Enter the Serpent

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" [Genesis 3:1]

Chapter two of Genesis ends with a seemingly ideal world: God has finished creation, and made a helper for man - the woman. One would think, if this were a Hollywood film, the scene would fade out and move on to the end credits. There's no need to expand, and everything could, at this point, make for a classic case of "they lived happily ever after." In fact, I've personally known one or two liberal Christians who would argue that we should end the biblical story here. Unfortunately for all these sentiments, that isn't how the story goes.

Suddenly, in the midst of this perfect, ideal world, enters the character of the serpent. This is no ordinary serpent, but Satan in disguised. He is identified as such later on, in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2. Satan appears as a serpent because Eve would never have listened to an obvious devil, hence a disguise was needed. It is the nature of Satan's deception to make evil appear as good and unnatural as natural. If need be, Satan can even appear as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14). Adam and Eve will not realize this, hence their being deceived. Unfortunately, many today still do not understand, hence the growing number of those in heretical or cult groups, or those under the sway of false teachers. Mark my words: when Satan comes to deceive you, he will not come with horns and a pitchfork - he will come with a smile and a Bible.

Satan first sets his sights on the woman. This is not because women are inherently weak-minded or woefully inadequate as believers (as some have perceived the reason to be), but rather for a two-fold purpose: 1) not only as an affront to God (who had made the woman), but as an affront to Adam, who was the head of the household and so responsible for Eve - many, when seeking to attack a man, attack not him but his wife or loved one; 2) Satan knew that, if he could deceive the woman, the husband would follow suit (as happens in verse 6). Before we become too hard on Eve, we should remind ourselves that Adam deserves equal blame for this situation: had he been responsible for his household (and verse 6 makes it clear Adam "was with her," either nearby or some distance away) he would have protected his wife from deceit and trained her to spot the enemies of God.

The most interesting aspect of Satan's dialogue with Eve is his use of God's word. It is not below Satan to quote scripture, but he is never good at it. He almost always does one of three things: 1) maligns it (as he did before); 2) misquotes it (as he does here); 3) misuses it (as he 'll do in the following verses). Permit me to explain each:

Maligns it. Satan begins his dialogue with the woman with the words: Did God actually say? There have been many discussions on what the very first temptation of man was, and many have put forward that it was the temptation to break fast (ie., eating the fruit). However, I would put forward that the first temptation ever given to man was doubt God's word. We see that here, with Satan doubting that God had indeed spoken. We see this again when Satan tempts Christ in the desert, attempting to seed doubt regarding His Sonship despite God the Father having declared it so (Matt 3:17, 4:3). Satan tempts us to doubt God's word for two reasons: 1) there is no greater disrespect towards God than to doubt His word; 2) Satan knows that if we can doubt even a syllable of God's word, it will be the proverbial camel's nose to get us out of the house of God. If we can doubt God has spoken, we can doubt anything God has said. Heresy and error (even some heterodox errors) begins when men doubt the clarity or finality of God's word, and think more needs to be added or some needs to be taken out. Some say God has not spoken at all, and hence they look to themselves to speak. Some say God has not spoken with clarity, and so they look to an external authority to speak. Some say God has not spoken enough, so they look for those with supposed prophecy and revelation to speak. When the devil tempts us with the words "Hath God said?", we must give a hardy AMEN!

Misquotes it. Satan refers to what God had said in Gen 2:16-17, but he completely distorts it. God had originally said: "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Here Satan rewords it to: "You shall not eat of any tree in the garden." This is an outright lie and distortion. God had permitted all trees to be eaten, with the only condition being a ban on the eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God is always taking God's commands and making them appear as an unjust burden and an attack against our proposed freedom. This continues even today: God permits sexual freedom within the confines of marriage, but society makes this appear as the highest of celibacy; God permits alcohol drinking, but not alcoholism, yet society makes this appear as the strictest of fasts. True slavery, however, is found in sin (John 8:34), and only the Son can set us free from it (John 8:36). The greatest lie sin can give us, then, is to make us perceive that we aren't slaves to begin with (John 8:33). Until we find freedom in the Son, all of creation is under the bondage of corruption (Rom 8:21).

