A Lingering Question: What Role Should Inference Play in Biblical Hermeneutics?

Simply defined, “hermeneutics” is “the science of interpretation.” The term can be applied to any type of communication, including written or spoken, human or divine. Biblical hermeneutics specifically relates to the proper interpretation of the Bible. If one is going to understand and properly apply the word of God, he must engage in a correct hermeneutical process. This, of course, begs the question, “What is the correct hermeneutic?” What principles must govern my study of the sacred text so that I arrive at the right conclusions regarding what it actually teaches and how it applies?

The religious world in general, and churches of Christ in particular, have found themselves in many a battle over hermeneutics. One might successfully argue that, at least over the past few decades, this has been a single, non-ending debate. Only the participants have changed.

A Few Thoughts on Terminology

The hermeneutic that has historically been employed in churches of Christ is popularly known as “command, example, and necessary inference,” highlighting three ways that Bible authority can be ascertained. While this is popular terminology (used by both its proponents and antagonists), it is my personal judgment that a more precise description of the proper hermeneutic would utilize the terms “direct statement,” “positive example,” and “implication” (with the possible addition of “expediency” [Deaver 63-67]).

While I do not consider the popular terminology to be wrong (when properly understood), and opting for slightly different terminology may seem like mere semantics, I do believe that there is some merit to being a bit more precise in the terminology we employ. Consider:

• There are several types of direct statements, “command” being only one. To limit this element of hermeneutics to the imperative alone is to leave out other important ways in which God authorizes and obligates. In addition to imperatives (commands), other direct statements include the declarative, interrogative, hortatory, and conditional (Warren, Example, 47-78). These kinds of statements, which are not commands, still have the ability to obligate certain actions. For example, “He that believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16) is not an imperative statement. It is not a command. It is a declarative statement, merely stating a fact. But from this declarative statement, we learn that if one desires to be saved he is obligated to believe and be baptized. The Bible, therefore, can authorize and obligate through direct statements that are not, by definition, commands.
• “Example” is commonly defined as “a pattern or model, as of something to be imitated or avoided” (www.dictionary.com; search “example”). With that common usage in mind, I believe it is more precise to distinguish between positive examples (e.g., Jesus, 1 Pet. 2:21) and negative examples (e.g., Lot’s wife, Luke 17:32).
• “Implication” is my preferred term over “necessary inference” because it sharpens the focus of the discussion by drawing attention to what God does (imply) as opposed to what man does (infer). Many folks wrongly equate “inference” with “opinion” or “assumption.” While that is not the fault of the terminology, it might be helpful in the discussion of these matters to shift the focus away from what we do in the hermeneutical process (sometimes imperfectly) to what God does (perfectly). If any inference is binding on an individual today, it is binding because God implied it, not because man inferred it (Warren, Logic, 32). More will be said about this momentarily.

It is not within the scope of this treatise to address the whole of the hermeneutical issue or the particular roles of direct statements and positive examples in interpreting scripture. It is my intent to address the matter of implication generally, and in particular, the inconsistencies presented by those who deny that implication should be a part of any proper hermeneutic.

Defining Some Important Words

Explicit Statement. The “explicit statements” of the Bible consist of the Bible’s actual words. For example, “He that believes and is baptized will be saved” is explicitly taught in the Bible (Mark 16:16). “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job” is explicitly taught in the Bible (Job 1:1). Whatever specific words are recorded in the text is what the Bible “explicitly” teaches (Warren, Logic, 11).

Implication. Implied truths are those realities that may be accurately deduced from the explicit statements. “Inference” is the process by which implied truths are ascertained. For example, if I explicitly state, “The book is on my desk,” and, “My desk is in my office,” then there is a third truth that is implied by those explicit statements: the book is in my office. Is that third statement just an unverifiable opinion because it was reached by inference? Is it guesswork? Is it just an assumption that cannot really be classified as “truth”? No. Though unstated, it is just as true as the explicit statements because it is implied by them.

Consider another example: I tell my son, “John is taller than Bob,” and, “Bob is taller than Bill.” Then I ask him, “Is John taller than Bill?” Although I never explicitly spoke of the relationship between John and Bill, my son would correctly infer that John is, as a matter of fact, taller than Bill. Would that conclusion be mere opinion? If someone concluded from those two statements that John was NOT taller than Bill, would he be right? No. That would be an incorrect inference because it is not implied by the two explicit statements. Those explicit statements imply that John is taller than Bill – a fact that is just as true as the first two statements, though it is not explicitly affirmed (Warren, Logic, 28-29).

Here is a biblical example: the Bible teaches that the church of Jesus Christ was established in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Note carefully that the Bible does not teach that truth explicitly. In other words, you will not find the emboldened words above – those exact, explicit words – anywhere in the Bible. But it is a true statement, is it not? How do I know that it is true? How do I know that it is not just an assumption or an opinion? Because the explicit statements of the Bible (specifically the first and second chapters of Acts) imply it. When those explicit statements are considered and subjected to proper reasoning (cf. 1 Thess. 5:21), the above statement in bold is one fact that emerges. But is it to be considered true because I inferred it? No. It is true because the Bible implies it. My inferring was just the process by which I ascertained what God had already implied.

