecy must be interpreted in light of
(a) its OT usage or allusions
(b) the teachings of Jesus
(c) other NT parallel passages
(d) its own contextual setting
(4) Remember that most biblical prophecy, especially Old Testament Messianic prophecy, has two focuses: the Incarnation and the Second Coming (Silva 1987, 104-108).
d. The Four Gospels
(1) Although we have four Gospels and we are able to compare them, this is not always the best method in trying to find the purpose or meaning of one particular Gospel writer. We must look at the way he uses the material, not how other Gospel writers use it or develop it. Comparison will be helpful, but only after you have determined the meaning of a particular writer.
(2) The literary or historical context is crucial in interpreting the Gospels. Try to identify the literary limits of the general subject being discussed and not its isolated parts. Try to see this subject in light of first century Palestinian Judaism.
(3) It is important to remember that the Gospels record the words and acts of Jesus, but it is the Epistles which interpret them into specific church settings. Check the parallels in the Epistles.
(4) Jesus said some ambiguous and difficult things, some of which we may not fully understand until we see Him. He also said much that is plain and obvious—start there. Act on what you do know and often the rest will be made clear to you. If not, the message is possibly not for us, for our day (Dan. 12:4).
(5) In connection with parables
(a) Be certain of the context. Notice (1) who Jesus addressed the parable to; (2) Jesus’ purpose for telling the parable and (3) how many parables are told in a series. Read further to see if He interprets it.
(b) Do not push the details. Major on His major point(s). Usually there is just one central truth per parable or main characters.
(c) Do not build major doctrines on parables. Doctrine should be grounded on extended clear teaching passages.
e. The Letters and Historical Narratives
(1) Compared to the other types of literary genres these are the easiest to interpret.
(2) The contextual setting is the key, both historical and literary.
(3) The literary unit and the paragraph will be the key literary unit.
These special hermeneutics linked to literary types are discussed in detail in the following excellent books.
1. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart
2. Protestant Biblical Interpretation by Bernard Ramm
3. Linguistics and Bible Interpretation by Peter Cotterell and Max Turner
4. Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation by Tremper Longman III
5. Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson
6. Plowshares and Pruning Hooks by D. Brent Sandy
7. A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible by Robert H. Stein
5. Syntax and grammatical features
Another aspect in obtaining the author’s original intent or meaning is called syntax or grammatical structure. This is often difficult because of the idiomatic and structural differences between the biblical languages and our own mother tongue. However, it is a fruitful area in interpretation and needs to be dealt with in some detail. Usually a comparison of modern translations and a basic knowledge of grammar will help tremendously.
“Grammar may not always show us the actual meaning, but it will show us possible meanings. We cannot accept any meaning that does violence to it. This grammar is important in understanding the Bible. This is not strange. Essentially it means that we understand the Bible according to the normal laws of human language” (Sterrett 1973, 63).
Grammar is something that the common person knows in usage, but not in technical definition. We learn grammar when we learn to speak. Grammar is forming sentences to communicate ideas. We do not need to be experts in grammatical relationships in order to interpret the Bible, however, we do need to try to understand why the original author said it the way he did. Often the structure of a sentence will show us what the author is emphasizing. This can be ascertained in several ways.
a. As you read the passage in several English translations notice the word order. A good example of this is in Heb. 1:1. In the King James Version the subject of the sentence, “God,” appears first, but in the Revised Standard Version the descriptive phrase, “in many and various ways,” appears first. This is significant because it reflects the true intent of the author. Is the major thrust of this text that God has spoken (revelation) or is it how God has spoken (inspiration)? The latter is true because the Revised Standard Version reflects the Koine Greek word order (use an interlinear). Also, a technical commentary will help on these word order and grammatical issues.
b. As you read the passage in several English translations note the translation of the verbs. verbs are very important in interpretation. A good example is I John 3:6,9. When one compares the King James Version with modern translations the difference is obvious. This is a present tense verb. These verses are not teaching “sinlessness,” but “sinning less.” At the conclusion of this Textbook a brief definition of Hebrew and Greek grammatical terms is included (see Table of Contents).
c. As you read the passage in several English translations note the thought connectives. Often these help us know the purpose of a clause or how sentences and contexts are related. Notice the following connectives (Traina 1985, 42-43).
