The Standing Use and Authority of the Old Testament (Part 3)

(continued from 8/21/2015)

Conclusion:

Not only is the former part of Scripture necessary for our edification with regard to the meaning of the latter, but we also find that Christ and his apostles assert that the moral precepts of the Old Testament are the will of God abiding for ever, and enforce the keeping of them, as they are there, and there only, handed down to us in the proper form and order. Yea, the expression for the whole sum of duty, embraced in Christ's injunction, " Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," seems to have been taken from, or at least founded upon, that passage in Leviticus 11:44, "Ye shall be holy, for I am holy;" and is repeated by Peter, "Be ye holy, for I am holy." (1 Pet. 1:16). So that not only is the attention of men directed to the tables of the law as they were delivered, and to each command as it appears there singly: "Keep the commandments," but also to all the precepts collectively - to the sum of them all in the very words of the Lawgiver himself in the Old Testament once and again repeated; and, finally, their attention is fixed, by the endearing way in which Christ crowns the Old Testament idea, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." The examples of the Old Testament saints are referred to in the New, implying the standing use of such records for our imitation. The instance of Elijah as an example in prayer (James 5:17). The long catalog of "worthies," is remarkable for their faith (Heb. 11). These and a multitude of similar references take for granted a knowledge of the Old Testament, and clearly show its abiding use to Christians in all ages. Besides, there are some particulars of faith and practice, which are learned from, and can only be fully established by the Old Testament. It contains the sublime account of creation, and subsequently narrates the fall of man. The moral obligation of the Sabbath, of baptism, and of the worship of God in the family capacity; the scriptural institution of marriage and of civil rule, and the nature and importance of federal engagements...cannot, we think, be satisfactorily established but by the Scriptures of the Old Testament. The Old seems to contain the history and prophecy of the church in all time and in eternity too. It furnishes examples of lasting influence and the germ of all doctrines, and it guides us in our devotions at the throne of grace. The New may be regarded as an enlargement on the character and sufferings of Christ, as these were witnessed by his disciples; it unfolds the manner of his life and the matter of his teaching, and declares the nature and design of the ordinances and institutions of the New Testament church. We do not say that because of these things greater importance is to be attached to the New than to the Old, but rather that on all the leading doctrines of the Christian religion, much more enlarged and accurate views are obtained by a careful collation of the whole Word of God. Christians are much indebted to many parts of the Old Testament for elevating ideas of the Deity and directions in his worship. What soul-breathings after God are contained therein, suitable to every age and every clime! ... Some are inclined to overlook certain portions of the Old Testament, and labor under the mistake, that the divine character as therein revealed is far different from that in the New . This error seems to arise from incorrect views of the law and the gospel. The thunders of Sinai and the fearful punishments threatened on offenders are the true representations of God's justice in taking vengeance on those who violate his holy law. The minister of the gospel should see the important use of the Old Testament in giving weight to his warnings, and the sinner should be driven by its threats to flee from the wrath of an angry God to the covert of the covenant. This error arises also from an idea entertained that there are not such gospel invitations and comforts contained in the Old as in the New . But though we have the moral law and its accompanying terrors, we have likewise most lively and encouraging traces of the Covenant of Grace. The sinner finds salvation in the Old as well as in the New ; and the terrors of the law as well in the New as in the Old. The "Sun of Righteousness" is equally the light of both: in the one his benign beams burst forth from amid lowering clouds; in the other the clouds may be said to have passed away, and we behold him fully revealed. Certain it is, that much in the Old should no longer be practiced under the New Testament dispensation, for we are come to a more glorious and spiritual economy; but we do not say that such parts as refer to the past economy are no longer useful. On the contrary they are in many ways indispensable - as they declare still the infinitely holy character of the Most High, the necessity of awe and reverence the most profound in approaching him, and of a strict regard to the divine glory and the welfare of the church in administering civil and ecclesiastical law; and taken in connection with the New , we find most valuable aid and direction from these laws and observances in practice obsolete. In short, they are, so to speak, the mold in which the mind of the Church of God in past and present ages was formed and fashioned. To conclude, God as he is in himself, and as he manifests himself in the display of his perfections in the works of creation, providence, and redemption, is presented in his true character in the Bible, taken as a whole. The God who is our hope, our trust, our all, is pleased to give to man this revelation of himself, and The Power of Truth as the Instrument of Union taken from first to last, the view is connected, perfect, and, we had almost said, unbounded. Isolate from the other part, either the Old or New, and a void is left which all created wisdom never can fill up. The Bible, as we have it, is precious and inestimable. It is dependent in all its parts - a golden chain suspended from the eternal throne, its links secure and inseparable. To vary the figure, it is a mine of knowledge, too deep for man, where every new discovery leads to others more valuable still, and thus we may go on from one degree of Scriptural wealth to another, until we arrive at the source and fountain of all; there to enjoy the riches of his glory.

"This book, this holy book, on ev'ry line

Marked with the seal of high divinity,

On every leaf bedewed with drops of love

Divine, and with the eternal heraldry

The Standing Use and Authority of the Old Testament (Part 2)

(continued from 8/18/2015)

1^st Instead of finding fault with the Jews for reading the Old Testament, the very reverse was the case. They are reproved by the Savior for their carelessness in not receiving and acting upon the statements laid down therein. Said he to the chief priests and elders of the people, "Did ye never read in the Scriptures, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?” Matt. 21: 42. To the multitude, "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words." John 5: 46-47. Whence may we not see the very way in which the Jews are yet to be brought to a knowledge of the truth; not, indeed, by a laying aside or neglect of the Old Testament, but by a reverential study of it, and the blessing of the Spirit accompanying it; and that thus the veil of ignorance shall be removed, and they brought to bow at the feet of the Great Teacher himself? Then shall he say to them like as he did to the two disciples that journeyed with him to Emmaus: "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" Luke 24: 25. Such references plainly intimate not only the necessity and importance of these writings, but stimulate to a continued and close examination of their bearing in order to a cordial reception of the truths which he taught.

2^nd When Jesus was tempted of the devil, though he could, by the arm of his omnipotence, have at once hurled him and his legions back whence they came, defeated; yet, strange to say, he suffered the deceiver to confront him - the Innocent One - and taking upon him our infirmities, he employed against Satan the weapons he would have us to wield. He set us an example that we should follow in his steps. By the words of the Old Testament Scriptures did Christ oppose his arch insinuations, thereby inculcating their use, and teaching us not only to resist the devil and he will flee from us; but that these same Scriptures are the Word of God, the sword of the Spirit, the weapon of attack in the armor of righteousness provided by the Captain of our salvation.

3^rd Not only have we Christ's example, which we should follow, but his plain and pointed command: "Search the Scriptures." John 5: 39. This, of course, at the time in which it was spoken, referred to the Old Testament, and thereby its authority and use are established to all generations.