Jesus and Implication

In a most intriguing section of scripture, Jesus addressed the matter of implication. The passage is Matthew 22:23-33, in which Jesus turned the tables on the skeptical Sadducees by charging them with error for not inferring what God had implied (Miller 121-122).

The Sadducees, disbelievers in the resurrection of the dead (cf. Acts 23:8), approached Jesus with a hypothetical scenario that they believed proved their position on the resurrection. Based on the levirate law in the Mosaic system (Deut. 25:5-10), they posited that it would be possible for a woman to out-live seven husbands and leave no children behind. In that, they were right. Then they added a question that, without doubt, they thought would put Jesus in a logical trap from which He could not escape, “In the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be?” (Matt. 22:28). Note carefully how Jesus countered their argument.

The first thing He charged them with was being in error (Matt. 22:29). They did not know the scriptures or the power of God. Drawing first from an example – the angels – Jesus argued that marriage, as we know it here, will not exist in the heavenly realm. The Sadducees were wrong in thinking that their hypothetical woman would be anyone’s wife in the resurrection.

To further prove His case, Jesus then directs their attention to the scriptures – that which He said they did not know (Matt. 22:29). I affirm that in saying that, Jesus was not accusing them of being ignorant of what the text explicitly said, but being ignorant of what it implied! But being ignorant of what it implied was tantamount to “not knowing the scriptures.”

Jesus said, “But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:31-32). Do not fail to grasp these points:

• The quotation Jesus references is Exodus 3:6, where God identified Himself to Moses from the burning bush. Yet Jesus stated that God’s words were spoken “to you,” that is, to the Sadducees. He expected them to have not only read that text, but to have inferred that those words not only applied to Moses originally, but to them, too.
• In addition, even though God’s identification to Moses was originally intended to be just that, those words implied something about the afterlife. At the time God spoke those words to Moses, the patriarchs He mentioned had been dead for centuries. Yet, God used the present tense to denote His relationship to them (i.e., “I am the God…” as opposed to “I was the God…”). If He was at that time – in the then present – still the God of those patriarchs long after their physical deaths, then they must have still existed. Therefore, there is an after-life. There will be a resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees’ doctrine was false.
• The key for our purposes is this: Jesus was telling the Sadducees that they were in error (Matt. 22:29) because they did not know the scriptures. The scripture that would have helped them avoid their error was Exodus 3:6, which does not explicitly state that there is an after-life. The passage does, however, imply it. Had they correctly inferred what that verse implies, they would not have been ignorant about the resurrection.

By studying the Lord’s interaction with the Sadducees we learn something of Jesus’ own hermeneutic – a hermeneutic that involved the authoritative use of positive example and implication. Therefore, to call for a casting aside of these hermeneutical principles because they are supposedly flawed is to indict Jesus Himself with employing faulty hermeneutics. I, for one, am unwilling to so charge Him.

A New Hermeneutic?

Most of what has been said in opposition to the “traditional” hermeneutic (understanding that “traditional” does not always mean wrong, 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6) has been said without the offer of an alternative. Miller states,

The primary concern of those clamoring for a ‘new hermeneutic’ appears to be the dismantling of the ‘old hermeneutic.’ Much of their effort has been spent criticizing what is deemed to be the shortcomings of the hermeneutical practices of the past…. Little energy has been expended on their part in proposing a legitimate alternative (because there isn’t one) (114).

He further affirms that this call for a new hermeneutic “is born out of a reactionary attempt to express dissatisfaction with the status quo and thus to undermine the past” (ibid.).

While Miller accurately describes the majority of the critics, there have been some who, in more recent years, have tried to offer an alternative. But before they are through explaining it, they inevitably end up engaging in the very practice they decry – inference.

One example of this comes from the pen of Al Maxey, a brother that I do not personally know, but who has written quite a bit on the subject of hermeneutics. In an online article titled, “Suggesting Another Hermeneutic: Inquiry into an Interpretive Methodology,” brother Maxey offers not only criticism of the traditional hermeneutic, but his alternative to it. Regarding the traditional hermeneutic, he states,

I do not believe this to be the best methodology available to us. Indeed, I feel it to be fatally flawed as employed by its proponents, and believe the adherents of this hermeneutic have left the One Body horribly fragmented into countless feuding factions in the wake of their differing deductions and assumptions which they far too frequently feel compelled to bind upon others as universal LAW.

There’s obviously no doubt regarding where Maxey stands relative to the “old” hermeneutic. But before looking at his alternative, one point needs to be made clear: Maxey, and others who share his belief, frequently allude to division within the body of Christ and lay the blame for that division on the traditional hermeneutic. These kinds of statements come up so often, one is left to wonder if the distasteful nature of division is the real impetus for the rejection of the old hermeneutic. If so, may we all be reminded that if the traditional hermeneutic is the correct one (and I, for one, believe that it is), then any division resulting therefrom is not the fault of the hermeneutic! It is the fault of those who fail to honor it and/or properly apply it. Not all division, distasteful though it is, violates the will of God (Matt. 10:34-39).