(1) temporal or chronological connectives
(a) after (Rev. 11:11)
(b) as (Acts 16:16)
(c) before (John 8:58)
(d) now (Luke 16:25)
(e) then (I Cor. 15:6)
(f) until (Mark 14:25)
(g) when (John 11:31)
(h) while (Make 14:43)
(2) local or geographical connectives (where, Heb. 6:20)
(3) logical connectives
(a) reason
because (Rom. 1:25)
for (Rom. 1:11)
since (Rom. 1:28)
(b) result
so (Rom. 9:16)
then (Gal. 2:21)
therefore (I Cor. 10:12)
thus (I Cor. 8:12)
(c) purpose
in order that (Rom. 4:16)
so that (Rom. 5:21)
(d) contrast
although (Rom. 1:21)
but (Rom. 2:8)
much more (Rom. 5:15)
nevertheless (I Cor. 10:5)
otherwise (I Cor. 14:16)
yet (Rom. 5:14)
(e) comparison
also (II Cor. 1:11)
as (Rom. 9:25)
as – so (Rom. 5:18)
just as – so (Rom. 11:30-31)
likewise (Rom. 1:27)
so also (Rom. 4:6)
(f) series of facts
and (Rom. 2:19)
first of all (I Tim. 2:1)
last of all (I Cor. 15:8)
or (II Cor. 6:15)
(g) condition (e.g., “if,” Rom. 2:9)
(4) emphatic connectives
(a) indeed (Rom. 9:25)
(b) only (I Cor. 8:9)
These illustrations of thought connectives were taken from Methodical Bible Study by Robert A. Traina, pp. 42-43. Although his illustrations are mostly from the writings of Paul and predominately from the book of Romans, they do serve as good examples of how we structure our thoughts with these thought connectives. By comparing modern translations of both the Old and New Testaments these implied and expressed relationships become clear. Traina also has an excellent summary about grammatical structure on pp. 63-68. Be a careful Bible reader!
d. As you read the passage in several English translations, notice the repetition of terms and phrases. This is another way to ascertain the original author’s structure for the purpose of communicating his intended meaning. Some examples are:
(1) The repeated phrase in Genesis, “these are the generations of…,” (2:1; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10,27; 25:12,19; 36:1,9; 37:2). This phrase shows us how the author himself divided the book.
(2) The repeated use of “rest” in Hebrews 3-4. The term is used with three distinct meanings.
(a) a Sabbath rest as in Genesis 1-2
(b) the promised land of Exodus through Joshua
(c) heaven
If one misses this structure then he will probably miss the author’s intent and probably think that all the people who died in the wilderness were spiritually lost.
6. Idioms and word studies
Read the passage in several English translations, particularly a word-for-word one, such as the New American Standard Version, with the dynamic equivalent one, such as the New International Version. In this way one is able to identify idioms. Every language has its own quirks or expressions. For one to interpret an idiom literally would be to totally miss the point. A good example is the Hebrew term “hate.” If we notice its New Testament usage, particularly Rom. 9:13; Luke 14:26; or John 12:25, one sees that this idiom could be misunderstood. However if its Hebrew background and usage in Gen. 29:31,33 or Deut. 21:15 is identified, then it is obvious that it does not mean “hate” in our English sense of the word, but it is an idiom of comparison. Technical commentaries will be of real help in these matters. Two good examples of this type of commentary are (1) The Tyndale Commentary Series and (2) The New International Commentary Series.