4^th In the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles, we have 'its perusal commended and enjoined, and its statements introduced to corroborate the truths published. Of the Christians in Thessalonica, it is recorded as exemplary and praiseworthy; they "searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17: 11. Again, "the righteousness of God without the law" is said to be now " manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;" and this is explained in the next verse to be "the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe," - a righteousness "without the law" in this sense, that our personal obedience has no influence in procuring the sinner's justification, "by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight." Rom . 3: 20, 21, 22. And this righteousness of faith then is "witnessed by the law and the prophets" - the usual expression among the writers of the New Testament, for the Old. How important the testimony, both by reason of the witness, which is the Spirit himself, and because of the object, which is Christ with all new covenant benefits for our salvation. We have the Old Testament so interwoven with the apostles' instructions that to separate the two would be to rend and destroy the whole. Their connection is so completely established in the Epistles, their harmony so clearly maintained, that, by neglecting the Old, we render the New , as far as we are concerned, in many places, useless and unmeaning. The Epistle to the Hebrews would be unintelligible without Leviticus—the perpetual reference to the former dispensation renders necessary the continuance of this book for our instruction. Moreover, how could we aright understand the Epistle to the Romans, and the words "atonement," "reconciliation," "blood," &c , without the Pentateuch? Is it not by a constant reference to the Old, and by comparing Scripture with Scripture, that our ideas are properly formed and enlarged? In truth, the distinguishing doctrines of the Church of Christ regarding his substitutionary sufferings, his resurrection, his exaltation, and the exercise of his mediatorial power over the nations, can only be fully proved by having recourse to the Old Testament in connection with the New. 

The Standing Use and Authority of the Old Testament (Part 1)

This and the following two posts are an article published in the January 1855 issue of the Reformed Presbyterian. No author is named.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;" and this applies to the Old as well as to the New Testament. The practice of placing these two portions of Holy Writ in contrast, as if to show that the former no longer continues to be a rule of faith and manners, is extremely absurd, and evinces deplorable ignorance of the spirit and tenor of the Scriptures. God is one, he changeth not; and, therefore, his revelations to man exhibit constantly and connectedly his abiding moral character. Although some parts of his Word may, and when necessary for us, do, condescend to the low position, attainments, and habits of those to whom they are committed, or they may respect observances enjoined on the Old Testament church, the obligation of which passes away in the lapse of time; yet we are not to conclude that these are useless or unimportant portions. Far from it, for even in these the authority and character of the one unchanging Jehovah are abundantly evident, and their study assists us in our conceptions of the Most High, and in estimating our duty towards him. Taken as a whole, the authority of the Old is established by the very same argument as that of the New Testament, and the reasoning in the case is, if possible, more manifest and conclusive, and the evidence more overpowering. The writers of the Old Testament appeal to miracles in proof of their mission, and some of these are most wonderful. But waiving this consideration, we may notice that the prophecies contained in many of the books are alone sufficient to establish their divine authority.

1st. The prophecies regarding the Jewish nation are most remarkable, relating to their days of prosperity and adversity, their captivities and returns, their being outcasts among the nations, and their final restoration to their own land. In short, all the particulars of that people's history are recorded with minutest accuracy of detail from the writers' days down along the future; and we have but to read the Old Testament, to this day, in order to know the past, present, and future condition of the Israelitish nation.

2d. The predictions about our Savior are full and varied, and manifest their divine origin. Every trait in his character is fully displayed; all his mediatorial engagements from everlasting or ever the earth was, his unique sufferings, and his unparalleled rewards are unfolded in the Old Testament in the ancient solitary predictions - in a ritual burdened with the announcement of a Savior to come - in the beautifully pure and spiritual Messianic Psalms, exalted in thought to the very throne of the Eternal - in the singularly graphic, but glowing descriptions of enraptured prophets, carried away without and above themselves in heavenly visions. In all, the conceptions as they are presented to us in the Old Testament are not only elevating, they are above all mere human efforts, and divine. And thus presented and accredited, the history of the Covenant of Grace is more full in many respects in the Old than in the New Testament.

3d. The miraculous preservation of these writings is a most powerful argument for their authority. Since they were written, nations great and mighty, that figured in earth's history, have passed away; monuments have crumbled into dust; tomes innumerable have perished in Old Time's withering embrace; and now, in these last days, even his own eventful youth had become shrouded in oblivion, but for these ancient writings, which, dictated and preserved by him who directs all events, have survived all changes - dare we say it - unchanged as their Author. Internally considered, their authority and use cannot be questioned. The grand system of morals which they contain, owes its origin to God alone. It is pure, simple, unsparing and comprehensive, every way manifesting the holy, just, and wise character of the one true and eternal God; and its use and importance are unchanging and constant. The standing, use and authority of the Old Testament are clearly proved from the teaching of Christ and his apostles. They seem to have inculcated most particularly the study of the Bible, in order that the character and doctrines of the Messiah may be properly understood. Not only are the prophets, who foretold Christ, introduced to upbraid their ignorance; but the books of Moses, the Psalms, and every department of the Old Testament are made the basis of their remarks, and brought to bear on the things then being accomplished.

Patrick Fairbairn on the Conquest of Canaan

On the contrary, we affirm that, if contemplated in the broad and comprehensive light in which Scripture itself presents them to our view, they may be read with satisfaction, though certainly not without awe; that there is not an essential element belonging to them, which does not equally enter into the principles of the Gospel dispensation; and that any difference which may here present itself between the Old and the New is, as in all other cases, a difference merely in form, but founded upon an essential agreement. This will appear whether it is viewed in respect to the Canaanites, to the Israelites, or to the times of the Gospel dispensation.

1. Viewed, first of all, in respect to the Canaanites as the execution of deserved judgment on their sins (in which light Scripture uniformly represents it, so far as they are concerned), there is nothing in it to offend the feelings of any well-constituted Christian mind. From the beginning to the end of the Bible, God appears as the righteous Judge and avenger of sin, and does so not unfrequently by the infliction of fearful things in righteousness. If we can contemplate Him bringing on the cities of the plain the vengeance of eternal fire, because their sins had waxed great and were come up to heaven; or, at a later period, even in Gospel times, can reflect how the wrath was made to fall on the Jewish nation to the uttermost; or, finally, can think of impenitent sinners being appointed, in the world to come, to the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone for ever and ever ; — if we can contemplate such things entering into the administration of God, without any disturbance to our convictions that the Judge of all the earth does only what is right, it were surely unreasonable to complain of the severities exercised on the foul inhabitants of Canaan. Their abominations were of a kind that might be said emphatically to cry to Heaven — such idolatrous rites as tended to defile their very consciences, and the habitual practice of pollutions which were a disgrace to humanity. The land is represented as incapable of bearing any longer the mass of defilements which overspread it, as even ‘vomiting out its inhabitants;' and ‘therefore,' it is added, ‘the Lord visited their iniquity upon them.’ Nor was this vengeance taken on them summarily: the time of judgment was preceded by a long season of forbearance, during which they were plied with many calls to repentance. So early as the age of Abraham, the Lord manifested Himself toward them both in the way of judgment and of mercy, - of judgment, by the awful destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, cutting off the most infected portion, that the rest might fear, and turn from their evil ways; of mercy, by raising up in the midst of them such eminent saints as Abraham and Melchizedek. That period, and the one immediately succeeding, was peculiarly the day of their merciful visitation. But they knew it not; and so, according to God's usual method of dealing, He gradually removed the candlestick out of its place — withdrew His witnesses to another region, in consequence of which the darkness continually deepened, and the iniquity of the people at last became full. Then only was it that the cloud of divine wrath began to threaten them with overwhelming destruction — not, however, even then, without giving awful indications of its approach by the wonders wrought in Egypt and at the Red Sea, and again hanging long in suspense during the forty years' sojourn in the wilderness, as if waiting till further space had been given for repentance. But as all proved in vain, mercy at length gave place to judgment, according to the principle common alike to all dispensations: 'He that, being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, shall be suddenly destroyed, and that without remedy;' and, ‘Where the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.' In plain terms, whenever iniquity has reached its last stage, the judgment of Heaven is at hand. This principle was as strikingly exemplified in the case of the Jews after our Lord's appearing, as in the case of these Canaanites before. In the parables of the barren fig-tree and the wicked husbandmen in the vineyard, the same place is assigned it in the Christian dispensation which it formerly held in the Jewish. And in the experience of all who, despite of merciful invitations and solemn threatenings, perish from the way of life, it must find an attestation so much more appalling than the one now referred to, as a lost eternity exceeds in evil the direst calamities of time. In fine, the very same may be said of the objections brought against the destruction of the Canaanites, which was said by Richard Baxter of many of the controversies started in his day: ‘The true root of all the difference is, whether there be a God and a life to come.' Grant only a moral government and a time of retribution, and such cases as those under consideration become not only just, but necessary.