Maxey’s alternative to the traditional hermeneutic is outlined this way: Biblical; Non-Biblical; Anti-Biblical; and Beneficial. Let me briefly explain what he means by each of these designations:

• Biblical – these are matters that, according to Maxey, are “clearly declared in the Bible.” He offers the example of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. “None can deny it is in the Bible.” He summarizes, “If God has clearly and unequivocally spoken on the matter – then it is BIBLICAL.”
• Non-Biblical – these are said to be matters that are not “clearly addressed in the Bible.” That is, matters that “are not to be found anywhere in the Bible.” Examples would be pitch pipes, Vacation Bible School, and PowerPoint.
• Anti-Biblical – these are identified as matters not specifically addressed in scripture, but ultimately “must be rejected as being in opposition to God’s will for our lives.” He uses the example of an “exotic dancer” who claimed that it would be acceptable for her to praise God before the assembled church by stripping. Maxey concludes that, even though this matter is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, “few of us would have any difficulty producing several biblical principles and precepts indicating that such behavior is clearly in opposition to the will of our God.”
• Beneficial – according to Maxey, if a matter is Non-Biblical (i.e., scripture is silent on it); if it is not Anti-Biblical (i.e., it is not opposed to Biblical principles); then one must determine if it is “beneficial” – i.e., “Will it help or hinder us in the fulfilling of our godly purpose in life?” His belief is that if an issue falls into this category, then passages like Romans 14 come into play. Liberty is allowed, but each one should be careful in how he exercises that liberty.

While there are a number of things with which I take exception in brother Maxey’s essay (not the least of which is his position on instrumental music in worship), I want to focus on just a singular point. In his defense of the “Biblical” plank above, Maxey states, “The question is NOT – can it be inferred from the Bible, can it be deduced from the Bible, can it be assumed from the Bible, or can it be wrested from the Bible…” He clearly exhibits an aversion to inference and deduction since he joins it with assumption and wresting. Yet, in his attempts to prove the validity of his hermeneutic, he employs the very things (inference and deduction) that he thinks are so detrimental to the cause of Christ. That level of self-contradiction makes his “alternate” hermeneutic nothing of the sort. And no statement or system of belief can be true and self-contradictory at the same time.

Consider these examples:

• Maxey affirms, “One can neither condemn nor condone something simply by virtue of its absence alone.” While I agree with that explicit statement, the question he needs to answer is, how did he arrive at that conclusion? The Bible nowhere explicitly states those words. If it is a true statement, then the only way he could have arrived at it is by a process of deduction and inference. But those are supposed to be the things one avoids in a proper hermeneutic.
• The most egregious inconsistencies come in brother Maxey’s explanation of his “Anti-Biblical” plank. He writes, “When God’s inspired Word offers no specific statement on a matter, we must then begin seeking further clarification by asking some very pointed questions.” This is another statement with which I happen to agree. But that is irrelevant for this discussion. The real question, again, is how did he conclude that such was something we “must” do? Where is the “specific statement” in the Bible that reveals that obligation? There isn’t one. Brother Maxey reached that conclusion, and included it as a part of his hermeneutic, by means of inference and deduction – the very things that he says should not be part of Biblical hermeneutics.
• With regard to his reasoning about the stripper, I agree completely with his conclusion that such a display would clearly violate God’s will. But how did our brother arrive at that conclusion? It certainly wasn’t by pointing to a “thou shalt not strip in the worship” passage. He tells you himself how he reached that conclusion – by “producing several biblical principles and precepts indicating” that one should not strip in the worship. But how is it “indicated,” brother Maxey? Explicitly or implicitly? And how do you know that those principles and precepts “indicate” your conclusion if they don’t explicitly address stripping? Can he just not see that the process by which he reached his conclusion is the very hermeneutic that he disparages?! He took certain explicit statements from the Bible, inferred which ones were germane to the topic at hand, deduced the general principles taught by means of those explicit statements, and concluded that stripping in the assembly would be wrong. Whether he realizes it or not, brother Maxey inferred repeatedly (though not always accurately) while trying to maintain that inference is one of the church’s main problems.
• The bottom line with our brother’s “Anti-Biblical” category is that neither he nor anyone else can successfully place any practice into that category without engaging in deduction and inference. Therefore, his entire hermeneutic fails as an alternative to the traditional hermeneutic because it actually employs it!
• When all of this talk about “new” hermeneutics is boiled down, what you seem to be left with are people who just do not like some of the conclusions that the proper hermeneutic logically leads to, so they attempt to create another method of interpretation that will not take them to those same conclusions. Yet their attempts always involve self-contradiction, because, as Dave Miller earlier stated, there is no alternative to the traditional hermeneutic. Using direct statements, positive examples, and implication are the ways God has chosen to communicate His will (and, in truth, those are the ways that we communicate our thoughts to each other). The traditional hermeneutic is nothing more than proper reasoning, which God requires each person to do (1 Thess. 5:21).

Therefore, with all due respect, how can I take seriously the suggestion that inference and deduction not be a part of Biblical hermeneutics when that conclusion itself was reached through a process of reasoning that involved inference and deduction (poorly applied, though it may have been)?

Implied Biblical Teaching

Following are several true statements that are not taught explicitly in scripture – that is, they are not stated in just so many words. But they are, nonetheless, taught. They are implied. If you, good reader, agree that these statements are true, the only way that you, or anyone else, could prove them to be true would be by a process that involves inference and deduction. But if such a process should be abandoned because it is a faulty hermeneutic, how could you ever affirm the following?

