Responding to Tony Byrne and Peter Lumpkins on Matthew 23:37

Any church members who may read this post, should you have further questions about any of it, please feel free to contact me at church and/or through Facebook.

This post has been a long time coming, for several reasons, not the least of which is because I really didn't want to deal with it. :) It isn't because the matters Dr. Peter Lumpkins and Tony Byrne raised in this blog post are not important; they are important. Rather, I am one who isn't overly fond of conflict, and sometimes I wonder if there is much point in continuing a discussion since I think to myself, "people aren't going to listen/read anyway."

There is also the issue of being frequently misunderstood. Without a question, I need to be more clear, but it seems that no matter what kind of a context I provide (or think that I do), inevitably I fail to make a point clear, or people refuse to read carefully, or both. A very recent example indicates just this with regard to Dr. Lumpkins, and such examples are not at all uncommon. My point in saying that he significantly missed Paul's point wasn't that he was wrong in saying that the passage was talking to and about believers. If you scroll up a few comments from the previous link, you'll see that I was saying that Peter missed the point that Paul was referring to non-believers when describing those who were in the flesh. Those who are in the Spirit, those who have no condemnation on them, they surely are believers. Paul is writing chapter 8 as a great bit of encouragement to the Christians at Rome rather than making sanctification his subject -- but I digress, as Romans 8 is not the subject of this particular post. I'll address that more fully later, doing a much more complete exegesis of the first ten verses. Anyway, back to the reasons I have delayed posting on the matter relating to the title.

Such thoughts (that is, those of people not listening, my not being understood, my not liking conflict) are truly copping-out, not to mention aren't very respectful to brothers in Christ who, by the Spirit of God, are capable of a great deal more than a lost person in understanding truth and working with another brother. It also isn't respectful to God Himself, the Author of truth and source of love among the brethren, Who is certainly able to make it so that I can be a better communicator. Other reasons for delay are a bit more legitimate, such as church responsibilities (I'm a deacon @ PHBC, teach Sunday School, teach discipleship, am a choir and praise team member, take a few classes from time to time, manage the church website, etc).

All delays aside, I begin my response(s), taking into account the difficulty of the task of polemics. There are a few things I would like to address specifically, the issue of Matthew 23:37, historical consensus and proper hermeneutics, and the importance of all of this. It is to this last point I shall turn first, and may my God and Savior, Jesus Christ, by His inexhaustible grace to His own, sustain and keep me in holiness, righteousness, and graciousness as I write.

The Importance of the Matter

I am not the kind of person who likes to "agree to disagree" on theological issues, especially among Christians. Were I to have an impasse with someone over the issue of how superior pepperoni pizza is to one with toppings of black olives and anchovies, I could let the matter slide. After all, such is merely a matter of opinion, and such a difference is reason to praise God for making us in the ways He did. We are different, and it pleased Him to give us differing tastes in food, pasttimes, music style, etc.[2] However when it comes to theological differences, I am much more resistant to the suggestion that we "all just get along," even on points considered minor, or "Tier 3" as my pastor likes to say.

The reason I do not like to thrown in the towel on matters pertaining to the understanding of the teaching of Scripture (not a bad definition of theology, really) is because God has indeed revealed Himself in the pages of the Bible. Christians, people who truly have been saved by the amazing, unstoppable power of God, are people who (to an increasing degree) desire to know this awesome God. We want to understand Him more, that we may love, worship, serve, enjoy, and teach about Him more and more accurately. This is the main reason, I submit, that any Christian desires to come to the Scriptures: that we may encounter God and do so in a more pure fashion as we see how He has revealed Himself and then obey Him more perfectly.

Because of that conviction, when Christians have disagreement about something that the Bible teaches, it means at the very least that one of them is wrong. Further, again given my above conviction that the Bible is God's self-revelation, and that He had given it to His church to reveal Himself to His people, then if we are not right about part of its teaching we are missing that much of who God is. Such is something that leaves me uncomfortable at best[3]. It is for that reason that I do not understand Peter Lumpkins's comment on the post I referenced already:

I am not here to convince you of anything, frankly. And you are entitled to be unconvinced by Geisler and happy with every subtle nuance James White places upon any passage of Scripture whatsoever. Be my guest.

His comments are in response to my first comment on his blog post/thread. There are other things he said in that particular comment (such as James White being too extreme, something that I do not intend to address here), but the quoted paragraph is my main point of concern.

Of course, I am not satisfied with any subtle nuance anyone would put on a text, whether it be Matthew 23:37 or any other Bible passage. That was largely my point; without solid, consistent exegesis done according to solid hermeneutics, we cannot hope to arrive at the correct meaning of a passage. Further, if we are not predisposed to submit ourselves to the discoveries made following correct exegesis, then we sin and remain in our previous error.