The last aspect of this second question, “What did the original author mean?” is word studies. I have chosen to deal with it last because word studies have been so abused! Often etymology has been the only aspect of meaning that one uses to interpret a passage. The writings of James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language; D. A. Carson, Exegetical Falacies; along with Moises Silva’s Biblical Words and Their Meaning, have helped modern interpreters to reevaluate their word study techniques. Bible interpreters as a group have been guilty of numerous linguistic fallacies.
“Perhaps the principal reason why word studies constitute a particularly rich source for exegetical fallacies is that many preachers and Bible teachers know Greek only well enough to use concordances, or perhaps a little more. There is little feel for Greek as a language, and so there is the temptation to display what has been learned in study” (Carson 1984, 66).
It must be stated emphatically that context, not etymology, determines meaning!
“The root fallacy presupposes that every word has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view meaning is determined by etymology” (Carson 1984, 26).
“We must agree the obvious fact that the speakers of a language simply know next to nothing about its development; and this certainly was the case with the writers and immediate readers of Scripture…our real interest is the significance of Greek or Hebrew in the consciousness of the biblical writers; to put it boldly, historical considerations are irrelevant to the investigation of the state of Koine, at the time of Christ” (Silva 1983, 38).
“Since usage is so important, a safe rule for the interpreter is to leave etymology in the hands of the expert and to apply himself diligently to context and usage” (Mickelsen 1963, 121-122).
We must seek out original usage, or to put it another way—the meaning understood and intended by the original author and readily understood by the original hearers. Biblical terms have several different usages (semantical field). D. A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 25-66, is very helpful at this point—painful, but helpful. To illustrate, notice how English meanings change over time.
a. In I Thess. 4:15, the King James Version has “shall not prevent them which are asleep.” In the American Standard Version the term is translated “precede.” Notice how the meaning of “prevent” has changed.
b. In Eph. 4:22 the King James version has “put off concerning the former conversation the old man…” In the American Standard Version the term is translated “manner of life.” Notice how the meaning of “conversation” has changed.
c. In I Cor. 11:29 the King James has “for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.” In the American Standard version the term “damnation” is translated as “judgment.” Notice has the term has changed.
Most of us are prone to define biblical terms in light of our understanding of that term in our denomination or theological system. The problem with this is twofold.
a. We must be careful that we are using the definition from the original author’s intent and not our demoninational or cultural background.
b. We must be careful not to force a word to mean our technical religious definition in every context where it appears. Often the same author uses the same term in different senses.
c. Some examples of this follow.
(1) John’s use of “world”
(a) physical planet (John 3:16; I John 4:1,14)
(b) human society organized and functioning apart from God (I John 2:15; 3:1; 5:4-5)
(2) Paul’s use of “body”
(a) physical body (Rom. 1:3)
(b) sin nature (Rom. 8:3-4)
(3) Paul’s use of “temple”
(a) the church as a whole (I Cor. 3:16-17)
(b) the individual believer (I Cor. 6:19)
(4) James’ use of the term “save”
(a) spiritual salvation (James 1:21; 2:14)
(b) physical deliverance (James 5:15,20)
The way to proceed in determining the meaning of a word is to check several translations and to note the differences. Look up the term in an exhaustive concordance such as Analytical Concordance to the Bible by Robert Young or The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible by James Strong. Look up all other usages in the same biblical book you are studying; look up all of the uses by the same author. Try to sample the other uses in the same Testament. Walter Henricksen, in A Layman’s Guide to Interpreting the Bible, 1973, pp. 54-56, gives these steps:
a. The term’s use by the writer.
b. The term’s relation to its immediate context.
c. The term’s ancient use at the time of the writing.
d. The term’s root meaning.
Try to verify the basic meaning from the other Testament (remember that the NT writers were Hebrew thinkers writing Koine Greek). Then it is time to go to a theological word book, Bible encyclopedia, dictionary, or commentary in order to check your definition (see list VII on p. 103). I have written a sample academic guide to NT word studies on p. 98 to illustrate how much effort must be used to ascertain a word’s meaning in a specific context.
