Podcast: Mike Bickle and Psalm 2

In this episode, we review Mike Bickle's message from OneThing 2014, which went over the meaning of Psalm 2. Does he handle it rightly? What tactics does he employ to interpret the passage?



This link takes you to a post about IHOP-KC's involvement with the Bethany Deaton murder, but (more importantly) discusses the cult-like atmosphere and the way Mike Bickle is revered by the staff and members.

This link takes you to the podcast where we listened to a Misty Edwards message on Forerunners.

This link takes you to the podcast where we review whether or not IHOP-KC is a cult (and respond to the Ask Mike Bickle segment on it).

This link takes you to an interview I did with someone who formerly belonged to the house of prayer movement.

Matthew 17 - An Example of Bad Allegorization

How one reads and interpret scripture is a vitally important part of the Christian life. Just as we would want to understand the point behind every secular work created by fallible man, so should we strive to understand and comprehend what God's word is attempting to say. One of the greatest dangers in misunderstanding a passage of scripture is turning a descriptive passage of scripture into an allegory, and by extension turning it into a prescriptive passage.

Recently I saw a link on Twitter for the International House of Prayer's Marketplace Conference. In the video on the page, there was a use of Matthew 17:1 that I thought was worth using as an example to examine and discuss a more proper view of scripture, and an improper use of allegory.

Near the beginning of the video, Linda Fields and Daniel Lim (CEO of IHOP-KC) have this conversation:

Linda Fields: "Our theme is 'come up higher' from Matthew 17, and as you know we were talking about that a moment ago - I loved what you had to say about what Jesus was actually inviting Peter, James and John to. What was that?"

Daniel Lim: "Well Matthew 17, all of us quite familiar with that verse because it's a verse where Jesus in a very rare occasion revealed his glory to his disciples in a way that would shock them. We call that the Mountain of Transfiguration. But the context of Matthew 17 is actually a context where Jesus invited Peter, James and John to a prayer meeting. They were on their way to a prayer meeting, to a high mountain to pray. So I believe that this is a very beautiful word picture about us engaging in discipling different spheres of society, but from a prayer-based culture. Jesus always invited us to go higher; going higher actually means get nearer; getting nearer to him is a sign of going higher." [Transcribed from the audio]

The passage is further interpreted later on, after some of the speakers are mentioned.

Linda Fields: "I just love the idea of a whole family coming around the table, Daniel, all spheres of society coming together saying we want to impact the world for Jesus Christ. And we are coming here together to come up higher with the Lord and receive revelation, refreshing, there'll be teaching..." [Transcribed]

From these teachings, we get a few things from Daniel Lim and Linda Fields regarding what Matthew 17 has to teach for us:

1. Christ revealed himself to the disciples "in a way that would shock them."
2. Peter, James, and John were invited by Christ to a "prayer meeting."
3. This story is a "word picture" about "discipling different spheres of society" from the context of a "prayer-based culture."
4. In the passage, Jesus is inviting us "go higher," and hence "get nearer" to God, in order to "receive revelation" and "refreshing."

When we encounter a teaching by someone from the word of God, the first thing we need to do is examine what they are teaching, and hold it to the light of scripture. If what they are teaching is plain in scripture, then they are speaking in accordance with what scripture has written; if what they are teaching is not plain in scripture, then they are inserting doctrines and beliefs into the passage. We will examine these four statements one at a time, and see how they line up with what is written.

1) Christ revealed himself to the disciples "in a way that would shock them."

Some might be wondering why I highlighted this phrase, since, at first glance, it doesn't seem like too big of a statement. The truth is, such language is common in Hyper-Charismatic camps to attempt to make their unorthodox and often shocking interpretations of what is and isn't the Holy Spirit seem much more biblical. This is where you get phrases like "God will mess up your theology," or "God will appear in ways you never expected." While I do not deny God can give His providence and grace through ways not explicitly mentioned in the Bible (for example, finding good health insurance for your family), there are many things which are quite clearly not the Holy Spirit. For example, what is called "holy vomiting," as well as uncontrollable shaking like someone with Parkinson's Disease, are not outlined in scripture as traits the Holy Spirit instills in a person...in fact, they are usually associated with demonic influence. While I am not advocating judging the fruits of the Spirit by subjectivity, if someone that people are attempting to pass off as "the Holy Spirit" appears shocking to us, then that should be a red flag that we should be extra discerning.