It is also why I desire very much to spend time in exegesis of Bible passages and analyzing things people say in light of Scripture. Ultimately, my opinion doesn't matter, nor does that of Peter, Tony, James White, or anyone else. What the Bible says matters, and simply having a discussion without the Sacred Scripture informing that discussion, there is little more accomplished than wasted keystrokes.

These reasons are why I am troubled when Dr. Lumpkins said that he was not there to convince me of anything. I simply ask, why not? If I am in error about my understanding of, in this case, Matthew 23, then it follows that I am not representing my God and Savior, Jesus Christ, as well as I could be, or should be. Worse, I may well be speaking untruth about God, teaching others to believe untruths. However well intended I may be is irrelevant; instead of helping others worship God more purely, and helping them know Him more and love Him more, I do just the opposite. Such would indeed be the case were I teaching something that is not in line with Scripture.[4]

Historical Consensus and Hermeneutics

The issue of historical consensus came up at one point in the comments. What started the discussion of it was when I made a statement claiming that Scripture is really the only battleground that matters, and that is where we must spend our time if any resolution to a doctrinal disagreement is to be had. Tony added in his comment here that history also was a battleground needing to be considered, in terms of the history of Calvinism. He then went on to cite numerous examples of people who had what he termed a mainstream position on the text of Matthew 23:37, calling it John Murray's position. The links to his list of historical quotes can be found at a couple of links from within the comment I linked to above. He says in that comment, making his point clear:

I repeat: the battleground involves history as well as biblical interpretation. In short, the battleground is the truth in every field of study, and a failure to be honest with primary sources is indicative of Turretinfan and other White associates who are making a concerted effort to downplay God's revealed desire for the salvation of all men.

This is where the point of contention began. I immediately saw a red flag when I read Tony's comments, as it appeared that he was saying that history played a deciding part in our final understanding of the teaching of a particular Bible passage. It lead to my saying that I "care very little for historical consensus," and then him chastising me for that comment[5], even suggesting that I was being inconsistent by holding to the 1689 LBCF.

My point was certainly not to ignore the importance of history in informing our interpretation. I tried to say as much with some of my comments in the thread where I responded to Tony by saying:

You said I was missing the point of what you were trying to say, that you weren't trying to offer detailed exegesis but rather demonstrating a consensus, being in line with John Murray's position. However, I cannot help but think you have missed my point for raising my objection in the first place. I care very little for historical consensus; majority does not rule in biblical interpretation. Agreed of course that if we disagree with the majority on a matter (in this case about a context I think) then we must do so carefully, but since context is the first rule of interpretation, anything that doesn't take it into account is a questionable interpretation at best, no matter how many people say it is true (unless we are working in Proverbs).

My point with the Proverbs comment was that Proverbs often don't have a lot of context, if any, and therefore can often be interpreted in a single-verse manner.

I hope it is clear what I meant by my statement that I care little for historical consensus. It isn't that I don't value how God has worked in history; I surely do. We have tremendous things we can learn from the saints who have gone before us, how they have struggled with the text of Scripture in many different situations. I have had great encouragement from the likes of Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitfield, Arthur Pink, John Owen, and even John Calvin, not to mention a host of modern servants of Christ's church, including John Piper, John MacArthur, Sam Waldron, James White, and more. I could expand the list of both without much difficulty. God has given much wisdom and insight into the text of Scripture throughout history, and we would be foolish to ignore it. This is something that students in my classes at church have heard from me more than once. My sentiments on how to view church history, and my laments with regard to those who ignore it, are those of Drs. White and Barcellos in this video interview.

All that being said, however, the usefulness of church history in the interpretation of Scripture is directly proportional to how it properly handles the text of the Bible with regard to proper hermeneutics, first and foremost with regard to the context of a passage. On the right sidebar on my blog here you can read a couple of posts that deal with context. I recommend that you read them, as they form much of the foundation with regard to how I try to approach a Bible passage, prayerfully seeking the Spirit's guidance. So, no matter how many people, modern or historic, say something about a particular passage, if the context is not the main guide in understanding the argument or discussion of a biblical writer, then the interpretation provided is suspect at best, flat out errant at worst. This was my meaning when I said that I cared little for historical consensus; it was merely to say that we cannot allow a majority-rules hermeneutic.