Misuses it. Eve confronts Satan by correctly quoting what God had said in Gen 2:16-17, and it would seem that Satan has lost round one...or has he? A master of rhetoric can use any situation in his favor, and with weapons of words provided by his opponent. We see this when the serpent switches strategy. "All right," he says, "you want to use God's word? Let's use God's word!" Satan used the same tactic against Christ, turning to scripture once Christ had quoted scripture (Matt 4:4, 6). In this case, Satan now reinterprets what God had said: "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:4-5). The devil, from the very beginning, was a liar (John 8:44), and here he makes that clear. Satan darn well knew what God meant with His original wording, but is willing to distort God's word to serve his needs (there's no difference with many of today's false teachers). What's more, Satan presumes to know God's thoughts and exposit on them. Note here that it is fine to know God's thoughts from scripture, but not apart from scripture. Any form of "private revelation" must be held up to scriptural authority. Where God has spoken, let us speak - where God has kept silent, let us keep silent. This is important especially today: if any claims to have direct words from God, let him print it out and put it in their Bible...or let them keep silent.

This last technique is that which works, convincing Eve (and then Adam) to eat from the forbidden tree. In like manner does Satan tempt many today. So many fall under the sway of false teachers today because God's word is not enough. They cannot repeat the words of the Psalmist when he said "I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word" (Psa 119:16), or prophet Jeremiah when he prayed to God "your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart" (Jer 15:16). Initially, when I left Eastern Orthodoxy, I became worried about those who submitted themselves to the extra biblical authority of a visible body, but now I worry about those who are under the sway of men proclaiming themselves to be prophets and are receiving continual revelation from God. They use scripture secondarily, reinterpreting it to fit their own theology and to advance their cause. They, like the devil, are claiming to know the insights of God, often contrary to what God has said.

It should be noted, however, that simply because Satan uses scripture does not mean God's word is near useless. We should not come to the conclusion that, because God's word can be used against God's word, we should not rely on it completely, or that absolute truth cannot come from it (as some Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and postmodernists do, though for varying purposes). As we said before, Satan's nature is to take that which is good and use it for evil - yet this does not mean that which is good should be devalued. That Satan appeared as a serpent does not mean serpents are inherently evil: God used a serpent of His own to kill the serpents of Pharaoh's magicians (Exo 7:8-12), and our Lord instructed His disciples to be wise as serpents (Matt 10:16). In like manner, just because Satan may use God's word for evil does not men God's word is devalued. Imagine if Adam and Eve had simply remembered what God had truly said, and why He had said it. There would have been no Fall, and man would have remained in paradise with God. As it happens, they forgot God's word, they accepted the lies of the devil, and thus they sought out other forms of wisdom and fell from their glorified position.

On this day, Reformation Day, let us remember to cling to the word of God and rest upon that as our rock alone. There has been no other authority given to us except God's word, for there is no other authority alone but God. Let us be on the watch for anyone who, in whatever form they choose to do so, will tempt us with the words, "Hath God said?" God bless.

Are all Christians supposed to prophesy?

Mike Bickle of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) centers his "prophetic ministry" on the idea that all Christians are supposed to prophesy. To give an example of his argumentation:

The church, from its inception on the Day of Pentecost, was to be of a prophetic nature. It is clear that the spirit of prophecy is potentially available to all..."For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn..." (1 Cor 14:31). [pg. 38; Mike Bickle, Growing in the Prophetic, 2008]

1 Corinthians 14:31 is especially used by Bickle over and over again as a kind of grand proof-text for his theology. The idea is this: Paul says "you can all prophesy," so that must mean "all of you" as in "all you Christians." Hence, all Christians should be able to prophesy, and so all Christians should be willing to participate in the "prophetic ministry" that is pouring out of IHOP-KC and into other churches.

Is this the case?

Firstly, let's not forget what Paul had said earlier, when he was discussing the important part every person played in the church:

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? [1 Cor 12:27-30; emphasis]

Paul's point here is that not all people are prophets - only those with the gift are. The original grammar of "Are all prophets?" suggests that the question is to be answered with a hardy "No." Bickle actually acknowledges this specific verse in his Growing book, but treats it only briefly before skimming across it to another topic. He also, on some occasions, tries to separate between prophets and those who are prophetic, even though scripture nowhere makes such a distinction, and Bickle's ultimate conclusion would still contradict Paul's point.