2) Peter, James, and John were invited by Christ to a "prayer meeting."

No such invitation is directly given by Christ in the passage, let alone in any of the other versions found in the Synoptic Gospels. The accounts by Matthew and Mark do not make mention of the purpose for which they went up the mountain, aside from the purpose we outlined earlier. Luke's account states that Christ "took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray" (Luke 9:28). The verb "went up" is in the third person singular, referring to Christ alone, and is continued into the verb "to pray." This suggests that Christ had gone up to pray, and had merely brought the disciples along. We see this especially in verse 29: there, we find that Christ is praying alone, while the disciples are said later to have fallen asleep (v. 32). If this was a prayer meeting, it was perhaps the worst prayer meeting in history, since only one person was praying while the others were sleeping through it.

The purpose of the disciples being brought up the mountains, as interpreted by commentators and theologians throughout history, is directly related to the appearance of Moses and Elijah alongside Christ, as well as the voice from God the Father. Moses and Elijah each represented an aspect of the Jewish holy text: Moses represented the Law; Elijah represented the prophets. The words of God the Father regarding Christ were a reference to Deuteronomy 18:15, in which the Lord says, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him." The apostles themselves later confirmed that this statement was a Messianic prophecy regarding Christ (Acts 3:22; 7:37). With the three disciples themselves witnessing this, they in essence fulfilled the command by the Law regarding the number of witnesses, and hence could confirm the event took place (Deu 17:6; 2 Cor 13:1).

From all this, we can gather that the point of the disciples being brought up the mountain was to witness a visual confirmation of Christ's words regarding his being the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets (Mt 11:13), and a confirmation of Christ's Messianic status. The point is, Christ did not invite the disciples up to have a "prayer meeting"; Daniel Lim is completely reading that into the passage to attempt to give Mike Bickle's "prayer culture" theology biblical credit, when there really is none.

3) This story is a "word picture" about "discipling different spheres of society" from the context of a "prayer-based culture."

We must be very careful whenever he hear someone call something a "word picture," or an "image" of something; this is basically admitting that they are creating an allegory, or spiritualizing a passage. There are many allegories in the Bible. There are generally accepted shadows of Christ (cf. Gen 3:15), and there are times where Biblical authors themselves will make reference to certain actions or personalities being shadows (cf., 1 Cor 10:1-4). The danger, however, is looking for "word pictures" and "images" where there a none.

There are two easy ways to tell if someone is overstepping their bounds when it comes to allegories:

a) Is the passage confirmed elsewhere in scripture as an allegory or shadow? For example, the previously cited passage in 1 Corinthians confirms that the Old Testament account of the rock and the water was a foreshadow of Christ.

b) Is the passage being spoken of as an allegory of Christ and salvation, or us?

This last part is especially important, as many times people will transform Biblical passages into commands for us to do something, or turn it into something about us. Even if the intent is to glorify God, it is still a very man-centered view of scripture, because it is transforming the focus onto something about us and what we have to do.

In this particular example we are examining, do we see the focus of the supposed allegory being one centered around Christ and our salvation? On the contrary, it is about us and what we have to do - in this case, "discipling different spheres of society" through a "prayer-based culture" (ie., the 24-7 prayer and intercession modeled at IHOP-KC). There is, however, not a single sign that such a command is present in this passage; again, that has been completely read into it by Daniel Lim and Linda Fields. As we saw before, the passage is about Christ and the messianic status which Christ confirmed before his top three disciples - it has nothing to do about us, even in the context of worship.

Certainly no one throughout all of church history has interpreted this passage to mean that we are to "disciple different spheres of society" within the context of a "prayer-based culture." No one had any such notion until IHOP-KC and the personal revelations supposedly given to Mike Bickle and his peers by God. What Daniel Lim and Linda Fields are bringing forward is, historically speaking, coming out of a exegetical vacuum. Even the apostle Peter, when writing on the incident that he himself witnessed (2 Pet 1:16-21), makes absolutely no mention of the moment being about discipling different spheres of society through prayer-based cultures. Again, the leadership of IHOP-KC is alone in their interpretation of this passage, both from history and biblical authorship.

4) In the passage, Jesus is inviting us "go higher," and hence "get nearer" to God, in order to "receive revelation" and "refreshing."