• An individual, once saved, can so sin as to be eternally lost.
• The kingdom of God mentioned in Daniel 2:44 is the church of Jesus Christ.
• Joseph Smith was a false prophet.
• The apostle Paul was not saved on the road to Damascus.
• God approves of singing praises to Him.
• The Mormon doctrine of proxy baptism is false doctrine.
• The Catholic Pope is not infallible.

Each of the above statements is true, yet not a single one of them is explicitly stated in the Bible. They are implied. But they are just as true as the explicit statements that imply them. They are true not because they are inferred. They are true because they are implied.

Conclusion

I don’t operate under the delusion that this one treatise will forever silence the noise of battle over proper biblical interpretation, though I hope it helps someone. If the numerous excellent books and articles of the past have not ended the debate, my effort surely will not. But that is not the fault of the hermeneutical principle I have defended herein. It is biblical. It is right. It is the hermeneutical principle that Jesus Himself used. If the proper application of this hermeneutic has resulted in division, then it was necessary division (Matt. 10:34-39; 1 Cor. 11:19). But not everyone who claims to believe in this hermeneutic always applies it consistently (any more than anyone who adopts Al Maxey’s hermeneutic would always apply it consistently). In those cases, the blame must not be laid at the feet of the hermeneutic, but at the feet of the person misusing it (as I’m sure brother Maxey would argue in cases where his hermeneutic is poorly applied).

Paul wrote, “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). It is simply impossible to obey that passage without inferring what the explicit statements of the Bible imply.

REFERENCES

Deaver, Roy C. (1987) Ascertaining Bible Authority (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation)

Maxey, Al (2004) “Suggesting Another Hermeneutic: Inquiry into an Interpretive Methodology” (www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx126.htm)

Miller, Dave (1996) Piloting the Strait (Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications)

Warren, Thomas B. (1982) Logic and the Bible (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press)

_______________ (1975) When is an “Example” Binding? (Moore, OK: National Christian Press)

Advice for Understanding Proverbs

If a Christian wishes to stand “as one approved” in the eyes of God, he must “rightly handl[e] the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Since the Bible is composed of different types of literature (poetry, prophecy, history, letter, etc.), one must respect those genres when seeking to understand and apply any given passage. The book of Proverbs is no exception. Some Bible students, failing to account for the nature of a proverb, have found themselves in somewhat of a quandary to explain and/or apply some of these divinely inspired pearls of wisdom. Two important principles should always be kept in mind when studying the Proverbs.

Some proverbs are intended merely to encourage forethought and should not be viewed as irrevocable rules to be applied in all situations. For example, in Proverbs 26:4-5, you will find two diametrically opposed imperatives,

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

OK, which is it? Do you answer a fool or do you not answer him? If the Bible student takes the position that the Proverbs always present hard-and-fast rules to be applied in every circumstance, then he will not be able to obey Proverbs 26:4 without automatically disobeying verse 5 (and vice versa). But if one understands their real intent—to encourage consideration of the consequences of two different responses to fools—there is no difficulty. Sometimes it is wise to ignore a fool. At other times it may be wise to put him in his place. Just think before you respond (Prov. 15:28; 19:11; 21:23) and do your best to season your words appropriately (Col. 4:6).

Some proverbs state how things will work out most of the time, but should not be considered absolute guarantees from God. For example, “When a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Prov. 16:7). If one believes this passage to be without exception, how does it apply to the life of Jesus? Did His ways not please the Father? Indeed they did—without exception (John 8:29; Heb. 4:15). Were His enemies always at peace with Him? Not unless you consider a bogus trial, severe scourging and Roman crucifixion “peaceful” treatment. In most cases, one will lead a “quiet, peaceable life in all godliness” (1 Tim. 2:2) when he conducts his life according to divine principles of morality and ethics. But that doesn’t mean that there will never be individual instances of mistreatment from others (2 Tim. 3:12; John 15:18-20). Sometimes the amount of peace in our lives is determined, not by ourselves, but by others (Rom. 12:18).

Another passage that serves as a good example of this principle is Proverbs 15:1, “A soft answer turns away wrath.” Most of the time, that’s true. But it will not be true in every case without exception, as evidenced by the wicked treatment our Lord received even as He calmly interacted with Pilate and the chief priests while on trial.

Or, you might consider Proverbs 11:8, “The righteous is delivered from trouble, and the wicked walks into it instead.” Is that an absolute and inviolable law? No. It’s a proverb – a statement that reflects principles that are wise and generally true.

Let us be careful, though, not to misunderstand something of utmost importance. The fact that Proverbs are expressions of general truth does not negate their inspiration. The Proverbs are verbally inspired of God in their entirety. But inspiration does not change the nature of a proverb. God can give inspired generalizations as easily as we can give uninspired ones.

The Proverbs offer divine descriptions of wisdom and inspired advice for wise living. So let us give all diligence to employ their wise counsel and anticipate the stated results. But let not our faith be adversely affected by the occasional exception.

FOR FURTHER STUDY

In preparation for writing this treatise, I was greatly helped by Denny Petrillo’s class notes on Proverbs available through World Video Bible School in Maxwell, Texas (www.wvbs.org). I highly recommend this material.

What’s So Wrong with Law?