2. Again, let the judgment executed upon the Canaanites be viewed in respect to the instruments employed in enforcing it — the Israelites — and in this aspect also nothing will be found in it at variance with the great principles of truth and righteousness. The Canaanites, it is to be understood, in this view of the matter, deserved destruction, and were actually doomed to it by a divine sentence. But must not the execution of such a sentence by the hand of the Israelites have tended to produce a hardening effect upon the minds of the conquerors? Was it not fitted to lead them to regard themselves as the appointed executors of Heaven's vengeance, wherever they themselves might deem this to be due, and to render their example a most dangerous precedent for every wild enthusiast who might choose to allege a commission from Heaven to pillage and destroy his fellow-men? Charges of this description have not infrequently been advanced; but they evidently proceed on the tacit assumption that there was in reality no doom of Heaven pronounced against the Canaanites, and no special commission given to the Israelites to execute it — this ignoring one part of the sacred narrative for the purpose of throwing discredit on another. Or it is implied that God must be debarred from carrying on His administration in such a way as may best suit the ends of divine wisdom, because human fraud or folly may take encouragement from thence to practise an unwarranted and improper imitation.

Thoughts of this description carry their own refutation along with them. The commission given to the Israelites was limited to the one task of sweeping the land of Canaan of its original occupants. But this manifestly conferred on them no right to deal out the same measure of severity to others; and so far from creating a thirst for human blood, in cases where they had no authority to shed it, they even fainted in fulfilling their commission to extirpate the people of Canaan. This, however, is only the negative side of the question; and viewed in another and more positive aspect, the employment of the Israelites to execute this work of judgment was eminently calculated to produce a salutary impression upon their minds, and to promote the ends for which the judgment was appointed. For what could be conceived so thoroughly fitted to implant in their hearts an abiding conviction of the evil of idolatry and its foul abominations — to convert their abhorrence of these into a national, permanent characteristic — as their being obliged to enter on their settled inheritance by a terrible infliction of judgment upon its former occupants for polluting it with such enormities? Thus the very foundations of their national existence raised a solemn warning against defection from the pure worship of God; and the visitation of divine wrath against the ungodliness of men accomplished by their own hands, and interwoven with the records of their history at its most eventful period, stood as a perpetual witness against them, if they should ever turn aside to folly. Happy had it been for them, if they had been as careful to remember the lesson as God was to have it suitably impressed upon their minds.

3. But the propriety and even moral necessity of the course pursued become manifest, when we view the proceeding in its typical bearing — the respect it had to Gospel times. There were reasons, as we have seen, connected with the Canaanites themselves and the surrounding nations, sufficient to justify the whole that was done ; But we cannot see the entire design of it, or even perceive its leading object, without looking further, and connecting it with the higher purposes of God respecting His kingdom among men. What He sought in Canaan was an inheritance, — a place of rest and blessing for His people, but still only a temporary inheritance, and as such a type and pledge of that final rest which remains for the people of God. All, therefore, had to be arranged concerning the one, so as fitly to represent and image the higher and more important things which belong to the other; that the past and the temporary might serve as a mirror in which to foreshadow the future and abiding; and that the principles of God's dealing toward His Church might be seen to be essentially the same, whether displayed on the theatre of present or of eternal realities. It was partly at least, on this account, that the place chosen for the inheritance of Israel was allowed, in the first instance, to become in a peculiar sense the region of pollution, — a region that required to be sanctified by an act of divine judgment upon its corrupt possessors, and thereby fitted for becoming the home and heritage of saints. In this way alone could the things done concerning it shadow forth and prepare for the final possession of a glorified world, — an inheritance which also needs to be redeemed from the powers of darkness that meanwhile overspread it with their corruptions, and which must be sanctified by terrible acts of judgment upon their ungodliness, before it can become the meet abode of saints in glory. The spirit of antichrist must be judged and cast out; Babylon, the mother of abominations, which has made the earth drunk with the wine of her fornications, must come in remembrance before God, and receive the due reward of her sins; so that woes of judgment and executions of vengeance most precede the Church's occupation of her purchased inheritance, similar in kind to those which put Israel in possession of the land of Canaan. What, indeed, are the scenes presented to our view in the concluding chapters of Revelation, but an expansion to the affairs of a world, and the destinies of a coming eternity, of those which we find depicted in the wars of Joshua? In these awful scenes we behold, on the one hand, the Captain of Salvation, of whom Joshua was but an imperfect type, going forth to victory with the company of a redeemed and elect Church, supported by the word of God, and the resistless artillery of heaven; while, on the other hand, we see the doomed enemies of God and the Church long borne with, but now at last delivered to judgment — the wrath falling on them to the uttermost, — and, when the world has been finally relieved of their abominations, the new heavens and the new earth rising into view, where righteousness, pure and undefiled, is to have its perennial habitation.

From: The Typology of Scripture.

Counted As A Strange Thing

I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing. Hosea 8:12

Much could be said about the doctrine of this verse, but what I really wish to look at is the last phrase: "Counted as a strange thing." The subject is the Word of God, and He accuses His people of treating it as a strange thing. Truer words were never spoken. I'd like to make a few observations about the treatment the Bible often receives – not at the hands of infidels, mind you, but at the hand of professing believers.

The Bible is often outright ignored. It’s a sad fact that many of us are more familiar with TV and movie celebrities, with sports stars and singers than we are with Bible characters. What excuse do we have for such behavior? And what could we possibly present to God on Judgment Day as a justification for such neglect of His Word?