Let us ask this very important question, related to our previous point: is there anything in this account in which we are told to do something? As we said before, the answer is no. Not a single part of this passage is about us, or something we must do in our spiritual state. This episode was a specific moment in Christ's earthly ministry, and was meant to point towards his divinity and glory, and his status as Messiah. Peter, James, and John were there as witnesses, not as allegories for what we are supposed to do today within the prayer/prophetic movement.

We must be very careful when someone takes a passage of scripture that is descriptive in nature, and then turns it into a prescriptive passage. Just because something is done in scripture does not necessarily mean it must be done by us. Furthermore, when a teacher or leader begins to call things "word images" for us to follow, and interprets it as something we have to do, we must recognize that they are warping the text to fit it into some doctrine or prescription which they themselves are desiring the people of God to do. The unfortunate thing is that this is what is being done at IHOP-KC...in fact, this is a common thing at IHOP-KC. The scriptural text is being warped to suit the needs of the IHOP-KC teachers, and to try to tell their followers that what they are doing has biblical significance, when really it has absolutely no biblical precedent whatsoever.

From this example, we unfortunately see yet another moment where passages of scripture are warped and misconstrued by IHOP-KC leadership to confirm their doctrines. They believe that they are glorifying God, but in actuality they are, through their mishandling of God's word, placing burdens upon the shoulders of their followers. Those at IHOP-KC truly need our prayers to see through the eisegesis brought about by Daniel Lim, Linda Fields, and others, and to come to a true knowledge of who Christ is, and what God's word says. They do not need a greater revelation to understand the Bible - God has placed it all right there.

Application Versus Interpretation

Some time ago, I got in a discussion on Twitter regarding someone's twisting of a scriptural verse based on a dream they had. When I pointed out that they had misused it, someone from their staff came up and said, "To use in application is NOT to interpret. Big difference. Application is NOT deriving doctrine."

The biggest problem I can see with this argument is that application implies interpretation. That is, application comes from your method of interpretation. Let me try to explain with this example:

A long time ago, I discussed context by citing a college friend playing his character in the video game Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and saying, "I could kill the whole world if I wanted to." Now, there are various modes of application that can come from various modes of interpretation, and two big ones are (with their interpretations):

The Contextual Approach
"When he says 'whole world,' he's clearly referring to the in game world, meaning the world in the game. He's not saying he wants to kill literally everybody in the whole wide world in real life."

The Experiential Approach
"I had a dream that he was going to go to a planet on the far end of the universe and kill all the alien mutants he found on it. That's what he was talking about."

In the former approach, the context of the citation is looked at. What do the words mean? Under what settings were they said? Why were they said? What led to them being said? What were they trying to convey? This is how most serious students of the Bible attempt to read it.

In the latter approach, the individual's personal experiences trump the plain meaning. The context of how it was said - including who, what, when, where, why, and how - is thrown out the window. Instead, the individual's personal experiences, dreams, and revelations are used as the guide for interpreting the original words. That those words were said under certain circumstances and speaking on certain subjects is no longer important; those words are understood in a whole new way, with a whole new application derived from the method of interpretation.

The funny thing is I'm sure most people who heard someone interpret my college friend with the experiential approach would think the individual was crazy. They'd probably say, "Dude, that's not what the guy meant. Don't mess with the context of what he said." Yet when it comes to the words of scripture, that sort of common sense gets thrown out the window. Suddenly, scripture can mean anything we want it to, for whatever reasons. Whether you're spiritualizing a verse never meant to be allegory, or you're basing your interpretation off of dreams and so-called prophetic words you've experienced, you're no longer letting the context of the words guide your understanding. The words I've cited before are the words of mortal men. Scripture is not. Scripture consists of the very words of God. Shouldn't we be even more careful not to abuse their context?

The fact is, as I wrote before, our application comes from our method of interpretation. If our method of interpretation does not have the plain meaning of scripture as its primary authority, then we have another authority besides God's word.

Podcast: Steve Kelly and God Visions

Here is the latest podcast, in which I review a Steve Kelly sermon talking about how we can obtain and keep our "God vision."


Here is the link to my podcast on Steve Kelly's cultic teachings regarding church leadership.

MacArthur: How Should We Interpret the Bible?

A John MacArthur sermon about...well...read the title of the post.

How Should We Interpret the Bible?

Therapeutic Theology V: A New Brainfart

Hi folks we're here to discuss therapeutic blah blah blah blah blah moving on...