Now, to be fair, Tony was quick to respond when I started speaking of the issues of context and how to understand a passage, agreeing that context was the most important thing:

Of course the bible is the ultimate authority and of course the context of a given biblical passage is of highest priority for understanding the true sense of it. All I am saying is that if you're going to depart from such an overwhelming Reformed and Calvinistic consensus on the text and side with John Gill's hard dichotomy between "Jerusalem" and the "children" and view the text in totally and singularly in a judgment sense, seeing in it nothing of Jesus' yearning love that accords with God's revealed desire for the salvation of all in the city (even those that perish), then you should pause and wonder if you're actually engaging in novel, pseudo-exegesis or the kind of obvious system-driven interpretation that is so common in John Gill, who utterly denied God's revealed desire for the eternal salvation of any of the non-elect.

As I haven't studied John Gill to any significant extent at all, I cannot comment on Gills view. However, Tony's caution (with my emphasis provided above) is a wise sentiment, one with which I agree completely, and one I use to give caution to others. This is clearly Tony's belief, and it is a right one. At the same time, I see a large inconsistency in how Tony presented this principle, and some other things he said.

If you, the reader, followed one of the links I gave earlier to Tony's comments (and then followed his links to many a quote on Matthew 23:37) you will notice something, probably the same thing I noticed. The context of Matthew 23 wasn't referenced at all in any of those quotes he gave. He mentioned that this wasn't the point:

Many of the men cited are not cited because they're offering detailed exegesis in any way, but as testimony to the fact that they are basically in the mainstream John Murray position on the text, which White and those like him have departed from. Then there are other places where I seek to offer some critical analysis.

A quick perusal of Tony's blog in his section on Matthew 23:37 didn't reveal any critical analysis that I could find. Admittedly, I didn't look past the first page of quotes and citations, so there may be some deeper than I checked. Given his statement above, I trust that to be the case. I did find however, a large number of quotes from a large number of people, very few of which referenced much in detail beyond the one verse, none of which took us all the way back to verse 13 or went through verse 39. So, it would seem that Tony considers having a large number of people, even a large number of Reformed people, saying one thing about a passage carries some weight. However, given the fact that none of them went into the context in depth means that their understandings may well not carry any weight. It doesn't mean that they are wrong; in fact, given that so many say something similar about a passage should indeed give one pause should one desire to disagree with them. The fact that the context wasn't considered must tell us that, if we are to agree OR disagree with them, we need to be sure that they have interpreted the text in question aright. If we cannot find support for their conclusions in the context of the passage, but rather find support for understanding the passage differently, then the given interpretation must be rejected. It doesn't matter how many people have said something for however long: if the context indicates something else, then we must interpret the text differently. Traditional understandings may be long lived and popular, yet still be incorrect.[6]

Matthew 23:37 in its Context

Now we get to the heart of the matter. Truly, without biblical exegesis, and conforming to the teaching of Scripture once we understand it, there is no progress in a theological discussion. So, it is to that I now turn!

Often Matthew 23:37 is used as a text that speaks of the desire of God for the salvation of all people, irrespective if they are elect or not. This is nearly always the main focus of people when they approach this text, whether they be Reformed or otherwise. The problem with this focus, even if it were true, is that it ignores the context of the passage and the judgment of God contained in it, of which verse 37 is clearly a part. That being the case, and that the whole of verses 13--39 is a judgment of Israel's leaders, past and present, the main focus of any exegesis of verse 37 must be that of Jesus's judgment against the leaders of Israel before we can talk about any other implications of the passage. Our implications then need to be seen in light of the context and the main focus of what Jesus is talking about. Do they line up, or are they inconsistent with each other? Such questions will be explored to some extent below.

I mentioned to Tony that Matthew 23 was a passage of judgment. His response was as follows:

But White says, "it's a judgment passages! a judgment passage!," as if anyone denies that. Of course the text involves judgment, but not only judgment. Jesus expresses a desire for something that did not come to pass, a desire to "gather the children," which is soteriological in nature.

He rightly agrees that the text involves judgment, and is also correct that it does not only involve judgment. The problem is, I do not believe with Tony that it is absurd to think that anyone denies it. Rather, I think the opposite is true -- that most Christians, especially of the non-Reformed variety, do not even take the judgment context into account when they read this passage. Far, far too often is verse 37 provided without regard to its context, and in doing so, those who quote it engender misunderstanding at best, poor hermeneutical habits tending to follow.

Dr. James White does provide a brief exegesis of some of the context in his excellent book, The Potter's Freedom. It is quite helpful, and I shall cite it below. Tony didn't seem to care for it, saying "White is not "exegeting" Matthew 23:37. He's exploding it, not explaining it." Such a comment, aside from being uncharitable, doesn't address the main reason Dr. White makes the statements he does about this passage being a judgment context: that of verse 13.