Secondly, the Bible is often mishandled. There are more foolish, ignorant statements made in Sunday sermons every week than there are grains of sand on the seashore. I have heard pastors preach contradictory messages two consecutive Sundays. When I hear the idiocy spewed forth by the likes of Benny Hinn, Rodney Howard-Browne, Kenneth Hagin, Morris Cerrulo, Kenneth Copeland, Robert Schuller, etc… I am amazed that God does not rend the heavens and stop them mid-sentence to put an end to their enormities! But one day, He will; rest assured: one day He will. “You are judging,” someone will say. CORRECT! I am told to judge. John 7:24, Jesus says, “Judge righteous judgment.” The holy Word of God is not a plaything to be toyed with by ignorant, arrogant men.

Lastly, as our verse says, the Bible is treated as a “strange” thing. The word “strange” in the King James means “foreign.” One does not need to watch modern Christendom for very long to see that the Bible is foreign to it. How often does someone actually “turn the other cheek?” How often are we encouraged to let unbelievers mistreat us? When was the last time we heard a sermon on lending and not asking for the payment in return? There are myriads of Bible principles that are slighted, ignored and downright rejected as impractical because we have “renewed our minds” and we are striving to live the Christian life according to the dictates of worldly wisdom and secular philosophy. This is why Christians today indulge in behavior that unbelievers of 100 years ago would never have dreamt of engaging in. It is no secret that the Church is worldly. Nearly a half century ago, A.W. Tozer wrote, “Christianity is so entangled with the world that millions never guess how radically they have missed the New Testament pattern. Compromise is everywhere. The world is white-washed just enough to pass inspection by blind men posing as believers.”

Every month, all over the world there are Christian conferences held on every subject imaginable – except the Bible! The Bible is treated as a strange thing. With all due respect to Rick Warren, why is it that millions of congregations joined in the “40 Days of Purpose” program, but never a “40 Days of Exodus 20,” or even “2 Days of Matthew 5-7?” The Bible is quoted and read out of a sense of obligation or tradition, but it really is foreign to most of us.

A Christocentric Hermeneutic

In a previous post, we have discussed the importance of a Christocentric hermeneutic when dealing with the Old Testament. Christ tells us that He is the focus of everything in the Scriptures (by which He meant the Old Testament). For instance, when rebuking the unbelieving Jews said, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” John 5:39. Some might think that Christ didn’t refer to everything in the Old Testament. But, Christ dispels this misunderstanding in Luke 24:27 by expounding from Moses and the prophets the things concerning Himself. And lest that weren’t enough, a few verses later (v. 44-46), He opens their understanding to see Him in all the Scriptures of the Old Testament – dividing it into the three parts: Law, Prophets, and Psalms. I have noted it before, but it seems rather odd to many people today to think they can find Christ in the Psalms.

I said all that to say this: We greatly err when we do not see Christ as the focus of the Old Testament. If the story of Daniel serves only to teach our children in Sunday School to “dare to be a Daniel,” then we are in trouble. This is simply moralism or pietism: Law, not grace. If bravery is the moral of the story of David and Goliath, we are not better off than those without the Bible. The Old Testament becomes little more than a collection of fables, like Aesop’s, with a nice moral lesson attached. The great battles of the Old Testament, the marvelous adventures of the Patriarchs, the miraculous rescues of underdogs – these are not object lessons for us to teach our kids about kindness, bravery, cooperation, loyalty and friendship. They are shining examples of God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises. He preserved His elect people in the Old Testament in order to bring about the circumstances surrounding the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ and the salvation and preservation of His elect people in the New Testament.

Take the famine during the days of Jacob as exhibit A. Jacob and his family suffers from a famine. Meanwhile, Pharaoh in Egypt is prospering with the most abundant harvests he’s ever seen. Little does Jacob know that his son Joseph is in Egypt. Joseph has been passed off a dead by his jealous brothers. After having been sold as a slave and chastely resisting the seduction of his master’s wife, he is thrown in prison. God uses this to make Joseph a special favorite of Pharaoh. Was this merely a lesson on long-suffering for Jacob and/or Joseph? Not at all. These circumstances conspire to bring Jacob down to Egypt. Jacob dies, leaving his whole family there. All this make way for the future miracles of the glorious exodus which is a type of our spiritual deliverance wrought by Christ.

I hope everyone can see how much more profound this view of the Old Testament is than the view that turns all the stories into cute little object lessons.

Preaching On The Psalms 2

In the previous post I referred to goofy exegesis of the Psalms. Actually, I wouldn’t be so riled if the preaching were merely goofy. But all too often principles are asserted in the common hermeneutic that if closely examined, and carried to their logical conclusions, would destroy inspiration as we know it. This is nowhere more evident than in the exegesis of the Imprecatory Psalms.

For the uninitiated, the Imprecatory Psalms are those Psalms wherein people are cursed. Psalm 35 is a case in point. There are several songs in which David curses enemies. And then there are statements against enemies scattered throughout many of the other psalms, such as 139: 21, 22, which read: “Do not I hate them, O LORD that hate thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.”

Three proposed solutions to the ‘problem’ of the Imprecatory Psalms:

1. David is sinning. His sins are hatred, resentfulness, and vengeance. All God’s people are sinners, even the saints of the Old Testament. Christians are to love their enemies. Any statement of this kind is simply sinful.

This sentiment is clearly based upon the old “God hates the sin but loves the sinner” line. Is this true? Not at all. Before you rush to protest, let me ask: Is it the sin that God casts into Hell or the sinner? Look at these passages:

Psalm 5:4-6 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psalm11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Proverbs 6:16-19 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So it is clear that at some level God does indeed hate His enemies. Therefore this first solution is a red herring. As children of God we are to mirror His character, which includes His hatred of sin and the sinner. Scripture forbids bitterness, yes; but, this hatred of God’s which we are to reflect is neither vindictiveness nor self-centered resentfulness. It is a holy hatred of anything and anyone who opposes the righteous will of a holy God and is therefore His enemy. This may be confusing at times in practice, but it is nonetheless true.

2. The Old Testament period was one of Law, harshness and vengeance. But the New Testament era is one of grace, mercy, and forgiveness. So the hatred and vengeance David was expressing was perfectly acceptable in the Old Testament era. In the New Testament we follow the Law of Christ, but David the Law of Moses.

This is the approach of Dispensationalism because of its sharp discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. While we acknowledge some things discontinued, these are only those which God has revealed by precept or by necessary inference. There is a better priesthood, a better sacrifice, a redefined covenant people. But these are fuller expressions of the same Covenant of Grace. But when it comes to God’s moral character and the things He has professed hatred of, there can be no discontinuity or change. God is not a God who can change. What He hated in the Old Testament He still hates in the New Testament. In fact the New Testament expresses God’s hatred for sin more clearly than the Old, for He poured out His infinite wrath against sin on His own dear Son. The Sermon on the Mount is not a new Law contrasted with Old Testament ethics. It is an expression of what was intended by the Old Testament all along. Hence there is no discontinuity of ethics between the Old and New Testaments. Indeed, imprecations are not unique to the Old Testament. Peter curses Simon Magus in Acts 8:20. Paul imprecates the High Priest in Acts 23:3, Alexander the coppersmith in 2 Timothy 4:14, and preachers of a false gospel in Galatians 1. Furthermore, the greatest woes pronounced by anyone on anyone anywhere in Scripture are from the lips of Jesus Himself in Matthew 23.

