There are verses that look like they have double or multiple applications, but more careful exegesis shows a Christological (fulfilment in Christ and the gospel) intention. For example, Matthew quoted Jer 31:15 in regard to the massacre of children by Herod, “The voice was heard in Ramah, Rachel weeping for her children.” (Matt 2:17-18).
Ramah was close to Bethlehem. Some have said this text was about the captivity to Babylon, for Ramah was the depot from which the exiles of Judah were taken away to Babylon (Jer 40:1). This application would mean that those children would be returned from exile and so Rachel should not weep, so applying it also to Jesus’ time would be a double application. It could also be applied to our day in another return of the Jews, if we liked.
Viewing texts this way allows multiple applications, or Post Modern interpretations, the blain of Dispensational hermeneutics. That is, the text is said to be fulfilled in our own last-days generation. While the principles of scripture relate to every generation, the intended historical fulfilment of them does not.
While Jeremiah is speaking at length about the return of Israel from Babylon, he shows that the purpose of the return is their real deliverance from sin, through the New Covenant. It is this New Covenant return to God that Jeremiah is addressing in Jer 31:15-19, not from the Babylonian captivity. Matthew rightly therefore applies this passage to the birth of Jesus Christ and redemption from their enemy (and our enemy), sin. The passage further states:
Turn me and I shall be turned; for You are the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented…(Jer 31:18-19).
This word translated turn refers to changing of the heart (Ps 80:19, Lam 5:21). Israel did not repent after their return from Babylon, but soon went back into sin. This was a prayer that was answered in the New Covenant. It also shows that it is God who must turn our heart and that repentance and faith follow this regeneration or new birth.
We also know that Jeremiah was not referring to the children taken in captivity for they were not killed, as those under Herod in Jesus’ time were. Jeremiah said they were not, which Matthew said meant they were killed. In that Jeremiah said they would be returned, he meant deliverance would come to the seed of Rachel (the children of faith) through Jesus Christ. This is Jeremiah’s intended Messianic meaning.
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Friday, 13 August 2010
The First Apostles
In the New Testament, the apostles referred to Old Testament scriptures without changing the original meaning of them. Matthew referred to Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophecy without spiritualising the passages. In Is 7:14, Isaiah refers to the virgin birth of the Messiah.
While Isaiah 7 made reference to Isaiah’s time, the Holy Spirit inserted a prophecy that referred only to Christ. Some say the prophecy was first fulfilled in Isaiah’s time by a woman who was a virgin when Isaiah prophesied and later married and had a child. In that case the birth would not have been an unusual sign.
The Hebrew word used in Is 7:14 translated “virgin” always means “virgin” and never just a young woman. The prophecy was not to king Ahaz in Isaiah’s time, but to “the House of David”. Calvin, Gill, Henry, Clarke and scholars from every era claim that Is 7:14 was purely messianic.
This calls into question a principle of interpretation called “double fulfilment”. This principle claims that one verse can be fulfilled two, or even more, times. This brings into question the whole process of hermeneutics. If we can interpret a text in some way, unknown to the author or unauthorised by the Holy Spirit in the original context, then we can apply almost any imagination to almost any passage.
Getting back to Is 7:14, if the prophecy about the virgin birth was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day, then what authentic basis does Matthew have for applying it again to Jesus? The Jews would easily have denied its application to Jesus as an afterthought. Jesus would have been seen as a normal man with a messianic complex, looking for some backing in the religious writings of the day.
The Jews of Jesus’ time did know that verses like Is 7:14 had a singular messianic purpose, but later denied this when they refused to accept Jesus. The point is that a verse in Isaiah could not mean to Matthew afterward what it did not mean when Isaiah wrote it. Isaiah did not have a full understanding when he wrote about Christ, but he did know that the Holy Spirit was referring to Christ when he wrote and not to his own time.
To whom it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to us they did minister the things, which are now reported to you by them that have preached the gospel to you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. (1 Pet 1:12).
Claiming that Old Testament prophecies have a double meaning weakens their power in referring to Jesus Christ. Accepting the principle of double fulfilment means that we interpret scripture subjectively rather than by its original intention. We know Is 7:14 was speaking about Christ, because the Holy Spirit said so in Is 9:6-7 and all the way through the book of Isaiah. We can only interpret a text the way the Holy Spirit intended us to in the original context of the passage.