Over on the left here the therapeutic image reads: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (emphasis in original), and is attributed to Colossians 1:17. What is the actual wording of the verse?

And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. [Colossians 1:17]

Wait...holy cow! Did one of these things actually use an actual quotation? Let alone from a legitimate translation!? This seems like an improvement. Now let's use our next test: the context test (say that three times fast).

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. [Colossians 1:15-20]

Let's ask a question: why was "hold together" bolded in the original quote? Chances are because it was meant to convey that Christ "holds together" all the aspects of your life. Bad relationship? Financial troubles? Harassed by creditors? Didn't save as much money switching to Geico as you expected? Don't worry! Because Christ holds ALL THINGS TOGETHER!

Is this the case as found within the context? Actually, no. Paul is talking about the divine power of Christ, calling him "the image of the invisible God" and "the firstborn of all creation" (v. 15). By Christ, all things that ever existed were created, and were created through him and for him (v. 16). We then see the statement that Christ is before all things (that is, all things of existence and which were created), and in him "all things hold together" (v. 17). Does this mean Christ is gonna make your life work out? Actually no - it means all things, as in, all things of creation, hold together because of Christ's power. The planets circle, the storms rage, and the natural world continues according to the power of God the Son.

Again, we need to be careful with how we handle scripture. We wouldn't like someone misusing our words to prove a point we weren't even talking about - we shouldn't treat God's word that way.

Therapeutic Theology IV: A New "D'oh!"

Hi folks. Over on the left here, you'll see another one of those little images we've reviewed before, with text saying "Faith; It doesn't make things easy; It makes things possible," citing Luke 1:37 as the source of the quote. Is this what the text actually says? Well, as we always do with these posts, let's see the actual context:

For nothing will be impossible with God. [Luke 1:37]

Wait, where's faith being talked about? Where are we talked about? Huh?

Let's now see the real context:

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. [Luke 1:35-38]

Here we see the angel's response to Mary's famous question: "How can I get pregnant if I'm a virgin?" The angel explains the machinations of the virgin birth, the pregnancy of elderly Elizabeth, and ends it all with "for nothing will be impossible with God."

Now let's answer some simple questions:

1) Is this verse about faith? No, it's about the virgin birth and Elizabeth's own child-bearing, despite her old age - both of which wasn't reliant upon faith, but the actions of God.

2) Does this verse say that faith doesn't make things easy? Again, it's not about faith. We're not even the subject, but God is.

3) Does this verse say faith makes things possible? Yet again, it isn't about faith, let how faith effects our lives.

In summary, what we have here is a verse actually about the power of God being made about us, and for the sake of making people feel better upon reading it. Bluntly put, this is a terrible - and disrespectful - use of God's word.

Therapeutic Theology III: The Lost Context

Well, friends, it's time once again to review one of those silly images shared on social media that take a passage of scripture and turn it into some feel good therapeutic nonsense. This one says: "God can restore what is broken and change it into something amazing. All you need is faith." It claims to come from Joel 2:25.

As we always do, let's see the original wording of the verse:

I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, the hopper, the destroyer, and the cutter, my great army, which I sent among you.

Huh...so God can restore what is broken, eh? I assume what's broken is...uh...whatever the locusts, hoppers, destroyers, cutters, and God's great army ate? And where in the heck does faith fit into the picture? Do I need faith to handle the locust problem? Uh...I'm really confused here.

All right, so already we see a problem. Let's review the real context of the passage:

Then the Lord became jealous for his land and had pity on his people. The Lord answered and said to his people, "Behold, I am sending to you grain, wine, and oil, and you will be satisfied; and I will no more make you a reproach among the nations.

I will remove the northerner far from you, and drive him into a parched and desolate land, his vanguard into the eastern sea, and his rear guard into the western sea; the stench and foul smell of him will rise, for he has done great things.

Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice, for the Lord has done great things! Fear not, you beasts of the field, for the pastures of the wilderness are green; the tree bears its fruit; the fig tree and vine give their full yield.

Be glad, O children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God, for he has given the early rain for your vindication; he has poured down for you abundant rain, the early and the latter rain, as before.

The threshing floors shall be full of grain; the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, the hopper, the destroyer, and the cutter, my great army, which I sent among you.