Secondly, let's remind ourselves of the three rules of exegesis: 1) context; 2) context; 3) context. So, seeking to follow all three of these rules at once, let's review the full context of the verse quoted by Bickle.

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. [1 Cor 14:26-33]

Paul begins this section by saying that when the Corinthian church comes together, "each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation" (v. 26). Paul is going back to what he said in chapter twelve, when he discussed the importance of individual roles, comparing it to the parts of the human body (1 Cor 12:14-20), and later applying this to the individual skills within the church (1 Cor 12:27-30). The purpose of this gathering together and the using of individual skills is "for building up" - that is, the edification of all in the church (v. 26). Just as every part of the human body serves some need that benefits the others, so too does every individual member of the church perform some task that benefits the others. No one is unimportant, from the pastor who gives the sermon to the old man who just comes to listen and be edified. The important thing, as Paul will demonstrate here, is that our goal be not the use of our gifts alone, but the building up of God's body through those gifts.

Paul goes into detail about the individual gifts, starting with those speaking in tongues, stating that there should be "only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret" (v. 27). Note again that Paul is emphasizing order in the church for the purpose of edification. In this vain, Paul states something I think many Charismatic churches forget: "if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church" (v. 28). The original Greek here is actually pretty strong - in fact, quite strong. In our modern language, Paul would literally be saying, "If there isn't an interpreter, tell 'em to shut up."

Paul now moves on to those in prophecy: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said" (v. 29). Note that Paul is talking about a specific group, just as he was before with those who speak in tongues. Here he is talking about the prophets, not the entire church. He says "let two or three prophets speak," and then "let the others weigh what is said" - who are "the others"? The others with the gift of prophecy. He outlines the order of this further with: "if a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent" (v. 30). In other words, Paul is starting to tell them to take turns - if someone starts to fulfill their role of prophet, don't interrupt them.

At last we've come to the part Mike Bickle always falls back on: "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged" (v. 31). With a greater understanding of the context, let us ask: who is the you here? Is the you here the entire church? Is it every Christian who has ever lived? No - given what we've seen before, the you here refers to those with the gifts of prophecy. This is seen when Paul says "one by one," referring to the previous rule regarding those with the gift of prophecy. Paul is saying that those with the gift of prophecy should take turns - not that everyone can prophesy.

And just in case some might want to pull the "your interpretation versus his" card, here are some others who are on my side:

All - Who have that gift. [John Wesley's commentary]

For ye may all prophesy one by one,.... Not every member of the church, but everyone that had the gift of prophecy... [John Gill's commentary]

In fact, it would seem that no one has interpreted this verse to mean literally all Christians everywhere until the time of Mike Bickle and his Kansas City associates. While I am not saying that the mere novelty of something is enough to dismiss it, when we have to assume that everyone has misread a passage of scripture until more than 1,900 years after it was written, it should be enough to make us ask for discernment. Especially when, reviewing the entire context of said passage, that interpretation is shown to be an invalid one. Nowhere in scripture are all Christians commanded to prophesy, let alone is that taught in this verse. That is a conclusion that one simply can't come to when looking at 1 Corinthians 14:31 honestly.

In the past I've written that when I see someone misuse scripture, I don't immediately assume they're doing it on purpose. I assume one of four things: 1) they're going from memory, and have just forgotten how it originally went; 2) they honestly just simply don't understand what the text is saying; 3) they're going from a second-hand source, and haven't double checked what the original text said; 4) they're doing it on purpose, knowing they're mishandling the text. The first one cannot be the case as Bickle has written this in a book and spoken about this in sermons, and so has had plenty of time to review the verse. The second one can't be true because anyone can see what this verse means by reading the fullness of the chapter, and no one in any previous commentaries misunderstood the verse this way. It's possible that the third one might be true, and Bickle is going off another interpretation, but then he would be guilty of gross negligence for not examining the scripture himself - something a spiritual leader should not do. The fourth one is entirely possible, given what we've seen before. If it is possible - whether intentional or unintentional - Bickle needs to come to repentance.