Peter said, when referring to certain aspects of the Psalms, that they were fulfilled by Christ alone and not also by David. Peter specifically denied a double reference in order that the Jews could not escape the conclusion that the text spoke of Christ alone and was fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth. Peter specifically denied a double reference to prophecy. Peter said that:
1. David knew he was not speaking of himself.
2. That the texts were not fulfilled by David in his own time.
3. That David knew he was speaking of Christ, who was to come.
Men and brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried and his sepulchre is with us to this day. Therefore being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. (Acts 2:29-32).
In this passage we see Peter’s hermeneutics. The Jews who listened to Peter would have surely mocked at any loose exegesis, or double fulfilment. The church of Christ is not built on such flimsy hermeneutics. Peter said that the prophets knew that some sections of their work were speaking of Christ and not of their own time.
So how do we read the Bible? We do not read it “devotionally”, which is bringing personal or private meanings to the text. We read it contextually or exegetically. Do we apply the text to our lives in a devotional way? Yes absolutely! Devotional means loving God and living His way by His Spirit.
But application is the second step. Interpretation is the first step. Passages in the Bible must be interpreted exegetically. Meaning must always be what comes out of the passage, never what we bring into the passage through preconceived ideas or subjective persuasions. This is just common sense. A text means what it says, not something else.
Once we admit to a principle of double reference we apply it in all manner of cases, whenever it suits our purposes. We call it looking for the spiritual or deeper meaning of a text, which is not intended by the original draft. Spiritualisation of texts is a major weakness of devotional and some Pentecostal approaches to study and preaching.
While Isaiah 7 made reference to Isaiah’s time, the Holy Spirit inserted a prophecy that referred only to Christ. Some say the prophecy was first fulfilled in Isaiah’s time by a woman who was a virgin when Isaiah prophesied and later married and had a child. In that case the birth would not have been an unusual sign.
The Hebrew word used in Is 7:14 translated “virgin” always means “virgin” and never just a young woman. The prophecy was not to king Ahaz in Isaiah’s time, but to “the House of David”. Calvin, Gill, Henry, Clarke and scholars from every era claim that Is 7:14 was purely messianic.
This calls into question a principle of interpretation called “double fulfilment”. This principle claims that one verse can be fulfilled two, or even more, times. This brings into question the whole process of hermeneutics. If we can interpret a text in some way, unknown to the author or unauthorised by the Holy Spirit in the original context, then we can apply almost any imagination to almost any passage.
Getting back to Is 7:14, if the prophecy about the virgin birth was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day, then what authentic basis does Matthew have for applying it again to Jesus? The Jews would easily have denied its application to Jesus as an afterthought. Jesus would have been seen as a normal man with a messianic complex, looking for some backing in the religious writings of the day.
The Jews of Jesus’ time did know that verses like Is 7:14 had a singular messianic purpose, but later denied this when they refused to accept Jesus. The point is that a verse in Isaiah could not mean to Matthew afterward what it did not mean when Isaiah wrote it. Isaiah did not have a full understanding when he wrote about Christ, but he did know that the Holy Spirit was referring to Christ when he wrote and not to his own time.
To whom it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to us they did minister the things, which are now reported to you by them that have preached the gospel to you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. (1 Pet 1:12).
Claiming that Old Testament prophecies have a double meaning weakens their power in referring to Jesus Christ. Accepting the principle of double fulfilment means that we interpret scripture subjectively rather than by its original intention. We know Is 7:14 was speaking about Christ, because the Holy Spirit said so in Is 9:6-7 and all the way through the book of Isaiah. We can only interpret a text the way the Holy Spirit intended us to in the original context of the passage.
Peter said, when referring to certain aspects of the Psalms, that they were fulfilled by Christ alone and not also by David. Peter specifically denied a double reference in order that the Jews could not escape the conclusion that the text spoke of Christ alone and was fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth. Peter specifically denied a double reference to prophecy. Peter said that:
1. David knew he was not speaking of himself.
2. That the texts were not fulfilled by David in his own time.
3. That David knew he was speaking of Christ, who was to come.
Men and brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried and his sepulchre is with us to this day. Therefore being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. (Acts 2:29-32).
