We started in January of 2012.
As of today, we have completed chapter 27.
Next month, we will embark on the final chapter of Matthew in our small group men’s Bible study.
It has been an adventure, a wonderful time of fellowship, and an amazing opportunity to go deeper into the Word of God.
Thank you to Peter, David, Eric, other Eric, and Michael for being on this journey with me.
I can’t wait to start our next book: Daniel!
Myriad excellent works of the faith throughout the centuries have used the “proof-text” method for supporting their statements: Westminster Shorter Catechism, Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, and many many more.
On the surface, it seems like a great idea – quote the single statement (or sometimes a couple single statements) that support your view. But that can lead to very very dangerous outcomes indeed.
Yanking statements out of their proper context is NOT how to study the Bible!
Yes, some verses can be proofs all on their own for certain core doctrines, such as Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.” Another like passage is Matthew 28:19-20a, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.”
But the very concept of prooftexting in general is not sound; taking select quotes and lining them up to make it sound like they say what you want them to say often leads into eisegesis, rather than the proper application of scripture, which is always via exegesis.
Exegesis, or reading out of a passage, is precisely how Jesus taught from the Old Testament (Luke 24:27, “[t]hen beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures”). His authoritative teaching was one of the many things that, humanly speaking, set Him apart from other religious leaders of His day. And Jesus spoke from the recorded word a lot. (Yes, He spoke “new” things as well, but His teaching was generally expounding upon what had already been preserved.)
Eisegesis means to read-into something. Eisegesis is what literature professors have their students do when they ask them to explicate a poem – say what it means to you .. not necessarily what you think it is actually saying, or what the author intended.
When Paul preached, he “reasoned with them from the scriptures” {Acts 17:2}. He started with God’s word, and argued from it in its entirety.
Scripture “proofs” for several entries in the catechism or confession of faith referenced above do tend to be inline with what the rest of scripture says to specific topics. Or is the only way to properly answer a given question, such as “What is the seventh commandment? The seventh commandment is ‘You shall not commit adultery’ {Exodus 20:14}”
Sadly, though, some purveyors of proof-texts do not inquire into the entirety of the council of scripture for specific topics, but instead go searching for support for their pet issues, the topic of this week’s sermon, etc. I saw this recently in a forum I follow where one member asked about the biblicality of “children’s ministry” (specifically “children’s church” – interestingly, something I had written about a while back, and have since seen more recent opposition if not outright condemnation of the practice).
“But,” I hear some of you say, “Jesus and Paul and the other apostles used proof texts! Every time they said, ‘it is written’, they were proof texting.”
Well – no. They didn’t. Jesus and the apostles used texts to start or buttress their arguments, but rarely left them on their own. Instead, they used them as explanations and support for doctrine. Jesus and the apostles used the word “for” when they quoted the scriptures, or “as” – always drawing on the Old Testament for support or explanation, but never leaving it as enough on its own.
Individual texts can, and should, be the start of further inquiry – they should never ever be the end of inquiry. Until proof-texting is universally done as merely the beginning of inquiry, it shouldn’t be done.
Stories like the popular Left Behind series, or really any eschatalogical – other than Jerusalem Countdown – story always has a rapture event in it somewhere.
Excepting the aforementioned movie (which was very good, in my opinion), I think there is a simple reason for this: if Jesus’ second coming is not presaged by a rapture – wherein all the elect are removed from the world and a short(ish) period of tribulation, anarchy, unification, and ultimate destruction of evil – the stories would be very short.
If Christ’s return is more in line with what I believe shall occur (that it will be sudden, unannounced, and not presaged by more than at most minutes by any other event such as a rapture (though I do believe we will be “caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” [1 Thes 4:17])), then movies about the end of time would be very lacking in their “crisis factor”. If there is no rapture in the way portrayed in movies like The Mark or Left Behind, there is no worldwide wondering what is going on, there is no wide-spread panic over where everyone has gone – it’s just done.
The crisis factor of having planes and cars crashing because some operators and passengers have suddenly been removed is a compelling part of a disaster movie – which is truly what most Christian end-times films are: they are disaster movies cast in a Christian light, from one (with slight variations) eschatological viewpoint.
One thing I do know about the end of time: when it happens, there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind what has happened. And when Jesus does finally return, it will be glorious for those who are His – and terrifying for those who aren’t.
Recently I wrote a post about how you are either pro-life or pro-death.
I’ve since referenced that blog post a couple places, and have been attacked for it. I stand by my previous writing, but here extend the logic just a little.
When I talked about this on a facebook post last week, I was accused of saying that I believe if someone is pro-choice they are going to have an abortion. And I do.
If you claim to be “pro-choice”, you’re really pro-abortion and pro-death.