It might be helpful to bring out Dr. White's exegesis in full from the aforementioned book, and then review it and provide a further exegesis of the text relying on the context. So, I provide Dr. White's comments on the passage from pages 137--139 in The Potter's Freedom, 2nd edition. All emphasis is in the original.

The first fact to ascertain in examining any passage of Scripture is its context. This passage comes in the midst of the proclamation of judgment upon the leaders of the Jews. Matthew 23 contains the strongest denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees in all of the Gospels.

Who, then, is "Jerusalem"? It is assumed by Arminian writers that "Jerusalem" represents individual Jews who are, therefore, capable of resisting the work and will of Christ. But upon what warrant do we leap from "Jerusalem" to "individual Jews"? The context would not lead us to conclude that this is to be taken in a universal sense. Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders, and it is to them that He refers here. This is clearly seen in that:

1. It is to the leaders that God sent prophets;
2. It was the Jewish leaders who killed the prophets and those sent to them;
3. Jesus speaks of "your children," differentiating those to whom He is speaking from those the Lord desired to gather together.
4. The context refers to the Jewish leaders, scribes and Pharisees.

A vitally important point to make here is that the ones the Lord desired to gather are not the ones who "were not willing"! Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that they, the leaders, would not allow Him to "gather." Jesus was not seeking to gather the leaders, but their children. This one consideration alone renders the passage useless for the Arminian seeking to establish freewillism. The "children" of the leaders would be Jews who were hindered by the Jewish leaders from hearing Christ. The "you would not" then is referring to the same men indicated by the context: the Jweish leaders who "were unwilling" to allow those under their authority to hear the proclamation of the Christ. This verse, then, is speaking to the same issues raised earlier in Matthew 23:13:

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering in to go in."

John Gill added this insight:

"That the persons whom Christ would have gathered are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they should. The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ, were not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend the ministry of Christ, as appears from the vast crowds which, at different times and places, followed him; but the chief priests and rulers did all they could to hinder the collection of them to him; and their belief in him as the Messiah, by traducing his character, miracles, and doctrines, and by passing an act that whosoever confessed him should be put out of the synagogue; so that the obvious meaning of the text is the same with that of verse 13 . . . and consequently is no proof of men's resisting the operations of the Spirit and grace of God, but of obstructions and discouragements thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the word."

So we can now plainly see that CBF[7] has absolutely no basis for its assertion that it is the "plain meaning" of the text that God wanted "all of them, even the unrepentant, to be saved." One of the three primary passages used in CBF is seen, then, to have no connection with the application made of it over and over again in the text.

So, are Dr. White's observations and conclusions about the text accurate? To decide this, we must read the whole passage in question, which would be Matthew 23:13-39. I recommend strongly that you do so now, either at this link or a Bible of your choice, and then examine Dr. White's conclusions in light of the passage. I shall do some of that and provide some of my own conclusions from the text as a whole and on some individual verses, 37 included among them.

First, it is certainly worth pointing out where Dr. White put the emphasis with regard to interpretation -- it rests on the context of the passage. I agree wholeheartedly, and have written on the matter here and here. Dr. White is a far greater and far more capable an interpreter than I ever could be; in fact, it is because God working through him and those like him that I have come to understand the rules of biblical interpretation to the extent that I have. At the same time, it doesn't matter how good a person is per se, but if that person is consistent in the interpretation of a particular passage. Do I believe that Dr. White has done this with the passage in question? Well, I suspect the answer to that will come out as I work through the passage myself. The first stop will be with verse 13:

Matthew 23:13 ESV "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.

I won't touch on all parts of every verse, but will focus on the main theme of the passage, that of judgment. This theme begins with verse thirteen cited above. We see Jesus prescribing a woe on them, that is, denouncing them, and calling them hypocrites. Jesus says they "shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces." The idea behind this phrase is that the Jewish leaders, the scribes and the Pharisees in particular here, were doing what they could to oppose Jesus's ministry. They spread falsehoods about Him, and strongly discouraged people from following Him. They attributed His miracles to Satan (more than once), and said that He Himself was demon possessed. The examples could be multiplied, but these should suffice to demonstrate what Jesus meant by His statement.

The next part of what He said is truly fascinating. Jesus says first that the scribes and Pharisees do not enter the kingdom of heaven. What does it mean to "enter the kingdom of heaven"? Searching through Matthew's Gospel alone identifies this with salvation, both in this life and Heaven itself after this life is over. Jesus flatly says that the scribes and Pharisees do not enter the kingdom of heaven. They are not being saved, and will not be either. Surely, this statement alone must be seen as judgment against them! What a turn of events this must have been in the minds of the Jewish leaders! The Pharisees and Scribes thought they were right with God in opposing Jesus, in doing all that they could to keep people from embracing Him and His teaching. However, in the end, it will be they who end up outside of God's kingdom, not all of those they were deceiving. They shut up the kingdom against others, but entrance to the kingdom will instead be blocked from them.