In this passage we see Peter’s hermeneutics. The Jews who listened to Peter would have surely mocked at any loose exegesis, or double fulfilment. The church of Christ is not built on such flimsy hermeneutics. Peter said that the prophets knew that some sections of their work were speaking of Christ and not of their own time.
So how do we read the Bible? We do not read it “devotionally”, which is bringing personal or private meanings to the text. We read it contextually or exegetically. Do we apply the text to our lives in a devotional way? Yes absolutely! Devotional means loving God and living His way by His Spirit.
But application is the second step. Interpretation is the first step. Passages in the Bible must be interpreted exegetically. Meaning must always be what comes out of the passage, never what we bring into the passage through preconceived ideas or subjective persuasions. This is just common sense. A text means what it says, not something else.
Once we admit to a principle of double reference we apply it in all manner of cases, whenever it suits our purposes. We call it looking for the spiritual or deeper meaning of a text, which is not intended by the original draft. Spiritualisation of texts is a major weakness of devotional and some Pentecostal approaches to study and preaching.
Thursday, 12 August 2010
Pietism
In the century following the Reformation some scholars became cold and ungodly and were not born again. A movement called Pietism arose to correct this, emphasising the new birth and personal faith in the Lord Jesus. Some in the movement went too far, playing down the need for rigorous learning of the scripture. Catechisms began to be shunned, as well as careful teaching of scripture to children.
Catechisms are a formal presentation of the main doctrines of the word of God, which are useful in class studies. Pietism led to the possibility of “faith” being overly subjective, based on personal views and feelings rather than knowledge of the word of God. Pietism also emphasised holiness through personal devotion, like the Catholics before the Reformation. A form of Pietism came into modern Christianity.
Part of the heritage this has bequeathed us is that righteousness is often seen in terms of what we do not do. That is, the righteous do not dance, do not go to movies, do not drink, do not play cards, do not smoke, do not swear, do not...Jesus certainly did not live like this (Matt 11:19). This is the self-righteousness of the Pharisees.
This causes us to draw away from society, universities, media, arts and politics, rather than occupying in it. This results in a decline of godliness in our societies, when the church that should be salt, light and leaven instead has no voice except to itself. It has also misled people as to salvation. True righteousness is based on the renewing of the nature by the Holy Spirit, not on rules.
These tendencies in Pietism have influenced hermeneutics, sometimes emphasising the devotional, personal interpretation and playing down more rigorous approaches to Bible study as less spiritual. Pietism has bestowed many benefits upon Christianity, including Spirit filled ministers of the gospel and missionaries around the world. It has awoken many from formalism, but it can also stray into legalism.
“Devotionalism” is existentialism, in so far as it substitutes personal or subjective “truth” for objective truth, rational logical reason and justice. What we feel becomes more important than what is the reality. In a Post Modern world, reality is shifted to a mystical centre. It means “reality” is whatever we define it to be.
Catechisms are a formal presentation of the main doctrines of the word of God, which are useful in class studies. Pietism led to the possibility of “faith” being overly subjective, based on personal views and feelings rather than knowledge of the word of God. Pietism also emphasised holiness through personal devotion, like the Catholics before the Reformation. A form of Pietism came into modern Christianity.
Part of the heritage this has bequeathed us is that righteousness is often seen in terms of what we do not do. That is, the righteous do not dance, do not go to movies, do not drink, do not play cards, do not smoke, do not swear, do not...Jesus certainly did not live like this (Matt 11:19). This is the self-righteousness of the Pharisees.
This causes us to draw away from society, universities, media, arts and politics, rather than occupying in it. This results in a decline of godliness in our societies, when the church that should be salt, light and leaven instead has no voice except to itself. It has also misled people as to salvation. True righteousness is based on the renewing of the nature by the Holy Spirit, not on rules.
These tendencies in Pietism have influenced hermeneutics, sometimes emphasising the devotional, personal interpretation and playing down more rigorous approaches to Bible study as less spiritual. Pietism has bestowed many benefits upon Christianity, including Spirit filled ministers of the gospel and missionaries around the world. It has awoken many from formalism, but it can also stray into legalism.
“Devotionalism” is existentialism, in so far as it substitutes personal or subjective “truth” for objective truth, rational logical reason and justice. What we feel becomes more important than what is the reality. In a Post Modern world, reality is shifted to a mystical centre. It means “reality” is whatever we define it to be.