You shall eat in plenty and be satisfied, and praise the name of the Lord your God, who has dealt wondrously with you. And my people shall never again be put to shame. You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God and there is none else. And my people shall never again be put to shame." [Joel 2:18-27]

So is this about God taking something broken and making it all better, and all you need is faith? Actually no, it isn't at all about that. The Jewish people had been called to repent, and this section takes place after said repentance would happen, and presents the promises which shall be fulfilled. The Lord promises to remove the plague of locusts that had come upon the people (see Joel 1:4), and proceeds to make promises for relief and joy...even eternal promises - promises which many commentators (even Jewish ones) believe to be about the age of the Messiah. The rest of the chapter continues on speaking of eternal rest in God and a prediction of Pentecost and the apostolic era.

This is all a fairly brief explanation, I know, but the overall premise is fairly well seen and clear in the entire reading. To be frank, these therapeutic interpretations of scripture are simply getting more and more removed from the original context. Please people, stop sharing these things!

Therapeutic Theology II: The Revenge

I came across another one of these images on a social media site which shall remain nameless. It cites Romans 8:28 and reads: "God can turn around any situation." I just did some cross referencing in the Bible, and realized that, once again, we had an example of therapeutic theology robbing a verse of its context and reading into some feel good mentality that distracts people from the true meaning.

First, let's look at the original wording of the verse:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. [Romans 8:28]

All right, so maybe this is a little more in context than the previous image we looked at. Now, let's look at the full context - and I do mean the full context.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [Romans 8:18-30]

What is this talking about? Is this talking about God taking your flat tire on the highway and making your day all brighter? Is it saying that it doesn't matter if they put toppings on your hamburger (when you clearly said not to put any on there) since God will make you smile later on? Is it saying that it doesn't matter if someone's texting and talking while you're trying to watch Les Miserables, because God will help you enjoy the movie nonetheless? Actually, no. In fact, starting in verse 18, Paul even confesses that there are sufferings, but that it doesn't matter compared to the glory revealed to us (that is, salvation). He then talks of how the Spirit assists us during these sufferings, and then says: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." Does this mean, however, God can make our day better? Actually no, given the following verse, which is the famous golden chain of redemption. This means that God makes all spiritual things work out for good, because no matter how bad our sufferings might be. It is saying that regardless of what a Christian encounters that will cause him to feel despair and a loss of hope, that we can find joy and peace in the knowledge that we are in the hands of a God who will never let us go, and who will see us through to the end.

As I said in the previous post, this sort of thing does nothing but sacrifice the true meaning of God's word in exchange for emotionalism and "feel good" theology. Yes, I'm sure this image brightened the day for some people...but at what cost? And what does it ultimately teach them in regards to the treatment of God's word?

Isaiah 14:27 and Therapeutic Theology

I saw the image on the left shared on Facebook. As those who read my blog post know, I have a great distaste for theology which seeks to turn God into something therapeutic or "feel good." For further reading, read how I feel about Jeremiah 29:11 (and see this image about it for good measure). So when I came across this image, I had a feeling that more therapeutic theology was being pushed upon people, sacrificing the original meaning of God's word for a few seconds of heart tugging, feel good nonsense.

Let's first tackle the question: is this actually what Isaiah 14:27 says? Here's the original quote:

For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? [Isaiah 14:27]

All right, so our immediate problem is that it says nothing about God's plan for my life. Yes, it talks of what God "has purposed," and his hand being "stretched out," but this could be about anything. I checked a few translations to see if any worded the verse differently, but even The Message managed to get it fairly correct (amazingly enough as that is).

So here's the immediate question: what's the full context of the verse? Let's take a look and find out:

The LORD of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand, that I will break the Assyrian in my land, and on my mountains trample him underfoot; and his yoke shall depart from them, and his burden from their shoulder.” This is the purpose that is purposed concerning the whole earth, and this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? [Isaiah 14:24-27]

Um...wow. Is this at all about God's plan for my life? Actually no, it's about God's judgment upon Assyria. This image has removed the verse as far away from the original context as possible. You could have picked any verse out of the Bible and slapped it under the text, and it would have made about as much sense.

This is yet another example where context and the true meaning of God's word is sacrificed for emotionalism and therapeutic theology.

TD Jakes Mishandles Scripture

The following is from Chris Rosebrough at Fighting for the Faith.

Jeremiah 29:11 is NOT ABOUT YOU!