C.-D. The Third and Fourth Interpretive Questions
The next questions which the interpreter tries to answer is “what else did the same author say on the same subject?” It is closely related to the fourth basic question, “what did other inspired authors say on the same subject?” These two questions can be combined by the descriptive concept of concentric circles of parallel passages. Basically we are talking about how the word or theological concept is used elsewhere by an inspired author. This principle of interpretation has been called “the analogy of Scripture.”
“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it may be reached and known by other places that speak more clearly” (Westminister Confession, chap. 9).
It is based on three suppositions.
- that all Scripture is inspired by God (I Tim. 3:15-17, compare Fee and Stuart 1982, 209)
- that Scripture does not contradict itself
- that the best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture (Silva 1987, 68,93,94)
If these are true, then the best way to understand a passage is the contextual concentric circles of inspired writings.
1. the same topic or term in the same immediate context (paragraph or literary unit)
2. the same topic or terms in the same biblical book
3. the same topic or terms by the same author
4. the same topic or terms in the same period, genre, or Testament
5. the same topic or terms in the Bible as a whole
The farther we move from the specific passage that we are attempting to interpret, the more general and, to some extent, tentative the effectiveness of the parallel becomes.
“Interpret according to the narrow context before the wider. It is commonly agreed that Scripture should interpret Scripture. However, it needs to be understood that a term or passage must be interpreted first in its immediate context before it is studied in light of its broader application to the Bible as a whole” (Osborne and Woodward 1979, 154).
This area of interpretation can be very helpful in seeing how our passage relates to the whole of revelation (McQuilkin 1983, 43; Silva 1987, 83; Sterrett 1973, 86). Basically we are moving from
1. exegesis (number 1 above) to
2. biblical theology (numbers 2, 3, and 4 above) to
3. systematic doctrine (number 5 above)
We are moving from the magnifying glass to the telescope. We must first be relatively sure of the meaning of our focal passage before we move to systematized doctrine. This is one, though not the only, purpose of systematic theology books “see list IX Theologies p. 105). The move is necessary, but dangerous. Our backgrounds, prejudices, and denominational indoctrinations are always ready and able to intrude. If we use parallel passages (and we must) we must be certain that they are true parallels, not just the same term or phrase.
It is often true that parallel passages bring an overall balance to our interpretation. It has been my experience in interpreting that the Bible is often written in paradoxical or dialectical pairs (eastern mindset). One must recognize the biblical tension between subjects without removing it for the purpose of making simplistic statements, attempting to categorize truth, or protecting cherished theological positions. One inspired text cannot be used to negate or depreciate another inspired text! Here are some examples of the tension between biblical truths.
1. predestination versus human free will
2. security of the believer versus the need for perseverance
3. original sin versus volitional sin
4. Jesus as God versus Jesus as man
5. Jesus as equal with the Father versus Jesus as subservient to the Father
6. Bible as God’s Word versus human authorship
7. sinlessness versus sinning less
8. initial instantaneous justification and sanctification versus progressive sanctification
9. justification by faith (Romans 4) versus justification confirmed by works (cf. James 2:14-26)
10. Christian freedom (cf. Rom. 14:1-23; I Cor. 8:1-13; 10:23-33) versus Christian responsibility (cf. Gal. 5:16-21; Eph. 4:1)
11. God’s transcendence versus His immanence
12. God as ultimately unknowable versus knowable in Scripture and Christ
13. Paul’s many metaphors for salvation
a. adoption
b. sanctification
c. justification
d. redemption
e. glorification
f. predestination
g. reconciliation
14. the kingdom of God as present versus a future consummation
15. repentance as a gift of God versus repentance as a mandated response for salvation
16. the OT is permanent versus the OT has passed away and is null and void (cf. Matt. 3:17-19 vs. 5:21-48; Romans 7 vs. Galatians 3)
17. believers are servants/slaves or children/heirs
Moises Silva has been very helpful in listing the tensions which exist in our understanding Scripture.