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
Devotional/Scholarly
Shallow devotional studies can present a problem, but in recent times people have shied away from scholarly studies because many in the scholastic field were liberal scholars who did not believe in miracles and did not believe that the scripture is the word of God. Liberal scholarship is wrong.
But scholarly studies are required to interpret the scripture. Scholarly studies are studies that reveal and open up the context of scripture. Such studies include literary (grammatical) studies, Hebrew or Greek cultural studies, historical background, Hebrew or Greek language studies and theological studies, which all focus on unearthing the original meaning of the text. This is valuable study if we want to know the Bible.
“Devotional studies” tend to take a short cut form and interpret scripture subjectively. The excuse is that it is the Holy Spirit who reveals the truth. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth through the Biblical context, not apart from the biblical context. Scripture interprets itself by its context. This is what exegesis means.
Exegesis comes from the Greek word meaning “out of”. We see exit signs in buildings, which show the way out of the building. Exit comes from the same Greek word. In interpretation this means that we seek to bring the meaning out of the text itself, by considering all aspects of the text’s own context. This means that we derive the meaning from the text, rather than import our own preconceived meaning into the text.
Some may preach by taking their inspiration (meaning) from psychology, culture or from motivational or business principles and then import these ideas into various passages of the Bible, reinterpreting those passages. This process always misinterprets the Bible, but some people may not realise it so long as the Bible is at least used to speak from. A great deal of preaching is like this.
But scholarly studies are required to interpret the scripture. Scholarly studies are studies that reveal and open up the context of scripture. Such studies include literary (grammatical) studies, Hebrew or Greek cultural studies, historical background, Hebrew or Greek language studies and theological studies, which all focus on unearthing the original meaning of the text. This is valuable study if we want to know the Bible.
“Devotional studies” tend to take a short cut form and interpret scripture subjectively. The excuse is that it is the Holy Spirit who reveals the truth. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth through the Biblical context, not apart from the biblical context. Scripture interprets itself by its context. This is what exegesis means.
Exegesis comes from the Greek word meaning “out of”. We see exit signs in buildings, which show the way out of the building. Exit comes from the same Greek word. In interpretation this means that we seek to bring the meaning out of the text itself, by considering all aspects of the text’s own context. This means that we derive the meaning from the text, rather than import our own preconceived meaning into the text.
Some may preach by taking their inspiration (meaning) from psychology, culture or from motivational or business principles and then import these ideas into various passages of the Bible, reinterpreting those passages. This process always misinterprets the Bible, but some people may not realise it so long as the Bible is at least used to speak from. A great deal of preaching is like this.
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. The word is derived from the name of the Greek god Hermes, who in mythology interpreted the message of the gods to the people. Today the word is related to the correct interpretation of scripture.
Everybody interprets, whether we realise it or not. The question is, are we interpreting correctly? If it is settled that God is truth and the scriptures are His word, then the only remaining matter is how we interpret the scriptures. We do not want a dynamic equivalent, meaning an understanding of scripture that just sounds right. God said that we should work, to find out if it is right.
A common practice is to interpret scripture “devotionally” or “privately”. By “devotional interpretation” we mean reading the scripture assuming what it means to us personally, without taking the trouble to see if that is the intended meaning of the passage. Devotional study is a positive practice, but the casual use of it is what we are referring to here. Devotion to God must be based on what God actually says.
The Holy Spirit speaks to us from scripture. He reveals the original intended meaning of scripture, as we come to understand its historical and literary (grammatical) context. When scripture was first written, God gave a message to those it was written to, intending that it be understood the same way by generations that would follow. The purpose of study is to read the Bible in its original meaning.
We may give random meanings to the Bible when preaching. We study to help us avoid doing this. The first step in applying the scripture is to understand what it meant to the generation when it was written. Scripture does not mean what we think it means, because we feel that God has spoken to us from it in a particular way. The scripture means what it meant to the generation it was addressed to.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Pet 1:20-21).
“Private interpretation” means we interpret the Bible personally, without first finding out what it means contextually (in its own context). The meaning of prophetic scripture is not arbitrary, according to our view, but it is according to what the Holy Sprit originally said.
An example of this may be taken from Hebrews 12. The Hebrew believers were told to “lay aside every weight and the sin that so easily besets them...”. We might read that text today and apply it to a hobby which we feel that we should lay aside. While that may be beneficial, it is not the message of the text.