If you claim to be pro-choice and do not choose to end a pregnancy, then you are – in specific – in fact, pro-life. If you weren’t, you would choose to end the pregnancy. It’s a matter of consistency.
So – are you really pro-life?
For the past many months I have been meeting almost bi-weekly with a small group to study the book of Matthew. We started in Jan 2012, and as of the end of May of 2013, we’ve made it through chapter 21.
At our last meeting, I had an epiphany: if the gospels were written today, we would view them as the results of searching hashtags on Twitter.
Stay with me.
Until very recently, histories were not written with great details as to precise ordering, exact dates, etc: they were written to convey the message of the author in a format the audience would understand (especially in a format the listening audience could understand). While there are a variety of arguments for and against certain authorship years, it is generally agreed-upon that the gospels were not the first books written. (Most probably it was the Epistle of James.) Moreover, based on the writing styles alone, and the gross similarity in content and structure from his 3 Epistles and the Revelation, it is most probable that the Gospel of John was not written until at least the late 80s – if not early 90s – whereas Luke wrote his Gospel along with The Acts of the Apostles while he was traveling with Paul in about the 60s.
In all probability, Matthew was written after Luke, and Mark – well, he was likely shortly before Luke, or coincident with him.
What does this have to do with Twitter? I’m getting there.
When reading the gospels, it is important to note the different styles used by the authors. John, who wrote probably 20-40 years after the others, does not employ the “synoptic” method of the first three: those that give a synopsis of Jesus life, ministry, death, and resurrection. John’s approach identifies much more of the deeper, personal messages and actions of Christ before presenting His death and resurrection.
One thing that even the most casual of observers will not is that the gospel accounts, while recounting much of the same material, vary sometimes in order, exact wording, etc. See the blow image (original) for a diagram of this phenomena:
Luke’s account most closely parallels with the hashtag concept:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. {Luke 1:1-4}
He states he has “investigated thoroughly” and wants to “write it out for you in consecutive order”.
Try searching on Twitter for a hashtag. Say … “#ISC13“. You will get, in the order they were added, all of the tweets that reference the International Supercomputing Conference (2013). Attendees, vendors, presenters, etc all are tweeting or have tweeted about that event. There is promotional material, informational content, summaries, excitements, drama, quotes, etc.
That event occurs in the middle June. I’m writing this at the end of May. In a few months’ time, you will be able to look back and see [more-or-less] everything that was tweeted (and tagged) about that conference. And, with some effort, you could reconstruct what was said, who said it, what it was about, etc.
That is what the gospels are. In fact, it’s what any historical narrative is: it’s the result of recollections, interviews, study, research, memory, proof-reading, etc.
The gospels, as the rest of the Bible, were inspired, are inerrant, and are infallible. They recorded what happened, where it happened, how it happened, and even often why it happened. However, as any law student could tell you, eye witnesses do not always have the “same story”. You and I can look at a house, be asked its color and siding type, and give two very different answers (perhaps brown brick and blue vinyl) – but both be correct. How? Because we see the same object from different angles.
Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
A recent article, along with some other recent discussions I’ve had, has led me to study-out the issue of both “antichrist” (lowercase ‘a’), and “The Antichrist” (uppercase ‘A’).
First let me point out that the term “antichrist” is only used 4 times in the New Testament*, only by John, and only in the first two of his letters (but three times in his first letter).
1 John 2:18
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.1 John 2:22
Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.1 John 4:3
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
Context is everything when it comes to reading God’s Word, therefore knowing the background of each of those verses, the setting of John’s writing, etc will be vital in understanding what he was writing about.
According to IVP:
“First John was written between A.D. 85-95 by the apostle John, the author of the Gospel of John and Revelation. Evidently the letter was circulated among a number of churches in Asia who were threatened by false teachers. These false teachers embraced an early form of heresy known as Gnosticism. They taught that matter was entirely evil and spirit was entirely good.”
And likewise for Second John:
“Like 1 John, 2 John was written by the apostle John between A.D. 85-95. It was written to provide guidance about hospitality. During the first century, traveling evangelists relied on the hospitality of church members. Because inns were few and unsafe, believers would take such people into their homes and then give them provisions for their journey. Since Gnostic teachers also relied on hospitality, John warned his readers against taking such people into their homes lest they participate in spreading heresy.”
The Gnostics claimed to have been on a higher spiritual plane than the rest of the saints, but really were lapsing into pre-Christian paganism, but embracing Christian thoughts and concepts in their practice. As with all false religions, there was an overt focus on improving one’s self, and that you could achieve ‘salvation’ via your own works. In other words, there was no faith in Jesus’ work on the cross required, just good deeds.