1. The Bible is divine, yet it has come to us in human form.
2. The commands of God are absolute, yet the historical context of the writings appears to relativize certain elements.
3. The divine message must be clear, yet many passages seem ambiguous.
4. We are dependent only on the Spirit for instruction, yet scholarship is surely necessary.
5. The Scriptures seem to presuppose a literal and historical reading, yet we are also confronted by the figurative and nonhistorical (e.g., the parables).
6. Proper interpretation requires the interpreter’s personal freedom, yet some degree of external, corporate authority appears imperative.
7. The objectivity of the biblical message is essential, yet our presuppositions seem to inject a degree of subjectivity into the interpretive process (Silva 1987, 36-38).
Which side of these paradoxes are true? To all of these I would answer “yes,” because they are all true. Both sides are biblical. Our task as an interpreter is to see the big picture and integrate all of its parts, not just our favorite, or most familiar, ones. The answers to interpretation problems are not found in removing the tension so as to affirm only one side of the dialectic (Silva 1987, 38). This balance can be obtained from the proper use of a concordance or from systematic theology books. Be careful not to consult only systematic theologies from the denominational perspective from which you come or with which you agree. Let the Bible challenge you, roar at you—not just whimper. It will unsettle your cherished notions.
It is true that the attempt to systematize doctrine, or relate seemingly contradictory biblical material, is presuppositional and usually conforms to a doctrinal position. This should be less true for biblical theology which is primarily descriptive. This method (biblical theology) of study takes a small slice of the biblical material. It limits itself to an author, a period, or a genre. It tries to draw its theological categories only from a restricted biblical frame of reference. Often, in the act of limiting the biblical material, we are forced to take seriously the difficult statements of Scripture without explaining away their meaning by allusion to other verses. It forces us to take seriously what an author said. It is not looking for a balance, but for the vibrant, clear statement of the biblical author. It is a painful struggle to affirm both poles of biblical paradoxes. We consult all three of these concentric circles of parallel passages. One hopes to move through each stage in every context.
1. What did the author say and mean? (exegesis)
2. What did he say elsewhere on the same subject? What did others of the same period say? (biblical theology)
3. What does the Bible as a whole say on this and related subjects? (systematic doctrine)
Another potential problem in the use of parallel passages is called “the fallacy of collapsing contexts.”
“When two or more unrelated texts are treated as if they belonged together, we have the fallacy of collapsing contexts. This reading error can be especially knotty because it is the corruption of a perfectly good principle of reading: to compare Scripture with Scripture. We are responsible as good readers of the Bible to make use of every text bearing on the subject we wish to understand” (Sire 1980, 140).
“What gives interpreters the right to link certain verses together and not others? The point is that all such linking eventually produces a grid that effects the interpretation of the other texts” (Carson 1984, 140).
A good example of this problem has already been alluded to in this Textbook—Origen’s linking of a passage in Proverbs with an unrelated text in the book of I Thessalonians.
E. How did the original hearers understand the message and respond to it?
This is the fourth interpretative question. It relates to only certain kinds of genres (i.e., historical narratives, Gospels, and the book of Acts). It is very helpful if the information is available because this is our goal as an interpreter, “hear as it was heard.”
F.-G The Fifth and Sixth Interpretive Questions
1. Application
Up until this point we have been looking at the interpretative questions which relate to the original author’s intent. Now we must turn to the equally significant focus concerning its meaning to my day and to my life. No interpretation is complete unless this stage is reached and adequately incorporated. The goal of Bible study is not knowledge alone, but daily Christlikeness. The goal of the Bible is a deeper, closer relationship with the Triune God. Theology must be practical.