Hebrews was written to exhort believers not to go back to the Law of Moses, but to go on in Christ. The law was the weight; and disobedience to the New Covenant (unbelief) was the sin that beset them. Hebrews 12 is telling us not to go back to the law, or back to ritual. A “devotional” interpretation may apply a text in a way not intended, while a contextual study looks for the original exhortation.
This is our duty, or God was not serious when He said study to rightly divide the word of truth. A devotional assumption may give us a meaning opposite to the scripture, in the case of Hebrews 12, a legalistic view of a hobby, when the passage was exhorting against legalism. An innocent mistake is fine, but when these assumptions build over time they cause us real problems without us realising it.
When we study contextually we ask questions like: “Who was this passage written to? What was the purpose of the letter? How does this passage fit into the message of the whole letter? How would the people at that time have understood this then?”. We need to slow down and have a careful look before we think we know what the passage means, even if we have already read it many times before.
The first question is not what does the passage mean now, but what did the passage mean then?
Everybody interprets, whether we realise it or not. The question is, are we interpreting correctly? If it is settled that God is truth and the scriptures are His word, then the only remaining matter is how we interpret the scriptures. We do not want a dynamic equivalent, meaning an understanding of scripture that just sounds right. God said that we should work, to find out if it is right.
A common practice is to interpret scripture “devotionally” or “privately”. By “devotional interpretation” we mean reading the scripture assuming what it means to us personally, without taking the trouble to see if that is the intended meaning of the passage. Devotional study is a positive practice, but the casual use of it is what we are referring to here. Devotion to God must be based on what God actually says.
The Holy Spirit speaks to us from scripture. He reveals the original intended meaning of scripture, as we come to understand its historical and literary (grammatical) context. When scripture was first written, God gave a message to those it was written to, intending that it be understood the same way by generations that would follow. The purpose of study is to read the Bible in its original meaning.
We may give random meanings to the Bible when preaching. We study to help us avoid doing this. The first step in applying the scripture is to understand what it meant to the generation when it was written. Scripture does not mean what we think it means, because we feel that God has spoken to us from it in a particular way. The scripture means what it meant to the generation it was addressed to.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Pet 1:20-21).
“Private interpretation” means we interpret the Bible personally, without first finding out what it means contextually (in its own context). The meaning of prophetic scripture is not arbitrary, according to our view, but it is according to what the Holy Sprit originally said.
An example of this may be taken from Hebrews 12. The Hebrew believers were told to “lay aside every weight and the sin that so easily besets them...”. We might read that text today and apply it to a hobby which we feel that we should lay aside. While that may be beneficial, it is not the message of the text.
Hebrews was written to exhort believers not to go back to the Law of Moses, but to go on in Christ. The law was the weight; and disobedience to the New Covenant (unbelief) was the sin that beset them. Hebrews 12 is telling us not to go back to the law, or back to ritual. A “devotional” interpretation may apply a text in a way not intended, while a contextual study looks for the original exhortation.
This is our duty, or God was not serious when He said study to rightly divide the word of truth. A devotional assumption may give us a meaning opposite to the scripture, in the case of Hebrews 12, a legalistic view of a hobby, when the passage was exhorting against legalism. An innocent mistake is fine, but when these assumptions build over time they cause us real problems without us realising it.
When we study contextually we ask questions like: “Who was this passage written to? What was the purpose of the letter? How does this passage fit into the message of the whole letter? How would the people at that time have understood this then?”. We need to slow down and have a careful look before we think we know what the passage means, even if we have already read it many times before.
The first question is not what does the passage mean now, but what did the passage mean then?
Monday, 9 August 2010
Truth
The first step in bible study is to settle the issue of who determines truth. We cannot judge God’s truth in terms of whether we accept it or not. It is still true. Education begins with stripping away our personal, cultural, denominational and emotional preferences, to discover how God speaks for Himself. When we see something in God’s word is true, our response should not be, “I do not like that. Others will not like that”.
Jesus said, “I am the truth…” (John 14:6). He prayed, “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17). Something is true because God said it. Truth is not truth just because we understand it or agree with it, but because God has spoken it. Whether we understand it or not does not make it true or not true. The point is did God say it? “Obedience comes before understanding.” That is what our parents told us when we were young!
