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.

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?

The "That's Your Interpretation" Fallacy

Oftentimes when someone quotes scripture to demonstrate their point, someone will contend it with the counterargument: "That's your interpretation." There are other versions of this, including "That's just your opinion" and similar wording. The problem is that if this is said simply as a blanket statement rather as the introduction to an argument which will demonstrate the point, then it is simply a fallacious response.

In my experience, the people who make such argumentation have one thing in common: they can never follow it up. They will tell you "That's just your interpretation" or "That's just how you see the verse," but when you ask them to demonstrate how you might be misrepresenting the verse, or you ask them to examine the verse, they almost always will refuse to do so.

Brothers and sisters, if anyone pulls this fallacy with you, do not permit it to them. If one wishes to suggest you have misused God's word, ask them to answer for it. Explain it. Demonstrate it. If they cannot, or they simply repeat themselves, or they present a very shallow response, then they will have shown themselves to be full of nothing but hot air. Stick to the word of God, show that the truth is there in the plain wording, and they will have nowhere else to go.

Song of Solomon: Literal or Allegory?

Dante and Beatrice, by Maria Spartali Stillman

My fiance and I had gone through the Gospel of Matthew a few months ago, and went through the Epistles of Jude and 3 John not too long after that. After some time, she asked if we could go through another book together. With some meditating and thinking, I decided on the Song of Solomon, as that was about a married couple, and we ourselves are soon to be a married couple. I studied through it and then went over it with her, and at this time we've finally completed the whole book. It's been a wonderful experience.

My initial studies into it led me to ponder over the controversy on how to interpret the book - namely, is it allegorical or literal? That is, is it a literal story of two people in love, or is it, as so many commentators throughout history have said, an allegory of Christ and the church? In fact, this latter interpretation didn't start with Christians - the earliest Jewish commentators believed that Song of Solomon was essentially one huge allegory about God and the Jewish people. This continued into the early Church Fathers and Christian commentators, who applied it to the Christ and the Church allegory, and continued well into the nineteenth century.

Perhaps it should be noted that people seem to fall into extreme camps: either it's completely allegorical or it's completely literal. For my own part, I find those who take the completely allegorical approach run into many, many problems with the language of the book. For example, in the very first chapter, the bride says to herself:

Draw me after you; let us run. The king has brought me into his chambers. [Song of Solomon 1:4a]

As the NET translation notes point out, this transition from present tense to past tense signifies a hope and desire. The "chambers" mentioned here are bedchambers. If we were to translate this into plain speaking, the bride would be saying: "I really, really want to make love to the king."

Another incredibly problematic verse is seen much later on, spoken this time by the bridegroom:

Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its fruit. [Song of Solomon 7:7-8a]

During his long description of his wife, the husband turns to her chest. He describes her stature like a palm tree (specifically, a date palm tree), and compares her breasts to clusters. He then describes climbing up the palm tree (which date farmers had to do) and "laying hold of its fruit." In other words, he would like to fondle her breasts. Please forgive me, dear reader, for my bluntness, but that is precisely why I described this verse as "problematic" for those who take the full allegory route for the entire book. What person, in his right mind, would compare this to Christ's relationship to the church?

It will be granted that those in the full allegory camp give responses to verses such as this. However, and with all due respect to them and the memory of those in days past, they do so in the worst possible way - they do it by naming the breasts: Old Testament and New Testament; Moses and Jesus; Law and Grace; etc. I am not making this up (similar treatment is given to the mention of breasts in the far more harmless passage in Sol 1:13). Something that usually women of loose morals do is now being done by theologians and applied to the woman in Song of Solomon, in an effort to conform with the presupposition that she must represent the church. It's as if some are saying, "No, it can't possibly mean what I think it means!" Especially today, with society's over-objectification of the female chest, it might make many a Christian man cringe to think that such a passage could be in the Bible.

I believe all this stems from a misunderstanding of what the book is truly about. Regarded as a giant allegory by some, regarded as pornography hidden away in the Bible by others, the Song of Solomon is either misunderstood or misrepresented by many who try to read it. The truth of the matter is, like the book of Revelation, Song of Solomon can be a wonderful read if properly understood. For it to be properly exegeted, its premise must first be properly understood.

The Song of Solomon is, at its heart, the story of two people of God in love with one another. However, this is not an empty love, or the vague idea known as "love" by many in today's society - this love grows over time, and is nurtured by the couple as well as their friends (Sol 1:11) and family (Sol 8:8-9). The moments of true physical intimacy only happen after the couple are married: those who are shocked by the descriptions and events of chapter four forget that the couple were married in chapter three, and are only now consummating their marriage. The love in the book is true love blessed by God, for the flames of love are called "the very flame of the LORD" (Sol 8:6). In short, the Song of Solomon is a literal love story about a believing man and woman.