Not only is this true, but the supposed New Testament ethics of forgiveness and mercy are taught in the Old Testament. In fact, many times the VERY WORDS use in New Testament are merely quotations from the Old! When Jesus summarizes part of the Law as loving your neighbor as yourself, He was not creating a new principle. He was quoting Leviticus 19:18. Exodus 23:4-5 give us case laws wherein kindness to enemies is demanded. The familiar “Vengeance is Mine,” is from Deuteronomy. The same David who wrote Psalm, also penned these words RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of an Imprecatory Psalm: False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not. They rewarded me evil for good to the spoiling of my soul. But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother. Psalm 35:11-14. And therefore, this second attempted solution fails.

3. The Liberals approach is unthinkable to any true Christian. They simply say that we have here a blatant contradiction in Scripture. This is such an abhorrent view that no Christian should give it the dignity of a response. It is a God-hating view developed by men who are God-haters. Period.

These are several ways in which these Psalms are handled. But not one of them is correct. The Reformed position, especial as it pertains to the doctrine of Inspiration, is the only way these texts can be treated correctly. If we wish to defend the traditional Reformed doctrine of Inspiration, then we must shun any interpretation which lets David, or the other authors of the Psalms, insert themselves into the text. Too often, much is made of David’s psychology and his emotions as revealed in the Psalms. While this may jump out at us in a shallow, surface reading of the text, it is incredibly dangerous to take this tack. To work, this approach would necessitate David’s having written a nasty song, fuming against his enemies, being vindictive and hateful. Yet we know from 139:23, 24 that this cannot be the case. It reads: “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” This approach assumes that God allowed David’s rotten sinful attitude to be inscripturated to teach us how not to act. This overlooks the rather obvious fact that the Imprecatory Psalms have no indications nor hints that there is anything wrong with what David has written. Furthermore, it almost requires assuming that David just wrote what he liked and then God, liking it, said, “Hey, that’s good. I think I’ll inspire it.” That, my friends is NOT inspiration. Allowing the text to be colored even in the slightest way by the author’s personal thoughts, feelings and character effectively destroys and denies the Reformed view of Inspiration.

As was said above, God clearly forbids vindictiveness and bitterness, but nonetheless, we must reconcile this with a faithful mirroring of His Divine character as His image-bearers; therefore, we too must hate what He hates. Furthermore, we must clarify that our hatred is precisely hatred because such are God’s enemies. We should never return evil for evil, nor refuse to extend forgiveness to one who repents. Notwithstanding, zeal for God’s glory should outweigh every other concern.

Admittedly, this is a difficult subject. And this is why, in my estimation, very few preachers expound the Psalms, and many of the few who do, do it poorly.

Preaching On The Psalms 1

At the beginning of his homily on Psalm 1, Hilary of Poitiers remarks that the most important thing to determine when reading the Psalms is: who’s talking.

It is no secret that many of the Psalms are Messianic; hence it is Christ who is speaking through the inspired prophetic utterance of David. Even when David is describing his own personal experience, the Psalm, though literally true of David, has a much fuller meaning and fulfillment in Christ. Psalm 22 is a prime example of this fact.

Often, when God speaks in the Psalms to David, it is clear that God is actually addressing Christ as David’s greater Son, and by addressing Christ in this way, God reiterates His covenant of grace to David as the representative king over God’s people. Psalm 89 is a case of this. Several verses can only apply to Christ as King over God’s people, while others clearly apply to David. In fact, verses 36-38 contrast Christ’s everlasting Kingdom with David’s which would come to an end.

It is also quote important to recognize the special status of the Psalms. They are not narrative: they are hymns. Indeed, the Psalms are the hymnal of the Old Testament Church (some would argue that they are the hymnal of the New Testament Church as well). As such, these Psalms were actually sung by God’s people. And because they were intended to be sung corporately, many of the Psalms are place in the mouth of Israel. In other words, it is Israel, God’s covenant people, who is speaking in some of the Psalms. See Psalm 130.

Considerations such as these go a long way, in my opinion to eradicating much of the subpar preaching that is done on the Psalms. Too often, the fact that someone besides David is the intended speaker in the Psalm is ignored, and therefore much goofy (for lack of a better word) preaching results.

Thoughts on Hosea 8:12

I have written to him the great things of My Law, but they were counted as a strange thing.

Hosea 8:12

A series of sermons could easily be written on this passage, but today I merely want to make a couple of observations.

First, the audience of God’s Law. In other words: To whom is God’s Law addressed? For whom was the Bible written? This is a question of great importance, but one that is seldom considered. Let me just state the truth here and then explain why it is so. The Bible was written to God’s people and to them alone. In our passage, God says that He had written His law to Ephraim. God’s Law was not written for the Amorites, the Hittites or the Philistines. It was written only for God’s chosen people.

The Bible is not addressed to unbelievers. They cannot understand its message because it is “spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). It is to them the odor of death. When an unbeliever reads the Bible it is like reading a stranger’s mail. Although you may understand every word on the page, you will never understand the meaning of the letter because you do not know the author, nor do you know the nature of the subjects it treats. As long as a man is “devoid of the Spirit” (Jude 19), the Bible will be “foolishness unto him” (1 Cor. 2:14). This is, no doubt, the explanation behind many of the strange teachings that drift around in the Church. The Bible has been read and preached by unconverted men.

And incidentally, I would argue that this is why many of the modern Bible translations are unacceptable. Many of the modern translations are based on a philosophy that believes the Bible is God’s “gift to mankind.” I object! Speaking of the Old Testament, Paul says in Romans 3 that the Jews were entrusted with oracles of God. The Scriptures were not for the Amalekites or Jebusites. The salutations to the Apostolic Epistles exclusively limit their audience to “saints,” or, “elect.” And we are committing a grave offense when we try to interpret, or rather, translate Scripture in language that is understandable or acceptable to the worldly, carnal, unregenerate mass of fallen humanity. The world in which we live is overrun with a Hegelian relativism that denies the existence of absolutes, especially moral absolutes. How in the world can we translate the Scriptures, which emphatically assert that homosexuals have their part in the Lake of Fire, that sex before – or outside of - marriage is sin, that Papists, Mormons, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus – in short, that all idolaters will perish in an eternal Hell – How, I say, can we render the Scriptures in a way that is inoffensive to these people. The Bible is not ‘politically correct.’

My second observation is regarding how God’s Word is often treated. “Counted as a strange thing.” This refers to the treatment the Bible often receives – not at the hands of infidels, mind you, but at the hand of professing believers.

The Bible is often outright ignored. Charles Spurgeon once commented that there is enough dust settled on many people’s Bible that you could write the word “Damnation” in it with your finger. It’s a sad fact that many of us are more familiar with TV and movie celebrities, with sports stars and singers than we are with Bible characters. What excuse do we have for such behavior? And what could we possibly present to God on Judgment Day as a justification for such neglect of His Word?