And if this is the case, then Mike Bickle has taken a verse out of context and abused it to give validity to his warped theological views. His views take but one spiritual gift and extend it well beyond where Paul intended it to go, and is using this to try to convince people to join his "prophetic ministry" movement, centered around IHOP-KC in Kansas City. If anyone reading this is caught up in this "prophetic movement," I encourage you to let this blog post be the beginning of spiritual discernment. Examine what is said, and examine everything by the testimony of scripture. Where a person strays from God's word, go no further - where a person complies with God's word, stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Don't let what anyone says or teach be the final word or the final clinching argument for you - let God speak, and let God guide you with His eternal and holy word.

The Pastor Who Cried Wolf

This pretty much sums up a large chunk of those who call themselves Christian today.

All credits to the original artist

Machiavelli on Moses

I came across this in Chapter Six of Niccolo Machiavelli's famous The Prince. It is taken from The Portable Machiavelli, translated by Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa, and published by Penguin Books.

I say, therefore, that in completely new principalities, where there is a new prince, one finds in maintaining them more or less difficulty according to the greater or lesser skill of the one who acquires them. And because this act of transition from private citizen to prince presupposes either ingenuity or Fortune, it appears that either the one or the other of these two things should, in part, mitigate many of the problems; nevertheless, he who has relied upon Fortune less has maintained his position best. Things are also facilitated when the prince, having no other dominions to govern, is constrained to come to live there in person. But to come to those who, by means of their own skill and not because of Fortune, have become princes, I say that the most admirable are Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and the like. And although we should not discuss Moses, since he was a mere executor of things ordered by God, nevertheless he must be admired, if for nothing but that grace which made him worthy of talking with God. But let us consider Cyrus and the others who have acquired or founded kingdoms; you will find them all admirable; and if their deeds and their particular institutions are considered, they will not appear different from those of Moses, who had so great a guide. And examining their deeds and their lives, one can see that they received nothing but the opportunity from Fortune, which then gave them the material they could mold into whatever form they desired; and without that opportunity the strength of their spirit would have been extinguished, and without that strength the opportunity would have come in vain.

It was therefore necessary for Moses to find the people of Israel slaves in Egypt and oppressed by the Egyptians in order that they might be disposed to follow him to escape this servitude.

God's Gift to Man

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." [Gen 2:18]

This passage of Genesis takes place in the second chapter, during the more specific account of the sixth day of creation. God creates Adam (v. 7), designs the Garden of Eden (v. 8-9), and then places Adam in the midst of the garden. There, Adam is given a duty: to tend the garden. He's then given an early form of the Law - he may eat of every tree except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (v. 15-17). For all intents and purposes, one would think the story was over.

Yet then the Lord, in divine contemplation, announces two things: 1) it is not good that man should be alone; 2) He will create a helper for him. The Lord is referring, of course, to woman, specifically the creation of Eve. The term "helper" does not mean a subordinate in every sense of the term, but moreso an indispensable companion (something even 18th century commentators recognize). The term translated "fit for" means literally "the opposite of", and perfectly summarizes the relationship between man and woman. Men and women serve different roles in a relationship, and compliment one another in different ways - anyone who denies this has never truly understood relationships.

It is interesting to note that, after saying this, the Lord does not immediately create Eve - in fact, He doesn't begin the creation of Eve until verse 21. Why the delay?

What must first happen, it seems, is that God must instill within the man the realization that he needs a helper. He takes the animals that were created from the ground and brings them to the man, permitting Adam to name them all (v. 19). It is interesting that at the very end of verse 20, after Adam has surveyed all of creation, he laments that "there was not a helper fit for him." While even domesticated animals can provide the simulation of companionship, man was not created to live in a house with forty cats, nor to live out in the woods with a dog and be settled with that. Dogs and cats can offer unconditional love, but they cannot offer the kind of love that a man truly needs from his partner.

Adam has now come to realize this very thing - he realizes, as God had realized before, that there is no helper suited for him. Nay, he needs a helper suitable for him. I've known many people - men and women - who lived a life of lonely monotony and believed they were content, only to reach an older age and realize that, in actuality, they were not. There comes a time when even the coldest of people desire companionship. As we see here, God early on instilled in us that kind of need.

With the need given to Adam, God causes a deep sleep to fall upon him, and while Adam is asleep, God takes one of his ribs and closes the flesh in place (v. 21). The original Hebrew which we translate as "rib" literally means "side," so that there was most likely a lot more taken from Adam than just a rib (hence the need for God to close the flesh up). God is literally taking part of Adam's side to make someone to be at his side. Matthew Henry gives a beautiful explanation of the immediate significance of this: God takes a piece not from Adam's head to rule him, nor from his feet to be trampled upon, but from his side; from his side to be equal, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.