An old, plain-spoken preacher was often heard to say, “If there’s one verse that every old reprobate knows how to quote, it’s Matthew 7:1.” With a couple of minor changes, one could just as easily (and accurately) affirm, “If there is one verse that every liberal-minded brother knows how to quote, it’s Romans 6:14.” Now don’t misunderstand. There is certainly nothing wrong with Matthew 7:1 or Romans 6:14 if they are properly applied. But therein lies the problem. Not all those who can quote, “You are not under law but under grace” know what it means.

Some folks have an aversion to speaking of the New Testament as a “law” in any sense of the word. But that stumbling block can be overcome rather quickly and easily for the fair-minded. If the New Testament is not a law in any sense, then there is no sin today. Sin is defined in Scripture as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4, KJV). But if we are not under law at all, then how could there be sin? Romans 4:15 states, “Where there is no law there is no transgression” (ESV). The converse of that is just as true: if there is transgression (sin), there must be law. No rational person would deny the existence of sin. But to affirm sin’s existence is to implicitly affirm the existence of a violated law.

Consider as well that the New Testament is often referred to in “law” terminology:

• Galatians 6:2 refers to our obligation to ”fulfill the law of Christ.”
• Paul said that he was “under the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21).
• The New Testament is a “law of faith” (Rom. 3:27).
• Romans 7:2-3 states that husbands and wives are bound “by law” to stay married to each other until death separates them. Bound by whose law? Certainly not man’s.
• The New Testament is “the law of the Spirit of life” (Rom. 8:2).
• Hebrews 7:12 affirms that for Christ to be High Priest there was a necessary “change” in the law, but not a complete abandonment of all law.
• Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16 speak of the New Testament as being a system in which “laws” are written on people’s hearts.
• James 1:25 refers to the “word” of God (v. 22) as “the perfect law, the law of liberty.”

So, again I ask, what is so wrong with law?

What some folks fail to understand is that “law” can be used in two senses – to refer to the mere concept, or to refer to a system. This is where Romans 6:14 comes in. We are “not under law” in the sense that the New Testament is not a “law system.” A law system is pure law, devoid of grace, mercy, and forgiveness. Under pure law, no provision is made for the pardoning of violators. If we lived under that kind of system then sin would clearly have dominion over us, for no one keeps law perfectly and there would be no way to erase the guilt of any violation. But the New Testament is a “grace system,” in which provision for the forgiveness of transgressors has been made through the sacrifice of Christ. The reason why sin does not have dominion over us is because of God’s grace that is available through the gospel. But within that grace system are specific, individual obligations that can rightly be called “laws,” as indicated by the references above. More than that, the whole of the New Testament is a “law.” It is not a “law system,” but it is a law in the sense that it contains directives designed to govern people’s lives.

“Law,” when used not in the sense of a system, but just as a concept, merely refers to “instruction that regulates conduct.” If God has not given us instructions to regulate our conduct, then what exactly is 2 Timothy 2:22, for example, “Flee youthful passions, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace…”? Is that a law from God? Yes. It is instruction designed to regulate my conduct. It is a part of Christ’s New Testament law.

What happens, then, if I violate that law? If the New Testament was a law system, I would have no recourse. I would be condemned and that would be the end of it. A system of pure law can only condemn. It cannot redeem. Under a grace system, which the New Testament is, God has made provision for my forgiveness through Jesus Christ. Therefore, I don’t have to be condemned for violating that law. If I seek forgiveness according His will, I can receive it and be pardoned.

But just because I am under a system of grace does not mean that there are no laws that I am obligated to obey. It just means that I have grace available to cover me when I transgress those laws. And it means that my salvation is not based upon my personal perfection, but on Christ’s blood, which is applied to my spiritual account when I humbly submit to Him in obedience (Heb. 5:9).

There is nothing wrong with “law” when it is understood and properly applied. Why some brethren depart from New Testament teaching and only use the term in a derogatory fashion is a question that they will have to answer for themselves. But I know this: if one can get brethren to stop thinking about Christianity in terms of personal obligation, abiding within the doctrine of Christ, doing only those things that are authorized by God, and obeying the rules, then it is much easier to gain acceptance for doctrines and practices that God has not sanctioned.

The “Great” Commands are Not the “Only” Ones

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:34-40).

Some have tried to defend a softened approach to certain doctrinal issues based on a misunderstanding of Jesus’ words in Matthew 22:40 (coupled with a misunderstanding of Romans 13:8-10 and James 2:8). Many times in twenty-one years of preaching I have heard it said that we should not be so meticulous with the specifics of worship because all that really matters is whether or not we love God and love our neighbor. It is averred that whether or not a person sings with mechanical accompaniment is irrelevant as long as that person loves God and loves his neighbor. The same is true, we are told, for the frequency of the Lord’s Supper observance, and other matters of worship and Christian living. If we just love God and love our neighbor, then everything else will fall into place.

First of all, Jesus said that the Law and the prophets “depend” (ESV) on those two commands. The word derives from the Greek kremetai, which means “to be in a relation of dependency on something” (Louw and Nida 89.2). These are the “great” commands because if a person truly loved God and his neighbor, then he would obey all the other obligations of the Law. The great commands are not being put in contrast to all the other ones, they are broad principles under which all the other commands can be placed.