The trinity is true because the Bible teaches it, not because we understanding it rationally. We accept it on the basis of faith, because God’s Self-revelation declares it. It is the same with regard to election. We do not reshape a doctrine to fit with what seems reasonable, as if to rescue God’s reputation. God’s word is straight forward; “Who are you O man to reply against God.” (Rom 9:20).
This acceptance of God’s word as the absolute truth is the beginning point in study.
Learning involves paradigm shifts. It means that we are not the centre of all things. It means that God does not have to “play” according to our human rules. It means that we accept some things by faith and that our reason is not king. It means that we do not make rules in our own mind about what God should be like and then use “study” to confirm what we already “knew”.
We must be open to learn. New insights may appear wrong simply because the thought processes we have become accustomed to need looking at. This makes education an exciting process, but also challenging. We have developed a network of interdependent thoughts that can take time to unravel.
Learning can put us outside the camp (Heb 13:13). It is like the prophets found, sweet to the mouth, but bitter to the stomach, meaning the truth of God is so wonderful, but the results of following Him are not humanly acceptable (Jer 1:9, Ezek 2:6-3:3, Rev 10:9-11).
When we go out into life or ministry without study we can fall for every new thing that comes along. We can lead people more by culture and religious tradition than by the gospel. In doing so, many can lose sight of the true gospel. Theological education is important in order to:
1. Give a proper foundation for Christian life and for ministry.
2. Protect people against popular fads.
3. Show the difference between personal/cultural views and biblical truth.
4. Ensure ministry is not business, church growth or pragmatism, but is gospel.
5. Direct us to a divine perspective of truth.
Jesus said, “I am the truth…” (John 14:6). He prayed, “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17). Something is true because God said it. Truth is not truth just because we understand it or agree with it, but because God has spoken it. Whether we understand it or not does not make it true or not true. The point is did God say it? “Obedience comes before understanding.” That is what our parents told us when we were young!
The trinity is true because the Bible teaches it, not because we understanding it rationally. We accept it on the basis of faith, because God’s Self-revelation declares it. It is the same with regard to election. We do not reshape a doctrine to fit with what seems reasonable, as if to rescue God’s reputation. God’s word is straight forward; “Who are you O man to reply against God.” (Rom 9:20).
This acceptance of God’s word as the absolute truth is the beginning point in study.
Learning involves paradigm shifts. It means that we are not the centre of all things. It means that God does not have to “play” according to our human rules. It means that we accept some things by faith and that our reason is not king. It means that we do not make rules in our own mind about what God should be like and then use “study” to confirm what we already “knew”.
We must be open to learn. New insights may appear wrong simply because the thought processes we have become accustomed to need looking at. This makes education an exciting process, but also challenging. We have developed a network of interdependent thoughts that can take time to unravel.
Learning can put us outside the camp (Heb 13:13). It is like the prophets found, sweet to the mouth, but bitter to the stomach, meaning the truth of God is so wonderful, but the results of following Him are not humanly acceptable (Jer 1:9, Ezek 2:6-3:3, Rev 10:9-11).
When we go out into life or ministry without study we can fall for every new thing that comes along. We can lead people more by culture and religious tradition than by the gospel. In doing so, many can lose sight of the true gospel. Theological education is important in order to:
1. Give a proper foundation for Christian life and for ministry.
2. Protect people against popular fads.
3. Show the difference between personal/cultural views and biblical truth.
4. Ensure ministry is not business, church growth or pragmatism, but is gospel.
5. Direct us to a divine perspective of truth.
Sunday, 8 August 2010
Study
Paul admonished Timothy concerning study:
Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15).
And from a little child you have known the scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished for all good works. (2 Tim 3:15-17).
If we agree that the scripture is the word of God, here there is a command from God to study the scripture. The one who studies is called a workman, meaning it is something that we work at. It is not just a casual look. We must work to rightly divide the word of truth, which means to interpret it correctly. We are not just to assume our interpretation.
Some have said, “Well the first disciples were just uneducated fishermen”. Paul studied under Gamaliel, the greatest of the scholars of his time. Paul counted his achievements as “dung” compared to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, but his study was used by God. Paul wrote down most of the doctrines for the church. He did this by the revelation of the Holy Spirit and he also knew the scripture more than any apostle.