Secondly, the Bible is often mishandled. There are more foolish, ignorant statements made in Sunday sermons every week than there are grains of sand on the seashore. I have heard pastors preach contradictory messages two consecutive Sundays. When I hear the idiocy spewed forth by the likes of Benny Hinn, Rodney Howard-Browne, Kenneth Hagin, Morris Cerrulo, Kenneth Copeland, Robert Schuller, etc… I am amazed that God does not rend the heavens and stop them mid-sentence to put an end to their enormities! But one day, He will; rest assured: one day He will. “You are judging,” someone will say. CORRECT! I am told to judge. John 7:24, Jesus says, “Judge righteous judgment.” The holy Word of God is not a plaything to be toyed with by ignorant, arrogant men.

Lastly, as our verse says, the Bible is treated as a “strange” thing. The word “strange” in the King James means “foreign.” One does not need to watch modern Christendom for very long to see that the Bible is foreign to it. How often does someone actually “turn the other cheek?” How often are we encouraged to let unbelievers mistreat us? When was the last time we heard a sermon on lending and not asking for the payment in return? There are myriads of Bible principles that are slighted, ignored and downright rejected as impractical because we have not “renewed our minds” and we are striving to live the Christian life according to the dictates of worldly wisdom and secular philosophy. This is why Christians today indulge in behavior that unbelievers of 100 years ago would never have dreamt of engaging in. It is no secret that the Church is worldly. Nearly a half century ago, A.W. Tozer wrote, “Christianity is so entangled with the world that millions never guess how radically they have missed the New Testament pattern. Compromise is everywhere. The world is white-washed just enough to pass inspection by blind men posing as believers.”

Every month, all over the world there are Christian conferences held on every subject imaginable – except the Bible! The Bible is treated as a strange thing. With all due respect to Rick Warren, why is it that millions of congregations joined in the “40 Days of Purpose” program, but never a “40 Days of Exodus 20,” or even “2 Days of Matthew 5-7?” The Bible is quoted and read out of a sense of obligation or tradition, but it really is foreign to most of us.

Are You Ready For Some Revelation? (Part 4)

Having dealt with Benny Hinn’s ridiculous hermeneutics and his refusal to submit his teaching to the Analogy of Faith, I wish to now show an example or more of his absolute ignorance of church history as it relates to doctrine. Specifically, I want to show how Hinn and heretics like him frequently appeal to authors with whom they have nothing in common, as a way of lending an air of respectability to their teaching. This ploy only works with people who are equally ignorant of Church History.

I remember reading a ministry handbook by a Pentecostal who claimed that Augustine and Calvin spoke in tongues! The average person sitting in his audience or reading his book is likely to be completely unaware that a statement such as that is a lie – a bold-faced lie.

So here’s what Hinn says, “Now the Lord said to Nicodemus, ‘As Moses lifted up the serpent, so shall the Son of Man be lifted up.’ You know, that verse…years ago used to bother me… I thought, ‘Why the Lord comparing Himself to a snake?’ Well – I – someone put in my hand a book by Martin Luther, the great reformer. And I’m riding on a bus…reading this book called Justification by Faith by Martin Luther. … In this book he says, ‘There is a verse in the Bible that used to bother me.’ I was so amazed, I spoke out and said, ‘You too?’ [At which point the audience erupts in laughter.] God used this book to give me an incredible truth. Martin Luther says in his book, he says, ‘The Holy Spirit showed me what Jesus meant in this….”

I won’t finish the quote, since it is long and the remainder of it doesn’t matter to demonstrate what we need to see. Suffice it to say (A) Luther never wrote a book called Justification by Faith. (B) Luther never taught the spiritual death of Jesus. (C) Luther never claimed direct revelation from the Holy Spirit for any of his teachings. Luther vilified the Pope for making such claims!

Luther’s words are exactly the opposite, actually. He writes, “He is not a serpent; He is the lamb of God… Christ is not a serpent, a vile worm, a dragon or a demoniac as His slanderers claim. …Let them perish!” Luther’s Works 22:341-344

Now what are we to think of a man who cites authors who would curse him to his face under the pretext of doctrinal agreement?

Are You Ready For Some Revelation? (Part3)

In our first two posts, we looked at the Gnostic behavior of Benny Hinn with regard to interpreting Scripture and his appeal to direct divine revelation as the source of his teachings. Finally, we will look at his appeal to Novelty.

(3) Hinn’s hermeneutics are driven by an obsession with Novelty.

In one lecture, Hinn has God teaching Adam the Prosperity “Gospel” at the beginning of creation. Hinn declares, “Because the Bible declares, ‘In that garden was gold, the most precious gold found on the planet.’… Do you think God put it there just to tell Adam, ‘Here it is, just look at it and enjoy it?’ No, no, no. God put it there to let him know that He’s the God of abundance. Our God is not a poor God. He’s the God of abundance, saints.” (TBN’s Praise-a-thon April 1994)

Surely this interpretation is unique to Hinn.

Actually, nearly everything Hinn teaches is novel in this sense. While the spiritual death of Jesus is merely retreaded E.W. Kenyon heresy, much of Hinn’s teaching is unique to himself. Surely this is cause for alarm.

When one looks back over the centuries and finds no one who has held your views, this is noteworthy. No reputable Christian theologian ever taught that Adam could fly. I can’t imagine how brutally Hinn would have been castigated by Basil and the two Gregories for his tri-trinity of nine Persons in the Trinity! Athanasius would surely inveigh against him for his corrupt and degenerate views on the nature of Christ.

The Reformers always strove to show that their doctrine was consonant with the Church’s best teaching. They knew that innovation was another word for heresy. “Ours is the ancient tradition,” they said. “The innovations were introduced in the Middle Ages!” They issued anthologies of the Fathers to show the Fathers had taught what they were teaching.

Benny Hinn, on the other hand, boasts of innovation and novelty. “Well, let me tell ya – we’re not here to tell ya things you’ve heard for the last fifty years.” Again he says, “Please, please, please don’t think OCC is here to repeat something you’ve heard for the last fifty years…if we quit giving you new revelations we’re dead.”

Innovation is another word for heresy. The canon of Scripture is closed. Benny Hinn talks out of both sides of his mouth when he professes belief in the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture and then proceeds to brush Scripture under the carpet in favor of some “new revelation.” That is was in layman’s terms is called a lie. And we who the father of lies is!

Are You Ready For Some Revelation? (Part 2)

In the previous post, we examined Benny Hinn’s claim to some sort of Gnostic secret insider knowledge. He seems to assume that because he has lived in Israel, this somehow makes him, by osmosis, an expert on the biblical world. He boldly asserts familiarity with Hebrew. And flat-out claims knowledge that is beyond the grasp of Westerners.

The second trait of Hinn’s convoluted hermeneutics is his constant appeal to direct revelation from God, or a Divine origin for his teachings. We will now examine this.

(2) Divine origins of his teachings.

Commenting on the story of the blind man in John 9, Hinn claims that Jesus created new eyes for this man. “Where did he get such a farfetched idea?” you ask. “And the Holy Spirit gave me a marvelous answer.”

Trying to narrow down to few the claims of divine inspiration Hinn had made over the course of his career is impossible. This man has received more direct revelations from God than you can shake a stick at. “The Lord spoke so clearly to me… here’s what God said.” “And God really gave me a revelation that night.”