Second, contending that “everything will just work itself out” if we simply encourage people to love God and love their neighbor fails to account for the fact that many people do not understand what it means to love God and love their neighbor. True love for God and neighbor is more than just feeling like you love them or claiming you love them. To love God is to obey Him (John 14:15; Luke 6:46; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:2-3). To have a proper relationship with Christ is to abide within the parameters of His doctrine (2 John 9; John 15:14). So when Jesus told His listeners that loving God and loving the neighbor were the two greatest commandments, He didn’t say they were the two “only” commandments. He meant that if one does those two things, he will naturally do all of the other things required by the Law and the prophets. The same is true under the New Testament. If we truly love God and love our neighbors, we will be determined to do all that the New Testament requires of us to the best of our abilities.

Third, if it is sufficient just to encourage people to love God and neighbor (without an understanding of what that means):

• Why was the Old Testament law comprised of more than just Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18?
• Why were all of the questions that Paul answered in 1 Corinthians not answered with admonitions to just love God and love your neighbor, coupled with the assurance that everything would work itself out?
• In responding to the issue of Gentile circumcision in Acts 15, why didn’t the apostles just tell everyone to love God and love their neighbors and let everything work itself out?

What would I tell the exotic dancer who says that she loves God with all her heart and wants to honor Him by using her God-given talent in the worship assembly? Do I tell her just to keep loving God with all her heart and love her neighbors as she does herself and everything will just work itself out for her? Or do I try to help her see that loving God involves obeying God (1 John 5:2-3), and that stripping in front of the assembled church (or anywhere else) would be a violation of the Biblical obligation to be modest (1 Tim. 2:9)?

If one loves God with all of his being, he is going to be determined to obey God to the best of his ability and conduct himself toward his neighbor in the proper way. But the specifics of HOW one conducts himself toward God and neighbor can only be determined by what God has revealed ELSEWHERE in Scripture.

Those who desire to be free from the loving confines of New Testament law find no refuge in the great commands.

REFERENCE

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.). New York: United Bible societies.

Advice from an Old Preacher to a Young Preacher (4)

In the final two verses of 1 Timothy 4, Paul gives the young preacher the following instruction:

Practice these things, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

There are several words in these two verses that demand specific attention:

Practice (from the Greek, meletao) means “to continue to perform certain activities with care and concern” (Louw & Nida 68.20). The present tense emphasizes the need for sustained diligence.

These things references the matters related to Timothy’s example. He was to show care and concern in maintaining proper speech, manner of life, love, faith, and purity. He was to sustain due diligence in regard to the reading of Scripture, exhortation, and doctrine.

He was to devote [himself] to those things. Literally, this phrase means “to be in” something (Vincent). It is variously translated. “Be wholly in them” (Darby). “Give thyself wholly to them” (ASV; KJV). “Be absorbed in them” (NASB95). “Give yourself entirely to them” (NKJV). Paul wanted the young preacher to completely immerse himself in his own personal progress as a preacher. This was to be no part-time hobby. Timothy was to eat, drink, and breathe his own spiritual growth and his ministry.

Keep a close watch (often rendered “take heed”) translates the Greek epeche, which means to be continually ready and alert. What is Timothy to diligently watch? Himself and his teaching – in that order! On a practical level, young preacher, it will matter not how much you know or how well you can preach if your personal life is characterized by glaring hypocrisy. If you preach on stewardship, but you are a poor manager of your own money, your effectiveness will be greatly weakened. The same holds true with such things as language, evangelism, prayer, family life, personal health, temper, and many other matters of character and ethics. Preachers who are unwilling to be personally affected by the messages they preach dishonor that noble profession. Never preach a sermon to someone else that you have not first preached to yourself.

If Timothy would follow Paul’s inspired instruction, then everyone would see his spiritual progress (1 Tim. 4:15) and have no reason to despise his youth. Paul is not instructing Timothy to egotistically parade good works before others just to be seen by them (cf. Matt. 6:1ff). He is simply encouraging Timothy to focus on improving his own spiritual health. By so doing, others will naturally become aware of it. Motive is the key. As I heard another preacher observe, it is one thing to do something to be seen by men; it is quite another to do things that are seen by men (cf. Matt. 5:16). By watching his own life and his teaching, Timothy could stop the mouths of those who looked down on him just because he was young. The same can be true for you, too.

The ultimate end of heeding Paul’s advice would be that Timothy would directly and eternally contribute to his own salvation and the salvation of others – and isn’t that what it’s all about? As preachers of the gospel, we want to be sure that the message we preach is properly applied to ourselves so that we lose not our reward (cf. 1 Cor. 9:27), and we want to help others enjoy a blessed and happy eternity, too. By applying Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 1:11-16, we can do just that.

References:

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.). New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

Vincent, Marvin R. Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 4. New York: Hendrickson, 1985.

Advice From an Old Preacher to a Young Preacher (3)

Turning attention from Timothy’s obligations in his personal conduct, Paul now addresses matters that specifically relate to Timothy’s more public work as a preacher of the gospel. As the young evangelist moves ahead with his ministry, he is charged to give proper attention to the following:

The reading. From anagnosis, the word is defined as “to read something written, normally done aloud” (Louw & Nida 33.68). Kittel concurs that the word “for the most part…is used with sense of reading or public reading” (343). The use of the definite article – “the reading” – points to a specific reading, the most logical of which would be the reading of Scripture done when the church is assembled. Wayne Jackson wisely observes,

Unfortunately, the practice of reading the Bible to the assembled congregation has largely fallen into disrepute, possibly for two reasons: (a) a lack of skilled readers (in an age when reading itself has come on hard times); (b) a deficit of interest on the part of many listeners who have become mesmerized by too much visual entertainment, and so are bored with mere reading. The informed Bible student cannot but be reminded of that day, after Judah had returned [from] Captivity, when the law of Moses was read publicly from early morning until mid-day, and the people stood respectfully, and wept upon hearing God’s word (Neh. 8:1-12) [127-128].