“According to Kierkegaard the grammatical, lexical, and historical study of the Bible was necessary but preliminary to the true reading of the Bible. ‘To read the Bible as God’s word one must read it with his heart in his mouth, on tip-toe, with eager expectancy, in conversation with God. To read the Bible thoughtlessly or carelessly or academically or professionally is not to read the Bible as God’s Word. As one reads it as a love letter is read, then one reads it as the Word of God’” (from Protestant Biblical Interpretation by Ramm, p. 75).
Application is not an option (Osborne and Woodward 1979, 150). However, application is less structured than interpretation (this is where the creativity and life experiences of the interpreter and proclaimer come into focus). Ideally there is but one original intent in Scripture. This could be expanded to two (multiple prophecy fulfillment or extended parables). Often the original author’s intent was true, but not exhaustive of the Spirit’s intent. Application is often determined by one’s personal
a. need
b. situation
c. level of maturity
d. desire to know and follow God
e. cultural and denominational traditions
f. current historical situation
It is obvious that the leap from the “then” to the “now” is ambiguous. There are many factors which cannot be identified or controlled. One reason for the development of the allegorical method was the desire to apply the Bible to current needs. Some would say that allegory is necessary for application (Silva 1987, 63,65), but I would deny this. The Spirit is our mandatory guide in application as He is in interpretation. Application must be integrally related to the intended meaning of the original inspired author!
2. Some Helpful Guidelines
a. Be sure to apply the major intent of the biblical author, not just minor details of the passage.
b. Do not look for every aspect of our current situation to be addressed in detail. Often biblical “principles” are our only guide. However, our formulation of these are one more level removed from inspiration. Also, their application is often very presuppositional. Some interpreters find biblical principles in every text. It is safer to limit one’s principles to extended teaching passages or else principles can become proof-texts.
c. Not all truth is meant for immediate or personal application. The Bible often records that which it does not advocate. Also, not all biblical truth is applicable to every age, every situation, and every believer.
d. Application should never seem contrary to other clear Bible passages.
e. Application should never seem contrary to Christlike conduct. Extremes in application are as dangerous as they are in interpretation.
f. Some basic application questions to ask of every biblical passage have been suggested by Richard Mayhue in How To Interpret the Bible for Yourself, 1986, p. 64
(1) Are there examples to follow?
(2) Are there commands to obey?
(3) Are there errors to avoid?
(4) Are there sins to forsake?
(5) Are there promises to claim?
(6) Are there new thoughts about God?
(7) Are there principles by which to live?
H. The Interpreter’s Responsibility
At this point it will be helpful to discuss the individual interpreter’s responsibility in relation to appropriate application of the Bible’s eternal, relevant truths. It has already been stated that this procedure is ambiguous and that the Holy Spirit must be our guide. For me a key ingredient to this area is our motive and attitude. We must walk in the light we have. I am not responsible for your walk of faith, nor you for mine. We can share our perspective in love and hopefully from our understanding of specific passages of Scripture. We all must be willing to seek new light from the Scripture, but we are only responsible for what we do understand. If we walk in faith in the light that we have, more light will be given (Rom. 1:17). We must also be aware at this point to remember that our understanding is not always superior to the understanding of others. Romans 14:1-15:13 is so crucial in this area, but I am always surprised that we usually think our group is the stronger brother and everyone who does not agree with us is a member of the weaker group and in need of our help. We all need help. We all have areas of strengths and areas of weakness in our understanding and application of spiritual truth. I have heard it said that the Bible comforts the uncomfortable and discomforts the comfortable. We must walk down the tension-filled road of spiritual growth. We are all affected by sin and we will never arrive at complete maturity this side of heaven. Walk in the light you have—within the light of the Bible. “Walk in the light as He is in the light” (I John 1:7). Keep on walking.
I. Here are some helpful books
1. Applying the Bible by Jack Kuhatschek
2. Understanding and Applying the Bible by J. Robertson McQuilkin
3. Living By the Book by Howard G. Hendricks
4. Why Christians Fight Over the Bible by John Newport