Hinn has taught the abominable word-faith message, the heretical spiritual death of Jesus message, the blasphemous 9-person tri-trinity and a host of other hell-spawned doctrines. He could perhaps be forgiven if he had simply taught these things as a result of ignorance and bad mentors within the Charismatic community. But, evil as that is, this is simply not the case with Hinn. He has appealed over and over to direct revelation from God. Revelations from God are the supposed source of his heretical and blasphemous teachings. So it is not enough to say, “I’m sorry.” Hinn cannot plead ignorance or lack of formal education, immaturity or bad ministerial training. He taught heresy all the while claiming that these doctrines were directly revealed to him by God. We don’t stone false prophets nowadays, but their sin is no less serious.

As a result of Hinn’s divine inspiration, he has taught that women originally gave birth out of their sides, that Adam could fly and breathe under water, that Adam was capable of interplanetary travel, that God has a physical body, and that the communion elements at the Lord’s Table actually turn into the true flesh and blood of Jesus.

Are You Ready For Some Revelation? (Part 1)

The way a person handles the Scriptures tells us a lot about their view and opinion of the Bible, himself, and his audience. Case in point: Benny Hinn and his bizarre hermeneutics.

Usually, the authority of the interpreter of Scripture is established by his training, his ecclesiastical investiture and proven accuracy over time. In other words, he’s gone to seminary, been ordained, and his track record has been accurate. Benny Hinn possesses none of these, so he relies on other things, namely (1) Insider’s knowledge, (2) Divine origins of his teachings, and (3) Novelty.

We will look at each.

(1). Insider’s knowledge. This is what has historically been called Gnosticism. It is the claim to some secret knowledge that only the initiated are attune to. In many of his writings, Hinn has stratified Christians into four levels, the fourth being those, who like him, have the “anointing.” Worse than that though, he appeals to his Middle Eastern heritage as if it somehow, by osmosis, gave him inside knowledge of the biblical world that is unavailable to us poor Westerners.

Here are his own words referring to Malachi 3:10: “Listen! Every time you give, God promises revival. ‘Windows of heaven’ deal with revival. And believe me when I tell you, I am an Israelite, from Israel, and I can read this thing in Hebrew and tell ya. And I know the culture and the tradition and the mentality… He says, ‘And ye shall be a delightsome land.’ And the word ‘delightsome,’ I looked it up – remember I am from that part of the world. The word ‘delightsome’ means in Hebrew ‘highly desired.’ 1990 Praise-a-thon.

So much could be said in response to this short excerpt, but notice these few things: First, he is NOT an Israelite. Hinn is an Arab. That has been firmly established by dozens of investigations into his past. He is not Jewish. Secondly, if he knows Hebrew so well, why does he have to, as he says, “look it up?” Thirdly, there is no Scriptural evidence that the word ‘windows’ always means ‘revival.’ Usually it means the same thing we mean when we say ‘window.’

In his sermon, “Who is this Jesus,” from March of 1994, he again asserts, “I am an Israelite. I know something that most Westerners don’t know.”

Here is where the accusation of Gnosticism I made earlier rears its ugly head. Since when is knowledge of Scripture dependant on where one was born? Never mind the fact that Hinn is a liar. He isn’t an Israelite. Besides, the Jews of Jesus’ day were both Israelites and true Jews. They spoke, read and understood the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet when the Messiah their Scriptures had foretold came, they failed to recognize Him.

Without fail, whenever Hinn appeals to his imaginary Jewish roots, his interpretation of the passage is always out in left field. His insider’s knowledge never leads him to a correct exegesis of the passage he boasts of understanding.

Perspicuity Doesn't Mean You're Qualified To Teach

One of the keystones of the Reformation is the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, which means the "understandableness" of Scripture, or clarity. This is not something that is imposed upon the text, rather something taught by it. For example, Deuteronomy 30:11-14 says, "For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it."

Again Scripture says of itself, "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether." (Psalm 19:7-9)

And "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." "The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple." (Psalm 119:105,130)

Paul asserts that same regarding his letters: "For we are not writing to you anything other than what you read and acknowledge and I hope you will fully acknowledge--just as you did partially acknowledge us, that on the day of our Lord Jesus you will boast of us as we will boast of you." (2 Corinthians 1:13-14)

"All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained." (Philippians 3:15-16)

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

Peter echoes these thoughts on the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture -

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire." (2 Peter 1:3-4)

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,' we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:16-21)

What I wish to hasten to add though, is this: Just because Scripture is clear, and intended by God to be clear, that does not necessarily qualify everyone to pontificate upon its meaning. Many people have taken the idea of perspicuity to make themselves the supreme authority on the meaning of Scripture, claiming revelation from the Holy Spirit to authenticate an interpretation not necessarily validated by the Church as a whole.

Timothy was exhorted, in the famous words of 2 Timothy 2:15, to "study." The Apostles left of serving tables so that they could devote themselves to the study of Scripture. Ergo, just because Scipture is clear, one still needs to study it and interpret it properly.

If you don't know what the word "theopneustic" means, then don't argue about the inspiration of Scripture. You don't know what you're talking about. If you aren't familiar with the terms, ousia and hypostasis, then don't get involved in debates about Trinitarian theology. You aren't qualified. Just because you've read the Bible, that doesn't qualify you to teach it.

I want my doctor to have the appropriate degrees, and good grades at that, from an accredited medical school before he treats my ailing body. It seems like unspeakable chutzpah on my part to try and treat ailing souls without having been trained in proper hermeneutics.

Covenantal and Christocentric Hermeneutic

When I was teaching at a seminary in the Philippines, I had a discussion with one of my fellow teachers about hermeneutics. This, of course, was one of the subjects that was to be taught to our students.There was some debate, apparently, among some of the staff regarding the proper interpretive system or format to teach.

Several books were brought in as possible candidates for curriculum. One suggested Presbyterian theology, another generic evangelical, another Baptist theology, yet another Pentecostal theology (which I consider to be an oxymoron, like square triangles or honest liars).

I remarked that we were approaching the subject the wrong way. We were acting as if God dropped the Bible down out of heaven without giving us the slightest clue or hint as to how it is to be understood. Not only is this an insult to God's intelligence, it is Papist in its core.

Scripture gives us an interpretive framework by which to understand it. This framework is called covenant. The Bible is divided into two segments: Old and New Testaments. Testament is another word for "covenant." And all of God's covenant promises to His people from Adam to Abraham to Moses to David are centered on and fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore Christ is the key to understanding Scripture. If we aren't interpretting Scripture on the grounds of redemptive history through the framework of God's covenant of grace with us in Christ, then we are mishandling Scripture.

Now to demonstrate that I am not imposing something on the text, I wish to show how Scripture teaches us to understand it this way, both in actual commands and by the interpretive examples of men of God in Scripture itself.

When John the Baptist was born, his father saw this as the beginning of the fulfillment of the covenant promises made to Abraham and David: "And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware to our father Abraham," Luke 1:67-73 (KJV). In short, Zacharias interpretted the Old Testament in a covanental and Christocentric way.

After Jesus' resurrection, we told His disciples that He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Moreover, He included the Psalms - not just the prophetic portions of Scripture that we naturally associate with Christ.