The exhortation. From the Greek paraklesis, the word means encouragement, comfort, or consolation (Louw & Nida 25.150). Timothy was to follow up the reading of God’s word with appropriate encouragement to believe its facts, trust its promises, and obey its demands. If the exposure of God’s word does not lead the hearer to action, it has really done the hearer little good. Preachers do well to call their hearers to be “doers of the word” (James 1:22; Matt. 7:24-27).

The teaching. The Greek term didaskalia refers to the content of what is taught (Louw & Nida 33.236). The word is sometimes translated “doctrine.” Christianity is a taught and learned religion. It was founded on historical facts (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Acts 2:22-36) which must be communicated to the minds of individuals, who then must decide whether to accept or reject them (John 6:44-45; Rom. 10:12-17).

The gift. Paul instructs Timothy not to neglect the gift that was bestowed on him at the time the elders laid hands on him. For technical matters regarding the nature of this gift and the roles of prophecy and the eldership in its bestowal, see Jackson (pp. 129-130).

My purpose here is the application of the general principle contained in Paul’s admonition. God blesses individuals with certain talents and abilities that can and should be nurtured and developed. Preachers are no different. I know preaching brethren who excel in some areas of ministry more than they do in others. Some are better in the pulpit than in the classroom, or vice versa. Some are better writers than others. Some excel in personal work. Some have the ability to debate well in a formal setting. Some are comfortable in front of a television camera. Some can create graphic presentations with skill. Then there are those preachers who shine in more than one of these areas.

If God has blessed you with a special gift that can be utilized in the propagation of the gospel, don’t neglect that gift. Develop and deploy it to His glory.

References

Jackson, Wayne. Before I Die: Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus. Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2007.

Kittel, G., & Bromiley, G. W. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1964.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.). New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

Advice from an Old Preacher to a Young Preacher (2)

How should a young preacher respond to those who look down on him because of his youth? In simple terms, Paul says, “Be an example” (1 Tim. 4:12). “Be” or “become” is the present, active, imperative form of ginomai. Timothy is under obligation to consistently maintain a model of behavior that is worthy of imitation. In other words, the young preacher, when looked down upon for his youth, is to focus on controlling the only person he can control – himself. If Timothy would concentrate on being everything he was supposed to be, others would eventually notice (1 Tim. 4:15).

In 1 Timothy 4:12 Paul stresses the importance of Timothy’s example in several specific areas:

First, he was to be an example in his speech. This would include “teaching and verbal intercourse of every kind” (Vincent 250). In each moment of public or private conversation with his brethren, Timothy was to utilize speech appropriate for others to imitate. Unfortunately, preachers are not immune to employing language unbecoming of God’s child. Whether caused by a desire to fit in or some other influence, it should not be caused at all. The off-color comment, the double entendre, and simple profanity have at times characterized the speech of immature preachers of all ages, despite the clear prohibition of Ephesians 5:4. The cause of Christ and the reputation of the preacher only suffer harm by this kind of worldliness.

Second, he was to be an example in manner of life. This translates a general term that would encompass the whole of one’s “overt daily behavior” (Louw & Nida 41.3).

Third, he was to be an example in love. Taken from the Greek word agape, Paul is instructing the young preacher to show people how to seek the good of others. This point becomes especially poignant when kept in context. Those who would have been guilty of despising Timothy merely for his age would be exhibiting unloving behavior. The ever-present temptation in such instances is to respond in kind. Paul tells Timothy not to do that. He is to do as all Christians should: “Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all” (Rom. 12:17).

Fourth, he was to be an example in faith. From pistis, the translation could be rendered faithfulness. It conveys this idea: “to believe to the extent of complete trust and reliance” (Louw & Nida 31.85). The words of his detractors were not to diminish the young preacher’s trust in the God he served. He was not to throw in the towel and give up preaching just because some folks didn’t care for his age.

Fifth, he was to be an example in purity. From the Greek hagneia, the idea is that of moral purity and virtue (Louw & Nida 88.29). The word belongs to the same word family from which we get the English words holy, sanctify, saint, and their derivatives. Timothy was to keep himself pure and holy.

One thing about Paul’s advice that jumps out at me is what did not make his list of solutions: (1) argue with your detractors about it; (2) amass a group of people who don’t look down on you and gossip about those who do; (3) look down your own nose at people who are older, etc.

Sometimes, young preachers, we just have to ignore some things and focus on doing our work and doing it well.

Taking all of these ideas and putting them together finds Paul telling Timothy essentially this, if you’ll permit me the use of some common vernacular: when people look down their noses at you because you are young, don’t get too worked up about it. Just go about your daily routine focusing on your own conduct, because that’s all you can control anyway. Make sure that the totality of your conduct is worthy of imitation, including your speech, your level of faith, your degree of holiness, and your love. In short, be sure that your youth is the only thing that causes them to look down their noses at you!