Recently on Facebook I came across the image on the left, which someone had placed up as their profile cover. I asked the person: "Are you an ancient Jew living in Babylon?" My comment got deleted and I was told not to post it again. I explained my position in a detailed, respectful post, in which I went over the context, as seen in the very image itself. You can see in verse 10 that the Lord, through the prophet Jeremiah, states: "You will be in Babylon for seventy years. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised, and I will bring you home again." Immediately, what is the context? Who is being spoken of in this verse? The Jews who would live in the Babylonian Captivity, which was to last seventy years. They're the subject of discussion. We then go to verse 11: "For I know the plans I have for you"...now let's stop here - who is the you here? It's still the same context; that is, it's the Jews of verse 10. God is saying: "For I know the plans I have for you [the ancient Jews enduring the Babylonian Captivity], plans for good and not for disaster [that is, the nation would be restored], to give you a future and a hope [that is, that their nation and Temple would be rebuilt]." It isn't about people living in the year 2012, and the "good," "future" and "hope" are all specific. You can especially see this latter point later on in verse 14, where the Lord says, "I will end your captivity and restore your fortunes. I will gather you out of the nations where I sent you and will bring you home again to your own land." Again, I'm demonstrating this from the very image itself: it shows that the highlighted verse is being taken out of context. All this was what I wrote the individual - and my post was, of course, immediately deleted, as was any evidence a conversation had taken place. Social media is, for many, a chance to "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18).

I have been told that people will read the Bible and see the context any way, but I don't believe people really do. How many times have we heard this verse uttered on K-LOVE? How many times have we seen bumper stickers of this? How many times have we seen this sold on goofy business cards at Christian bookstores? How many times has this been shared on social media like Facebook? If people as a whole understood the context of the verse, they wouldn't abuse it so frequently. I've beaten this dead horse before, I know. Some might be sick of hearing about it, or wonder why I spend so much time on it. Why is it such a pet peeve for me? I'll tell you why. It's because this kind of thing teaches "feel good" theology. It teaches a sappy world where God just wants you to be happy. It tells you good things will only get better, because that's what God wants.

Folks, you don't need to be the love child of Jonathan Edwards and J. Gresham Machen to understand how bad a theology that is. Even an extreme atheist will tell you life is not like that. Sometimes life just stinks. Only too recently I experienced some of the worst years of my life. By God's grace, my life is doing better now, but who am I to suppose the circumstances around the end of my life will be happy? The fact is, the "plans" God may have for your life, especially near the end, may not be "good" or "hopeful" with a great "future" ahead. As I've brought up before, you might end your life peacefully, or you might end it like Paul, Ignatius, Tyndale, or Bonhoeffer - killed for your faith in an embarrassing or violent way.

So why do I hate the abuse of Jeremiah 29:11? I hate it because it's an abuse of God's word. I hate it because it's a sacrifice of context for "Evan-jellyfish" theology. I hate it because it teaches people to look for emotional kicks in the Bible rather than God's truth. I hate it because it gives a distorted presentation of what God's word says on how our lives will be. I hate it because it's a smack in the face to every Christian whose life ended because he was torched by Hindu radicals, or shot by Muslim extremists, or executed by atheists. I hate it because it's insulting to God, as if we're trying to tell Him that we're expecting hope and good despite His actual plans for us. I hate it because I have seen people abuse this verse and turn it into an idol, and respond harshly to those who dare question the power of this idol.

What will you do, dear Christian, if God does not desire hope and goodness for your future? What if He desires suffering, as many early Christians endured? What if He desires that you shall lose your high paying job (as the apostle Paul did), or lose a beloved one (as the prophet Ezekiel did), or find yourself hated by most within your society (as the prophets Elijah and Jeremiah did)? Where will be your faith then? What drove the early Christians on as they endured three hundred years of persecution? Was it the silly idea that eventually they would find greener pastures because of eisegeting an Old Testament passage? Or was it because, as the apostle Paul wrote, they considered "the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us" (Rom 8:18). Do you truly have this mindset, dear Christian? Are you ready to endure pain and anguish in this life knowing that God has provided the one thing you truly need? That is, your very redemption. Are you ready to be like the blind man in John 9 who, after persecution and banishment, still desired to see and worship Christ? Do you have such a heart?

Consider these things prayerfully. God bless.

Does Genesis 49:27 Teach Paul was Evil?

"Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil." [Genesis 49:27]

Does this verse warn us to avoid Paul of Tarsus as a false apostle and evil man? The reasoning behind this is that Paul was a member of the tribe of Benjamin. Paul said this himself in his epistles:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. [Romans 11:1]

If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. [Philippians 3:4b-6]

A conclusion is taken from this: Paul must have been "a ravenous wolf" - a false apostle - who "devoured the prey" of the Gospel, and "divided the spoils" in evil. I am not making this up - someone recently presented this to me as an argument against Paul's apostleship.

Of course, Paul isn't the only descendant of Benjamin in scripture. Who else is? The judge Ehud (Judg 3:15), the king Saul and his son Jonathan (1 Sam 9:21), and Mordecai the helper of Esther (Est 2:5) were all descendants of Benjamin. While one might make a case for Saul, are we to say that Ehud, Jonathan and Mordecai were all wicked men who could not be trusted? In fact, let's go a step further - should any ethnic Jew who descends from the tribe of Benjamin be considered evil? Why does the application of Genesis 49:27 only deal with the apostle Paul? Why isn't it about Ehud? Why isn't it about Jonathan? Why isn't it about Mordecai? Why isn't it about that nice Jewish man you met on the train?

Plus, this isn't the only verse in the Bible about Benjamin. We find Moses speaking in the Law with:

Of Benjamin he said, "The beloved of the LORD dwells in safety. The High God surrounds him all day long, and dwells between his shoulders." [Deuteronomy 33:12]

Wait a minute...in one verse Benjamin is a "ravenous wolf," but in another verse Benjamin is a "beloved of the Lord" and is surrounded by God, and God dwells between his shoulders? Is this a contradiction? Should we trust Paul now, since it is now said that God has surrounded him and dwells between his shoulders? But I thought Paul was a ravenous wolf - now God dwells inside him? As a wise man once said, "This done confuse my thinkin'!" There has to be a contradiction here!

On the contrary, there is no contradiction, because those who use Genesis 49:27 in the manner our diatribe does are misusing it completely. Turn to Genesis 49 and look at the entire context of the chapter - you will find that it is Jacob blessing his sons, and telling them what their descendants will be like. When he calls Benjamin a "ravenous wolf," it is actually meant as something of a compliment, because the descendants of Benjamin (such as Ehud and Jonathan) became skilled at war. Some commentators who discuss this topic:

But [the verse] respects the tribe itself, compared to a wolf for its fortitude, courage, and valour, as well as for its rapaciousness, it being a warlike tribe; and the Jewish writers say, that it is compared to a wolf, because of its strength. [John Gill; from his commentaries]

...he only foresees and foretels this, that his posterity should be a warlike tribe, strong and daring, and that they should enrich themselves with the spoils of their enemies... Ehud the second judge, and Saul the first king, were of this tribe; and so also in the last times Esther and Mordecai, by whom the enemies of the Jews were destroyed, were of this tribe. [Matthew Henry; from his commentaries]

Benjamin is described as a wolf who is engaged morning and evening, that is, all day long, in hunting after prey. He was warlike by character and conduct (Judges 20-21), and among his descendants are Ehud, Saul, and Jonathan. [Albert Barnes, from his commentaries]

This is how the verse has been interpreted during the span of the 2000 years of the Christian church, therefore anyone who argues contrary to this has clearly been given a new revelation no one else has ever received. For certain John Calvin writes of interpreters who wrongfully applied verse 27 to Paul, saying that he went from being a wolf to an apostle, and Matthew Henry does similar as those interpreters when he says that Paul did "in the morning of his day, devour the prey as a persecutor, but, in the evening, divided the spoil as a preacher." In such a case, however, it interprets it as referring to Paul in a positive light, not a negative one. Again, the idea that this verse refers specifically to Paul, and in a negative light, is brand new to the history of Christianity.

Of course, there lies here a bigger problem than the misuse of a single verse, and that is a flawed methodology in reading the scriptures. Rather than reading God's word in context and as a flow of thought, it is read like ancient hieroglyphics, or a system of cryptic messages from which some secret message has to be decoded. Like some Omega Code nonsense, people go through God's word, picking a verse here and applying it to an unrelated verse here, trying to discover some undiscovered conspiracy that will reveal some unknown truth. Consistency seems to not be a concern - one cannot, after all, declare one book of the Bible corrupt but at the same time take their evidence from it. Furthermore, if we confess scripture to be God's divine word, we cannot at the same time declare him a victim of fatalism by saying that bits and pieces (if not outright chunks) of lies have been inserted into His divine truth with God being unable to do anything in the way of preservation. The former is the habit of atheists and Muslims seeking to refute Christianity, while the latter is the habit of liberal Christians seeking to minimize God's authority. In the end, such methodology is opposed to God, not supportive.