It will also be granted here that there are those who tend to "oversexualize" the book, turning every single verse into a sexual metaphor. For example, the verse in which the husband is trying to get into the room where his wife is, and puts his hand through the latch of the door (Sol 5:4), is believed by some to be a metaphor for sexual activity. However, reading the entire context of this section, as well as looking into how doors of that time functioned, makes us realize that the husband is reaching through the latch of the door to unlock it, and nothing more.

So what of the more intimate moments which we know for certain are speaking of physical relations? Should they shock us? In fact, it might surprise some that there is nothing sinful about the attraction between a husband and wife, even in a Christian household. It is all too common for people today to confuse attraction with lust. The apostle Paul himself wrote:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. [1 Corinthians 7:1-5]

In these verses, the apostle explains that the husband and wife are to enjoy one another physically. In like manner, this is to be an equal enjoyment - too often today, some Christian women take the extreme that they are to "just lie back and think of England" when it comes to their marital duties. It might also be worthy to note that, in both these verses and in the entirety of the Song of Solomon, procreation is never mentioned. Now, this does not mean that birth control is to be utilized by the Christian couple, nor does it mean that a Christian husband and wife should not think about and be aware of the reproductive function of their bodies. However, it does present to us the realization that sex is supposed to an enjoyment for them. It is meant as part of the blessing of their relationship. It is not simply for procreation, although that is it's primary function. The act of lovemaking is partially what the very idea of becoming "one flesh" means (cf. Gen 2:24). We should not be shocked with the idea of a husband enjoying the physical features of his wife, as seen in passages such as Sol 7:7-8. It is perfectly fine for a husband and wife to enjoy one another in the confines of marriage - in fact, it's perfectly biblical.

A question that may arise from all this: is there any room for allegory in reading the Song of Solomon? Yes and no. We've already established that it is impossible to make every single verse allegorical without, at some point, becoming unintentionally blasphemous. However, there are certainly some sections of the book where we could find allegory. As most people know, the apostle Paul used marriage as an allegory for Christ and the church (Eph 5:22-33). However, when we go looking for allegories, it is first important to understand the plain context of what we are reading. We need to know what is being said before we go looking for deeper meanings.

Permit me to use art as a metaphor. When studying the trade of art, one of the things they first teach you is that you have to study how the world works in a plain way before you go into abstractions. For example, Picasso, in his early life, painted beautiful semi-realistic paintings. Later on in life, he began to dabble in the Cubism and other styles that made him world famous. In the image below, you see his work Science and Charity (painted in 1897) on the left, and a section of his later work Guernica (painted in 1937) on the right.

The one on the left was done when Picasso was just 16-years old, while the one on the right was done when he was 56-years old. No, I did not mix up the ages. Picasso once told someone that it took him his childhood to learn to draw like an adult, and his adulthood to learn to draw like a child. The point is that, before dabbling in the more abstract forms of natural representation, Picasso learned how to portray the world as it was. Before we deal with the abstract, we must understand the natural. In like manner, before we deal with allegory, we must understand the literal. Otherwise, we completely lose the original meaning of the passage we are dealing with. You won't be able to understand what is being represented without first understanding what can be represented. This is what was seen with Harold Camping, who would take a section of scripture and turn it into an allegory that completely contradicted its original context. Like Mr. Camping, we can become so engrossed looking for allegories that we can separate ourselves from the original intention of the authors.

So while it is not impossible to find allegory in the Song of Solomon, it is vital that its immediate context be understood first. Yet even with all the allegories thrown out, the Song of Solomon can still be read as a beautiful and wonderful book within the larger canon of Holy Writ.

Authority of Exposition

The following is from Adam Clarke's commentary on the Song of Solomon. Although he was referring specifically to that book, I think it pays to remember these words when attempting to over-allegorize any book of scripture.

In the preceding notes I have carefully avoided all attempts to spiritualize this song. My reasons I have already given in the introduction; and in the course of writing these short notes I have seen no cause to alter my opinion. Any man may allegorize it; that is an easy matter; for when he once considers it to be an allegory, his own creed will furnish him with enough to say, write, or preach, upon the spiritual meanings of every part, which will be an exhibition of his own confession of faith! But when he has finished his work, the question will recur, By what authority do you give it these meanings? And till the day of judgment none shall be able to say, "I have the authority of God for my exposition."

"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.