I say "instead" because, though they shut the kingdom against others, they are truly not successful in their efforts. For all of their lies and opposition to Jesus, in spite of the threats of being thrown out of the synagogue, there were still those who "would enter." A better translation that maintains the participle would be from the NASB, "nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."

We know elsewhere from Jesus's words that everyone given Him by God will come to Him:

John 6:37-40 ESV All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. (38) For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. (39) And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (40) For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

The Jewish leaders were obstacles to the people coming, but they were obstacles that would eventually be moved out of the way. There were still people who were believing in Jesus, and the Jewish leaders could not stop it from happening![8]

So, we can already see that in verse thirteen that Dr. White's point #4 is seen to be true. Clearly Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders in verse thirteen.

Moving down through the passage, we encounter several other woes Jesus makes against the Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus says that they bring greater condemnation on their proselytes than themselves (15), that they do not understand the value of sacred objects used in worship and swear amiss by them (16-22), and that they are blind guides, unable to lead people after God (16). Jesus says that they have neglected the most important things in the Law of God, which are justice, mercy, and faithfulness (23), and exposes the filth of their lawlessness and hypocrisy (24-28), demonstrating that their righteousness is only skin deep, merely an outward appearance and having no real substance. To say that Jesus is continuing to condemn them is needlessly stating the obvious. Moving further into the chapter:

Matthew 23:29-32 ESV "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, (30) saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' (31) Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. (32) Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.

In these verses, Jesus flatly calls the Jewish leaders on their hypocrisy. They claim that they will not repeat the sins of their fathers in shedding the blood of the prophets, but in the process end up condemning themselves. They will, as Jesus says, "fill up the measure of [their] fathers" sins.[9] They have already proven that they are more than the biological descendants of those who came before him; they have been persecuting Jesus, and He certainly held the office of prophet. Further, the Scribes and Pharisees would continue to show this as they would persecute those Jesus would later send in His Name.

Matthew 23:33 ESV You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

This statement of our Lord Jesus to these Jewish leaders is not meant as an invitation; rather, it is rhetorically asked thus making a point. He means to indicate that they cannot escape being condemned. This question is another declaration of judgment. D.A. Carson, an astounding Bible scholar who has probably forgotten more than I'll ever learn (though I'll disagree with him ever so slightly later), explains why what I said is true:

The transition from the preceding verse is clear: if the teachers of the law and Pharisees are filling up the measure of the sin of their forefathers, how can they possibly escape the condemnation of hell?[10]

Obviously, they would not. They were being condemned, and rightly so for reasons Jesus Himself has mentioned before, and would continue to declare.

Matthew 23:34-36 ESV Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, (35) so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (36) Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

The judgment sayings against the scribes and pharisees continue. Jesus said that He would send them prophets, wise men, scribes. These, sent from Jesus, would be killed in various ways by the Jewish leaders. In this, as Jesus has already said, they would be filling up their fathers sins. This is why Jesus lays at their feet the guilt of the righteous men who have walked the earth, those who have been calling to the people to turn in faith and repentance to the One True God. By killing those Jesus would send[11] they demonstrate His words about them to be true -- they are their fathers' children. They persecute God's messengers just like their fathers did, when they should have been leading the people to them. They would be rightly punished for it, as verse 36 indicates, certainly including the destruction of Jerusalem among other things.

From these verses we can see clearly that points 1 and 2 that Dr. White set forth (quoted above) are valid. The Jewish leaders were the ones who were responsible and guilty for killing the prophets Jesus would send to them.

Now we get to the main verse in question, but, having spent the time we needed to in the context leading up to it, we are prepared to give a fair treatment of it in light of what Jesus has been saying all along. Even now, the verse should not be taken without more context, the two verses that follow.

Matthew 23:37-39 ESV "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (38) See, your house is left to you desolate. (39) For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

About this verse, as we noticed above, Dr. White says the following, his 3rd point: "Jesus speaks of 'your children,' differentiating those to whom He is speaking from those that the Lord desired to gather together.' Is this an acceptable understanding of the passage?