This does not mean that the word of God is shut up to only a select few. It means that all of us should study and especially those who preach the word. It does not mean that God cannot speak to His children unless we understand the scripture fully. God moves through His Spirit, His love and faith that are in us, according to the priesthood of all believers. Nevertheless, He still commands us to study.
Luther was not given his first church until after he earned his doctorate and in his day they were not easy to obtain. He had to master most areas of theology as well as the biblical languages. People often discount this, as though it is of no use, saying that only faith benefited Luther. Luther did not say this. Faith made Christ his Lord, but his knowledge of the scripture was essential to his calling in Christ.
The early Puritans and Dissenters in the 17th Century, though also men of the Spirit, were scholars of the word of God. Our societies today are still greatly indebted to their achievements in all fields. Studying for the ministry in Jonathan Edwards’ day in colonial America was equally as comprehensive. His students were people of the Spirit, who did not treat the study of theology rashly.
Ministers of the gospel were once the most educated people in town. Today we are often less educated than those in other professions and among the least educated in the history of the church. This lack of education has resulted in a lack of knowledge in the pulpits and has harmed lives. Would we allow an uneducated doctor to operate on us? How much more important is the soul?
A look at church history would quickly reassure us of our lack of education. Take, for example, the Roman Catholic documented response to the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD, regarding the nature of Jesus Christ. (This is available via a Google search on the Internet.)
The knowledge, expertise and Spirit of Christ in this document are challenging. The Catholics at this time had had a mini-reformation afforded them by Augustine and despite the persecution and heresy, the early church had the fastest mission expansion in history. They were not inept in power, knowledge or missionary impact.
In our modern era things changed around the end of the Second Great Awakening in America, in the middle of the 19th Century. A move to ecumenicalism and to what were considered more practical matters in ministry meant the study of theology took a back seat. This has brought a decline in gospel education in our day.
Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15).
And from a little child you have known the scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished for all good works. (2 Tim 3:15-17).
If we agree that the scripture is the word of God, here there is a command from God to study the scripture. The one who studies is called a workman, meaning it is something that we work at. It is not just a casual look. We must work to rightly divide the word of truth, which means to interpret it correctly. We are not just to assume our interpretation.
Some have said, “Well the first disciples were just uneducated fishermen”. Paul studied under Gamaliel, the greatest of the scholars of his time. Paul counted his achievements as “dung” compared to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, but his study was used by God. Paul wrote down most of the doctrines for the church. He did this by the revelation of the Holy Spirit and he also knew the scripture more than any apostle.
This does not mean that the word of God is shut up to only a select few. It means that all of us should study and especially those who preach the word. It does not mean that God cannot speak to His children unless we understand the scripture fully. God moves through His Spirit, His love and faith that are in us, according to the priesthood of all believers. Nevertheless, He still commands us to study.
Luther was not given his first church until after he earned his doctorate and in his day they were not easy to obtain. He had to master most areas of theology as well as the biblical languages. People often discount this, as though it is of no use, saying that only faith benefited Luther. Luther did not say this. Faith made Christ his Lord, but his knowledge of the scripture was essential to his calling in Christ.
The early Puritans and Dissenters in the 17th Century, though also men of the Spirit, were scholars of the word of God. Our societies today are still greatly indebted to their achievements in all fields. Studying for the ministry in Jonathan Edwards’ day in colonial America was equally as comprehensive. His students were people of the Spirit, who did not treat the study of theology rashly.
Ministers of the gospel were once the most educated people in town. Today we are often less educated than those in other professions and among the least educated in the history of the church. This lack of education has resulted in a lack of knowledge in the pulpits and has harmed lives. Would we allow an uneducated doctor to operate on us? How much more important is the soul?
A look at church history would quickly reassure us of our lack of education. Take, for example, the Roman Catholic documented response to the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD, regarding the nature of Jesus Christ. (This is available via a Google search on the Internet.)
The knowledge, expertise and Spirit of Christ in this document are challenging. The Catholics at this time had had a mini-reformation afforded them by Augustine and despite the persecution and heresy, the early church had the fastest mission expansion in history. They were not inept in power, knowledge or missionary impact.
In our modern era things changed around the end of the Second Great Awakening in America, in the middle of the 19th Century. A move to ecumenicalism and to what were considered more practical matters in ministry meant the study of theology took a back seat. This has brought a decline in gospel education in our day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)