Now to the context of 1 John 2:15-24 for the first two references:
Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
Who or what is John writing about when he mentions the term “antichrist”? He is talking about those who have left the assembly of believers and are teaching heresy! Those denying Christ’s efficacious work on the cross. Those who advocate works in lieu of faith.
Why does he call them “antichrists”? That’s simple – they are teaching against Christ. He distinctly does not name an individual who is “The Antichrist” – he lumps all apostates proclaiming falsehood together under that term.
What is the context of chapter 4?
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
John again is addressing those who are teaching falsehoods and claiming they are teaching Christ. He also gives ways of testing all teachers to be sure they are presenting actual truth, and not their own twisted message.
Does this change in his second letter?
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
Nope – John is now warning to not even invite these apostates into your home because it will make you party to their evil teaching.
Do these themes (concerns about apostates / heretical teaching) appear anywhere else in John’s writings? They do – in the letters to the seven churches (Revelation 2-3) dictated in his vision on the Isle of Patmos.
Rev 2:2-3 “I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; and you have perseverance and have endured for My name’s sake, and have not grown weary.”
Rev 2:14-16a “But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality. So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent;”
Rev 2:20-21,24 “But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.”, “But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them – I place no other burden on you.”
Rev 3:15-19 “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.”
There is much else to be gathered from the seven letters, but at the present time I want to look at how Christ addresses heresy in them. Heresy is not tolerated by God for long – He repeatedly promises to “come quickly” and to “remove the lampstand” all while offering grace if they “repent quickly”.
From when, then, does a fascination come with identifying “The” antichrist? Historically, many Protestants have identified the current pope as The Antichrist. And certainly many have been antichrists.
Some reference 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12:
Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
And those who reference that passage will generally come up with the following points:
Does the pope claim titles which should not be claimed by man? Absolutely. There is only one “Holy Father” (God the Father), there is only one “Head of the Church” (God the Son), and there is only one “Vicar of Christ” (God the Holy Spirit).
Is the pope an antichrist? For the vast majority of them, most probably. Historically, popes have been most often elected to the office not for their piety, but for their political sway. They have been viewed as negotiators, peace-makers (due to their upbringing, their connections, or their money – not because they preach the gospel of Christ), war-starters (eg with the Crusades), and a variety of other roles which aren’t really compatible with the office of a pastor.
I grew up in a church that held to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith – with the exception of part of chapter 26, which states:
“The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.”
My home church in Albany, the one in which I was baptized in Mebane, and most other Reformed Baptist churches I am aware of cite that paragraph as the only area they disagree with the confession on (perhaps a couple other minor areas, but this was the biggie). And we disagree with that paragraph because assigning all the weight of a single term – “antichrist” – to someone whose times come and go, and to the exclusion of all other antichrists, is illogical, unbiblical, and paints the believer who holds to the entire confession (including its less-than-biblical aspects) into a corner.
What is the proper conclusion to draw from the entirety of scripture? Is there One True Antichrist? Most likely there will be some amazingly charismatic leader who will lead the masses astray from the Gospel of Christ.
But in the mean time, there are antichrists everywhere: the pope (past, present, and future) may or may not be one. But we need not look so far away as The Vatican to find antichrists: we can find them, sadly, in [nearly] every local church – those who are proclaiming heresy as truth, works over faith, man over God.
* I used the NASB for all references
This will likely be the last term I teach a Sunday afternoon discipleship class at Porter.
But this is a Good Thing™.
Beginning the first Sunday in April, I will be trialing as the new primary leader of a SS class Life Group. If all goes well, after the first month, I’ll be in there “permanently” – ie, until God calls me elsewhere 🙂
Prayers would be appreciated!
We are the youngest couple in the class, but after much prayer, discussion, and advise from others, this looks like where God is leading at the current time. This will be a pretty big change, but one we hope will be a positive one.
Trials hurt. They stretch us, bend us, twist us, and pressure us as they develop us into the people God would have us to be. A chef in an authentic pizzeria stretches the dough, pounds it, flattens it, rolls it, twirls it, and then cooks it. A pizza can’t become all that a pizza was intended to be until the dough has gone through the necessary process of becoming all that it was made to be. Piling some sausage, sauce, onions, and tomatoes on top of a wad of dough will never make a pizza. Rather, the dough had to be worked before it can be the proper foundation [for] all of the toppings and a delicious meal.
and
[W]henever you run from God, you have to pick up the tab … When you are in God’s will, even if you don’t want to be in God’s will, He will pick up the tab.
and
Even in our rebellion, God will still accomplish His work.
(God’s Unlikely Path to Success by Tony Evans pp 59, 78, 82 (ref))
It’s important to realize faith is more than a feeling. Faith is a function.
(God’s Unlikely Path to Success by Tony Evans p38 (ref))