A greater significance, of course, is that we can see here an early Messianic foreshadow. Out of Christ's own side, after it was pierced by a Roman spear, came blood and water (John 19:34). It was from this blood and water that God would secure and sanctify His bride, the church, who was bought for and purified by His blood (cf. Eph 5:25-26).

With this chunk of Adam, God fashions the woman Eve and brings her to the man (v. 22). Many commentators say that the language used in this verse is similar to language used of a father bringing his daughter to the groom. It's very fitting, given that God is now presenting Adam with his bride, Eve. Again, we have an early Messianic foreshadow: God brings Adam his wife, just as God gives to the Son His bride - those who are in the church (John 6:37).

Adam, upon awakening, is ecstatic over Eve - not for any special beauty or personality, but for the realization of what God has now given him. We see this with his immediate response: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (v. 23). Keep in mind this is not giving man complete sovereignty over woman in the same manner he did the animals in verse 19, to whom he also gave names. The name given to her is not simply for name's sake, but for a specific reason: she was taken out of man. She is literally "bone of his bones" and "flesh of his flesh" - no other living thing could have been talked about in such a fashion.

The order and place of man and woman within creation is seen in the rest of scripture. Most notably the apostle Paul writes: "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Cor 11:8-9). Some say this is sexism and misogyny, placing woman at a lower or secondary place than man and compelling her to submit to his authority. They seem to forget, however, the beauty of what this narrative teaches: woman is God's gift to man. She was made for him as a gift to complete and fulfill him. She is given to the man by God as a gift, so that the two can, as scripture goes on to say, "become one flesh" (v. 24).

Therefore, any man who dishonors his wife does not dishonor her, but dishonors the God who granted her to him as a gift. Any man who beats his wife, demeans her with psychological abuse, or plays the scoundrel against her and commits adultery, is spitting into the face of the Lord who granted her to him. Any man who by his own cause and want destroys that which no man should separate (cf. Matt 19:6) and does not repent of it is transgressing mightily against the Lord, and on the Day of Judgment he will have to give an answer for it.

How to Start a Cult

I haven't posted anything in a while, so...permit me to rectify that situation.

The World Abhors the Gospel

The following is from Martin Luther's commentary on Galatians.

The world bears the Gospel a grudge because the Gospel condemns the religious wisdom of the world. Jealous for its own religious views, the world in turn charges the Gospel with being a subversive and licentious doctrine, offensive to God and man, a doctrine to be persecuted as the worst plague on earth.

As a result we have this paradoxical situation: The Gospel supplies the world with the salvation of Jesus Christ, peace of conscience, and every blessing. Just for that the world abhors the Gospel.

The "Animals Do It Too" Fallacy

An argument made by some to support homosexuality (or at the very least homosexual relationships) is that homosexuality is seen in the animal kingdom too, and hence humans should be accepting of it. Of course, this is an example of special pleading - homosexuality is not the only tendency seen in the animal kingdom. Some other tendencies observed among animals include:

• Cannibalism, where animals of the same species do indeed eat one another. Chimpanzees sometimes eat one another, as do some forms of snakes, insects and other animals.
• Sexual Cannibalism, where the female eats the male either before, during or after they engage in sex. This is most commonly seen in some types of spiders, scorpions, and most famously praying mantises.
• Filial Cannibalism, perhaps the most infamous form of cannibalism in the animal kingdom, is where one of the parents or both eat the young. Most people attribute this to hamsters and gerbils, but it can also be seen in some species of apes, pigs, rabbits, fishes and insects.
• Infanticide, where an animal may intentionally kill (not necessarily eat) either their own young or the young of other broods. This can be seen in many types of rodents, large cat breeds, birds, fish and others.
• Polygamy, where a male has various female partners in simultaneous relationships. An alpha male lion may live with and impregnate an entire tribe of lionesses, and some prairie dog males will live with four or more females in a tight community. This behavior is also seen in many forms of horses, fishes, mice and apes. 

Should humans practice all of these simply because they are found in the animal kingdom? Should humans be all right with others practicing these things simply because animals do them as well?