On the surface of it, it would seem that he is correct. Jesus speaks to "Jerusalem" and also identifies the children of Jerusalem, and does not appear to be speaking to them. In fact, to suggest that the two different groups are really one and the same in Jesus's words would require exegetical evidence. It would seem D.A. Carson attempted to provide such evidence. If you follow this link, you'll find what Dr. Carson said about the verse over at Tony Byrne's blog. There is a particular section of what Dr. Carson has said that I find to be particularly relevant to our discussion:

There is also a change of number from Jerusalem to people of Jerusalem: "you [sing.] who kill . . . sent to you [sing.] . . . your [sing.] children . . . your [pl.] house . . . you [pl.] will not see." The effect is to move from the abstraction of the city to the concrete reality of people.

Dr. Carson is surely right in that there is a change of number, and that the idea is to move from the abstraction of the city to the concrete reality of people. However, why must the change in number be "from Jerusalem to people of Jerusalem"? This is simply stated, and not supported by Dr. Carson's exegesis. Rather, it seems best to see Jerusalem, and this move to plurality, as another way to address the leaders of the people rather than all of the people. We can see this if we compare 23:37 with some of the previous verses, First, look back to verses 35-36. Who is it in these verses who kill the prophets? Jesus is clearly talking about the scribes and pharisees. Compare in verse 34:

"Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify"

with this phrase in verse 37:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!"

Given that Jesus is talking to the Jewish leaders in verse 34 and is providing the same condemnation for Jerusalem in verse 37, it follows that again, He is denouncing the Jewish leaders, making more concrete this fact when he gets to verse 38, saying that their house would be left desolate to them. Everything that they loved, the power over the people they abused, and their leadership in its entirety, would be taken from them. They would have nothing.

Further, compare a couple of sentences from verse 13 with verse 37:

"For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in."

compare to:

"How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"

Jesus was seeking to gather people in Jerusalem, and the leaders (that is, Jerusalem in 37) were standing in the way, and opposed Jesus. They would not submit to and obey Him, they would not stop doing all they could to hinder His message.[12] So then, it seems clear that Jesus was drawing the children referred to in 37, and continuing to speak judgment against the leaders of the people. It also seems clear that He was not drawing those against whom He was directing judgment, especially when we take into account the fact that Jesus said in verse 13 that they would not enter the kingdom of heaven, and that they would not escape being condemned to Hell in verse 33.

It would then appear that Dr. White was correct in his assessment of Matther 23:37, when all of the context is considered. Yet I think I would do a disservice to the passage were I to leave it without first metioning something important in verse 39, quoted above. Jesus tells them that they wouldn't see Him again unless they said "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Surely since they would physically see him again (at the crucifixion and at other times) we need to look for an understanding for this statement other than physical perception. Jesus is alluding to something that many of the people did say, and certainly, some truly meant:

Matthew 21:8-9 ESV Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. (9) And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!"

I find this truly amazing. Our Lord had condemned the Jewish leaders, and He had effectively sentenced them to Hell; they were not going to inherit eternal life. However, even given this, Jesus still tells them what they must do to be saved! To put it in slightly different terms, even though they were not elect, and Jesus knew that to be true, He still proclaimed the truth to them, that they needed to believe Him to be Who He truly was. In this statement, and even though it is not the main point of the context of the passage, we do see Jesus's desire for even those who would be condemned to Hell for all eternity to obey Him and believe in Him. It is a minor point, but still present, nonetheless, and it should motivate us all to proclaim the Gospel to all, no matter what we think of them. We shouldn't try to figure out who the elect are anyway, but considering Jesus DID know that and still told people who would remain lost that they needed to believe in Him, we must certainly do no less.

I do truly hope and pray that this post, exegesis and all, will be beneficial to God's people. May the Name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, be magnified.

Soli Deo Gloria,
dbh

PS -- please read the rules for commenting at the right before doing so here. Further, please also keep comments on topic.

_______________________________________

1. These are not the only issues present in the post, of course. For example, I firmly believe (as does every other 5 point Calvinist I know of) that Dr. James White is not a hyper-Calvinist. I may address that in a different post, I may not. However, for any who wish to comment on this current post, the matter in this footnote is not to be considered "on topic" in the ensuing discussion.

2. This is of course not to say that I shouldn't be thankful for a pizza of olives and anchovies if that is what I had to eat; most certainly I should, but the point I trust wasn't missed.

3. I do realize that eventually, some situations will not be resolved between brothers on theological matters. However, if I am going to arrive at that conclusion, it won't be without a fight to expound the Scriptures and correct understanding, whether it be mine, the person with whom I disagree, or both.

4. This is part of the reason, I believe, that James gives the warning he does about teaching in the first part of James 3.

5. Specifically by saying that I was probably the first self-described Reformed person he had seen make such a statement in this comment.