The fact is, God has not hidden truths in scripture that we have to search out and unscramble like a kind of divine cryptogram. God's truth has been made plain to us, so that everyone from the theologian with a ThD to the layman sitting in church taking notes may hear it and be edified, if not saved. As the apostle John wrote: "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). God uses the preaching of the written word to give His general call for salvation, just as the apostle Paul wrote: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Rom 10:14) Our salvation does not come from looking for Gnostic-like truth hidden deep within scripture, waiting to be discovered and opened up like a Hellraiser puzzle box. Our salvation comes from the preaching of God's word, which is available to all to be heard by all.

If any one treats God's word in the manner I have described previously - looking through it like a hyper-dispensationalist trying to find some secret message to reveal to believers - I seriously suggest that you reevaluate how you read God's word. Meditate on these things, and by God's grace you will realize that scripture is not a magical puzzle box, but the single narrative of God's bringing about salvation for His people. When you discover this, you will truly enjoy the word of God for what it is. God bless.

"With Scripture" versus "From Scripture"

Many people don't realize that there is a world of difference between trying to prove theology with scripture and proving theology from scripture. What do I mean by these two terms? Let's take a moment to examine them.

From scripture refers to teaching theology directly from the pages of scripture and from relevant verses. That is, teaching justification from justification verses, teaching about works from passages about works, teaching about the deity of Christ where that is clearly the topic or part of what is being discussed, etc. For example, John 14:6 is, from the immediate context and the context shown around it, is obviously a passage about salvation and the Solus Christus nature thereof, and so it can be used for those related topics.

With scripture refers to teaching theology using scripture, but in a roundabout way. That is, you attempt to use a passage of scripture as maybe an "example" of what you're talking about, or you're using a passage of scripture to teach something that the passage clearly isn't teaching about. Countless examples of this were seen in Rob Bell's book Love Wins (see my review of it here): the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus was used to teach about Christ's resurrection (which it wasn't about, at all); the Parable of the Prodigal Son was used to teach about heaven and hell (which, again, it wasn't about, at all). They were tied only loosely to the topic, so that the undiscerning might have been unable to understand how Rob Bell had used them grossly out of context.

Being able to discern between these two is vitally important in our treatment of scripture, and for a two-fold reason: 1) it helps us to understand the topic being discussed in the larger context; 2) it presents us with a stronger root in the teachings of scripture, certainly much stronger than a string of weak proof texts.

Stop abusing Matthew 18:20!

One of the most commonly misquoted verses of the Bible is, amazingly enough, a fairly harmless one:

For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. [Matthew 18:20]

Many people quote this in reference to the church. "Ah, see!" they declare, "Where two or three are gathered in His name, He is there! So He's here with us in this church!"

Let me first say this is simply an illogical assumption - God is there among us even if there's just one. God's presence and power is not dependent on numbers (otherwise Elijah would have been in trouble when facing the priests of Baal). Any way, can you imagine the following scenario taking place?

Christian: "Oh Lord, before I go to bed, I'd just like to pray..."
God: "Hold up a minute...how many are there praying with you?"
Christian: "Uh...just me."
God: "What? You can't get a friend or two to join you?"
Christian: "No, they're asleep already."
God: "Sorry. No go."

Now let me say this assumption also does not fit with the real context of the verse.

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." [Matthew 18:15-20; emphasis mine]

The full context here is actually church judgment. The Law said that two or three witnesses were enough to testify against a person, and was enough (if the person was still unrepentant) for the church to start enacting discipline. Christ expands this ("Again I say to you...") regarding the agreement between two or more people. Then, finally comes verse 20, which so many people believe simply means church worship. In actuality, it is merely an extension of church discipline and decision-making. This is the significance of Christ's use of "two or three."

Many might think I'm just splitting hairs here, but Matthew 18:20 (like Revelation 3:20) is one of those verses that just gets so overused that I think people forget the immediate context. Pardon the ranting, and take care.