I suspect Paul would say the same thing to young preachers today.

References:

Vincent, Marvin R. Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 4. New York: Hendrickson, 1985.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.). New York: United Bible Societies.

Advice From an Old Preacher to a Young Preacher (1)

The great apostle to the Gentiles had left his protégé, Timothy, in Ephesus with a laundry list of important duties, including: charging certain ones not to pervert the gospel (1 Tim. 1:3); involving himself in spiritual warfare (1:18); praying for those in authority (2:1-2); keeping men and women in their proper roles (2:8-15); making sure that those serving as elders and deacons met the qualifications (3:1-13); and training himself in godliness (4:7).

Regarding these, and other duties, Paul told him, “Command and teach these things” (1 Tim. 4:11). “Command” translates from Greek “a military term meaning ‘to give strict orders’ and emphasizes that the commanding was to be done authoritatively” (Rienecker 614, 627). Timothy was to punctuate his teaching with proper boldness and authority. Also, both “command” and “teach” are present, active, imperative verbs, indicating that Timothy was to persistently command and teach what Paul had told him.

But Timothy was a young man (1 Tim. 4:12). How young? No one knows for sure. Irenaeus (ca. AD 180) wrote that “youth” was descriptive of a man up “to the fortieth year” (Against Heresies, 22.5). Most sources I consulted estimate that Timothy was in his mid- to late-thirties (e.g., Rienecker 627). No doubt there were many in the Ephesian church older than Timothy. How might they have responded to Timothy’s authoritative teaching?

Those who have occupied the pulpit in their 20s and 30s know well how some may have reacted. “He’s too young to know much Bible.” “How much wisdom can someone have who’s not any older than my grandkids?” “He’s probably just like everyone else in that generation.” The Holy Spirit was well aware that some might be tempted to “despise” Timothy’s youth. “Despise” translates a compound Greek word: kata – down, and phroneo – to think or to have an opinion; hence, to think down on, or to hold a low opinion of. Louw and Nida define the term, “to feel contempt for someone or something because it is thought to be bad or without value” (Louw & Nida 88.192). Paul is warning Timothy that some brethren will think he has little of value to offer as a preacher simply because he is young.

What was true then remains sadly true today. Without doubt, I have been blessed to have had many older Christians encourage and help me as I have attempted to “grow up” in the ministry (a task begun, but as yet not completed). But there have also been those who seemed to find it easy to just “despise” my youth without offering much help in overcoming it. Thankfully, that burden, admittedly small, has nonetheless become even lighter with the passing of time.

But, what of those still in their youthful years of ministry? How does one handle those who tend to disregard them because of their age? Simply by doing the same things that Paul instructed Timothy to do in this text. Our next installment will begin to explore the specifics of Paul’s teaching.

Sources:

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (1:762). New York: United Bible societies

Rienecker, Fritz, & Rogers, Cleon (1976), Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House)

Slowing Down

Having just returned from the “Polishing the Pulpit” preachers’ conference in Tennessee, I’ve been reflecting on some of the lessons I hope I learned. There were many, to be sure. But one of the things I keep thinking about is this: I need to slow down in my study.

I marveled at the depth of the lectures delivered by men like Wayne Jackson and Dan Winkler. Passages and principles that I have read and considered in the past were taken to another level. But neither man was trying to be novel, nor did they “stretch” any text beyond its intended meaning. They had just mined nuggets of truth that have been there all along. I had just missed them. As I thought about why that was the case, it hit me: I’ve been rushing through my Bible study too much. I suppose I’ve been placing more value on getting finished than on getting informed.

The Bible does have quite a bit to say about meditation – not the Eastern religion variety where one just tries to empty his mind and exist in some kind of mental nothingness – but the kind that fills the mind with thoughts of God and contemplation of His word. The truly blessed man is the one “whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law he meditates day and night” (Psa. 1:2, NKJV). “When I remember You on my bed, I meditate on You in the night watches” (Psa. 63:6). “I will meditate on Your precepts, and contemplate Your ways” (Psa. 119:15). “Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day” (Psa. 119:97). “My eyes are awake through the night watches, that I may meditate on Your word” (Psa. 119:148).

As preachers we have to avoid the rut of rushing through sermon and class preparation just to “get it done.” Slow down. Take your time. Read. Study the nuances of the Greek text. Think. Think again. Then think some more. If your current schedule is preventing you from that kind of study, then change your schedule. Reassess and re-prioritize. Get your focus back on the essence of your ministry – “prayer and the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4).

The lessons to be learned, applied, and shared are worth that effort.

Adding Some Polish to the Pulpit

I created this blog five months ago, promptly posted two articles, then…well, I’ll leave the details of the last five months for another time. Suffice it to say that I have learned a lot about “the fire within” over that time, but I still have much more yet to learn. Early plans for a book are underway.

The real purpose for this post is to commend what I believe is the best thing going in the church today for preachers. “Polishing the Pulpit” is a workshop originally designed just for preachers, but in the past few years tracks have been added for wives, elders, deacons, youth workers, teens, and other church members. Details can be found at www.polishingthepulpit.com. The classes are practical and the speakers faithful to the truth. If you can invest the time, do it. Make the time. It will help you fan the flames of the fire within.

It’s being held this year in Sevierville, Tennessee, August 28-September 3.