6. Though I have said this already, it bears repeating, because the witness of history IS important. I would concur wholeheartedly with R.C. Sproul's sentiments on this issue as he is quoted in the Amazing Grace DVD set. I shall paraphrase it, as I don't have my DVDs in front of me at the moment: If your interpretation has been virtually unknown for the past 2000 years of church history or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, then chances are pretty good you should abandon your interpretation.

7. That is, Norman Geisler's book, Chosen But Free.

8. This doesn't mean that the things the Jewish leaders were doing against Jesus didn't have any effect at all; obviously they were standing in the way and opposing Jesus's teaching. However, those who truly were coming, and were not just the crowds coming for a show, would still indeed come. People cannot thwart God's purposes, and for all the deception and opposition, the efforts of the Jewish leaders would ultimately fail.

9. This hearkens back to a passage in Genesis:

Genesis 15:14-16 ESV But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. (15) As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. (16) And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

Why was God going to wait to bring the Israelites into the promised land? In this text, the reason is that it was going to take 400 years for the iniquity of the Amorites, their sin, to be complete. God was going to use His people to bring divine judgment against the Amorites and the other peoples in the land, but they hadn't finished sinning the sins for which they were to be judged. So, when Jesus tells the Jewish leaders to fill up the measure of their fathers sins, He is indicating in a not-so-subtle way that He intends to bring further judgment against them once they do.

10. Carson, D.A. Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary Frank Gaebelein, Ed. Electronic version cited.

11. The fact that God is the one Who sends messengers and that Jesus is saying He is the one sending them was a fact not likely missed by the Jewish leaders. Again, Jesus was claiming to be the One True God they claimed to serve.

12. It also seems very likely, if not a certainty, that those children of Jerusalem (ie, those over whom the leaders had responsibility) are to be equated with the ones coming from verse 13. That being the case, then verse 37 is speaking of those who were truly coming and would come when it speaks of "the children."

Bill Webster on the Canon of Scripture

Dr. James White has been posting several video clips from his past debates on his blog in recent days. Most of them have been with Roman Catholics, and as such, as created a bit of a stir in the RC apologetic community. One of those debates was with a man by the name of Gary Michuta over the issue of the canon[1] of Scripture, and there have been a lot of posts attacking what Dr. White has said. Bill Webster put together a wonderful response to those attacks which Dr. White has posted on his blog in three parts, here, here, and here. They are worth your time, and also worth pointing any Roman Catholic friends to who think that the deutero-canonical (or Apocryphal) books belong in the canon.

SDG,
dbh
________________________________________________
1. That is, which books belong in the Bible.

Does "ALL" Really Mean "ALL" All the Time? Sermon Review part the third.

The original post in this series can be found here which contains the link to the original sermon my pastor preached. In it, he had this statement, and also cited all or part of 1 Timothy 2:3-4. However, before I deal with that passage (which needs a larger context), I wanted to address the aforementioned statement:

When does "all" mean "all"? All the time.

There are a lot of things that can be said about that statement, but I think I'll just agree with it. Yes, you read that right -- I'll agree with it.

You see, that statement is a tricky one. Of course "all" means "all." That's like saying 1 = 1 or 237 = 237 or red = red. It's simply giving the identity of the word, so in that sense, it is certainly true: all does indeed mean all at all times.

...yet, there are two things that we need to remember about the word "all."

First, the word "all" has a similarity with each of my previous examples. If I were to go up to you and start saying, "One! Two-hundred thirty seven! Red!" and keep repeating any of those words over and over again, what would your response be? Well, if someone were to do that to me, I'd have to say, "One WHAT? 237 WHAT? A red WHAT? What ARE you talking about?"

You see, every one of those previous words is an adjective. From www.webster.com (emphasis mine), an adjective is:

a word belonging to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages and typically serving as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else

The above words, including "all," are adjectives. Therefore, they MUST modify nouns. You could say "red dog" or "one meal" or "237 people," for example. In the same way, when you say "all" you have to ask "all what?"

Numbers are quantifiers; that is, they tell you "how many" of something. They tell you the quantity of a particular noun or pronoun. "All" does the same thing; it tells you the quantity of a particular thing. The difference between a standard number and the word "all" is that a number is a limited quantifier and the word "all" is a universal quantifier. They both, however, have a referent. That is, numbers and the word "all" are referring to SOMETHING. Numbers are limited quantifiers with a variable referent (that is, what they can refer to changes; you could have 5 dogs, 5 cars, 5 people, 5 books, etc.). The word "all" is a universal quantifier, also with a variable referent. That is, you can have all the keys, or all classes, or all books, or all food, or whatever.[1]

Furthermore, normally when the word "all" is used, there is a further clarification as to what is meant. When I say "all books," do I mean "all books that have ever been, everywhere?" I could be meaning that, but if I am standing in a library, and I say "all the books are interesting," I'm referring to the books in that library, perhaps even one section, or even one of a particular genre. More information, more CONTEXT, would be needed to ascertain what it was I meant, what "all" I thought was "interesting."