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself ... And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Luke 24:25-27, 44-46 (KJV)

 

Most explicit perhaps is John 5:39. Christ affirms that all Scripture testifies to Him. He is the key to understand Scripture. He is the Lamb God promised to Abraham; He is the fulfillment of all the covenant promises in the Old Testament. Matthew, in his Gospel, uses the formula, "This happened to fulfill what was written," twelve times. And he cites more than 50 Old Testament passages in his narrative of Chris's life.

 

To get back to my original point: Scripture itself tells us how we are to undestand and interpret it. We must be covenantal, for covenant is the internal framework of Scripture. Christ is the fulfillment of the covenant promises, therefore, we must be Christocentric. Scripture gives us the unfolding narrative of God's covenantal redemptive purposes, so we must always keep the redemptive history in the foreground. If we go any other way, like the common moralistic interpretations that we encounter so frequently, we evacuate the Gospel of all its power and reduce Scripture to little more than a moral code equal to the code of Hammurabi.

Doctrine Precedes Application

One of the trademarks of sloppy work as a preacher is the mad dash to application before the doctrine of the passage has been discussed.

It is not uncommon to hear a sermon that is nothing but moral application with no theology at all. Those familiar with theological jargon will recognize the terms doctrinal theology and practical theology. The terms are self-explanatory. The thing a minister must always keep in mind is that the practical theology rests upon the doctrinal theology and not the other way around. Nor can one discard the doctrinal theology and just go for the practical application.

Scripture presents a model in the balance seen in the New Testament Epistles. Most of the Epistles can be split right down the middle. The first half is pure doctrine; the second half is the practical application of this doctrine.

This is why it is ignorant for a preacher to jump right into a sermon on Romans 12:1-2 without having established the same theological groundwork Paul did in his Epistle. Paul spent 11 chapters delineating some complex theological truths before he started Chapter 12. After all, the first work of the chapter is, "Therefore."

Moreover, many times the application that Scripture presents based on the doctrines established is not so much a list of rules, but rather the natural results in a believer's life once he has understood this or that doctrine.

Without this preparatory work, sermons end up becoming lessons in pietistic legalism - Wesleyan perfectionism of the worst kind. The order is "justification by faith," not "justification by sanctification." Christians will generally agree that we are saved by grace (what they mean by this formula is another story, perhaps), but many get tripped up on whether salvation is maintained by grace as well. In other words: Can grace save a Christian?

Much of this shoddy theological work has its roots in Wesleyanism and has passed on to the rest of the Christian world through movements such as the Keswick Movement (aka - Higher Life). The results have been thousands of Christians who feel absolutely defeated and hopeless. They are fed a steady stream of do's and don'ts and are disillusioned when they find it isn't as easy as all that. We are Christians, first and foremost, because of what we believe. A person who does not adhere to the primary doctrines of the Christian faith is no Christian at all. Without the proper doctrinal framework, all the Christian conduct in the world means nothing.

The Exegetical Challenges of Preaching From the Psalms

If you haven’t listened to the latest White Horse Inn broadcast, I recommend that you do. It is entitled, “How Not to Interpret the Bible.” The basic gist of the discussion boils down to the redemptive historical hermeneutic. Essential the guys show the flaws in any other way of interpreting Scripture.

This is true for the historical narratives, but especially for the Psalms. The proper meaning or application of each Psalm hinges upon its place in redemptive history. If one ignores this or does not take it into account, all sorts of confusion will ensue.

Think for a moment of the Messianic Psalms or the Imprecatory Psalms. The important principle to remember when interpreting any portion of Scripture is its relation to Christ. I have always liked Augustine’s writings on the Psalms for this reason. Sometimes he seems to be straining the text to see Christ in it, but surely it is better to err that way than to not use Christ as the interpretive key.

This presents a challenge for the preacher. First of all, it requires much more work on his part. The congregation has to be made biblically literate. How can the preacher expound a passage’s place in redemptive history if the whole congregation is virtually ignorant of the over-arching narrative of Scripture? Using the Psalms to analyze David psychologically – to get inside his head – as he wrote his various songs is to horrendously mistreat Scripture. The characters of Scripture are not our examples of Christian character. Christ and Christ alone is the model. Abraham lied about his wife, as did Isaac. David spied on the neighbor lady while she was in the shower, slept with her and then killed her husband. Judah – well let’s not go there… Christ alone was perfectly obedient to God’s law and only His finished work on the cross savingly applied to the believer by the Spirit effectively changes a person’s life.

Trying to find lessons on friendship, loyalty and courage from Israel’s history is to miss the point entirely of the Old Testament. Culling every passage for some moral application denies the Spirit’s ability to powerfully impact the hearer with the meaning and implications of the passage being studied, plus it turns Scripture into little more than a manual for behavior – slightly more spiritual than Emily Post.

Not EVERY Promise In The Book Is Mine.

One of the hermeneutical principles of the Reformers was the idea that we are not warranted to universalize Biblical promises without clear revelation to do so.

This is why Reformed theology has always insisted that Jesus’ promise in John 16:13 was specifically for the Apostles as a promise regarding their writing of the New Testament. (1) When one looks at the context, it is very clear that these statements were made specifically for the Apostles.

I could appeal to the general experience of the Church throughout history to back this up. Who else in the two millennia since Christ’s ascension has been able to claim perfect doctrinal accuracy and total recall of Jesus’ teaching? No one but the Apostles can claim this, and they can only claim it in regard to the canonicity of their theopneustic writings.

A more general example is the common appeal to Romans 8:28. We are gravely mistaken when we apply this verse willy-nilly as if everything will always work out fine for everyone. This promise is given specifically for the elect: those called according to God’s purpose. No one else has any business claiming this promise.

Another example is when people try to apply the Old Testament historical narratives to their own personal situations. We’ve all heard the goofy applications: We all have our own personal Goliaths to slay, etc. Pulling those stories out of their redemptive history evacuates them of all their true meaning. Understanding Scripture in any other way than in its redemptive history is to misinterpret it. The stories of Saul, David, Samson, Gideon and Joshua are not given so that we can follow their examples. Christ is our example. Christ is not one among many good characters. He is the only one that matters. All of the Old Testament narratives lead up to Him.

That is why it is wrong for people to try to get guidance from God via a “Gideon’s fleece” experiment. Scripture nowhere tells us that this is how we are to seek the Lord’s guidance. I have know many people who have devised some sort of “Gideon’s fleece” to seek answers to their questions, but I have never known anyone to actually put out a real fleece and test it with dew! Now if they were really sticklers about following Scripture, that’s what they’d have to do.

The story of Gideon shows us how God preserves His covenant people, for His own sake, despite their backslidings, in order to fulfill His ultimate purposes in Christ. Joshua teaches us this same message – not that we are to march around our problems seven times, or some other equally idiotic thing.

The story of Samson is not about how we can make Nazarite vows or grow our hair. It is about God's sovereignty and control over the plight of His covenant people even when their leader are reprobates. Samson was a very sinful man. Whether or not he was a true believer is perhaps debatable, but God overruled his lousy character for His own divine purposes.

(1) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.