I hope you as you read this you are beginning to see the point. Grammar is CRITICALLY important in determining the meaning of words and sentences. To make the statement, "all means 'all' all the time," is to oversimply. We MUST have a referent for the word at the very least, and it is often necessary to determine what limiting factors are present.

When theologians say that "all means 'all' all the time," what they are indicating is usually that when the word "all" is used, it means every person, everywhere, throughout history; that is, past, present, or future. The fact is, that is not usually true.

To be sure, the word can mean that, or better said, can REFER to that. However, in order to determine what the word is referring to, you absolutely MUST have context.

The reason this is important is because it changes our understanding of MANY texts of Scripture that use the word.

Ok, all of that was under my "first" point. :)

Second, the word can be used figuratively or as a hyperbole. Here is what I mean.

I go to school all the time during the week.

Now, is that a true statement? Well, yes and no. :)

If you take it literally, it is not. I only go 5 days, and not all day either. At the same time, if taken figuratively as I intended it to be taken, then yes -- it is true. I am there frequently, and not 24/7.

You see, we use words like "all" all the time -- no we don't. :) We use other words, such as that ones I'm using to type this post. Sometimes we are quiet. Sometimes we're even asleep and not talking (or typing) and therefore using no words at all! It is a figurative use of the word.

Words like this are everywhere...no they're not. They're here, there, and another place perhaps. :)

Do you see the point? In order to determine the extent of the referent of the word "all" you will need CONTEXT. Furthermore, in order to determine whether it is a figurative use or a literal use, you need (that's right! you guessed it!) CONTEXT. Scripture uses it both ways.

These are things your English/grammar teacher should have told you. :)

Next post (part the 4th) I'll review the verses I mentioned in the beginning of this post (that is, 1 Timothy 2:1-7) that my pastor referenced (though he mentioned just verses 3-4), and we'll see how important what I've just said is when it comes to biblical interpretation.



_____________________________________________
1. Of course, adjectives, including "all", can stand alone without a noun in a sentence. It is grammatically correct to say "The five are here," or "All are present." This is called a substantive, and it is when an adjective serves as a noun. However, this doesn't change my argument, because there must be some referent being described by the substantival adjective in any given sentence. In other words, we still need to know what it refers to, and it MUST refer to something!

Grammatical Exegesis

This post over at StrangeBaptistFire is an absolutely stellar example of grammatical exegesis, probably the best I've ever seen.

It is a long read, but it is worth your time for sure!

SDG,
DBH

The Hierarchy of Context, Part II

Last post I introduced the layers of context, going from the narrowest to the broadest. In this post, I will grab each of them and examine them more closely, providing some examples as to why they are important.

I. WORD
At the narrowest level is a word itself. Words always mean what they do in the context of other words around them (which is why these other levels are important). However, we do need to have a basic understanding of a particular word if we're going to make heads or tails of it. I'd recommend strongly a good Greek (New Testament) or Hebrew (most of Old Testament) dictionary (three of them are modules in E-Sword, the link to which is over on the right of this blog) rather than an English dictionary, since word meanings often change over time. Therefore, what we need to do is get to the meaning of the term at the time of the writing of those Bible books. If and when you find more than one meaning for a particular word, fear not. This is where context comes in, because even in English we have words that mean many different things. Take the word light for example. What DOES it mean? We cannot know without more information. So, we proceed to the next larger level.

II. PHRASE
All words are in some kind of a phrase, whether it ends up being a complete sentence or not. The phrase a word is in can and will define how it is used. Of those seventy uses of the word "light" I linked to a few sentences ago, only one of them will apply in this two-word construction: "bright light." So then, the word "light" here must be a NOUN, rather than an adjective (such as a light box, meaning "not heavy") or a verb (such as, "please light the candle.") In the case of "bright light," we mean a light that puts off visible radiant energy, and a lot of it in comparison to other sources of this radiant energy. Those two words together define how the word is used, and is one example of the "phrase" context level.

III. SENTENCE/VERSE
I put these two together because sometimes a verse is only part of a sentence, and vice versa. It is also important to remember that the verse divisions (as well as the chapter divisions) were not in the original texts. Because of that, we sometimes have to go beyond those mere distinctions to get the correct understanding of something. Knowing, for example, that Ephesians 1:3-14 is one sentence (in the Greek) gives us a lot better idea how to interpret it since it is really just one thought from the Apostle Paul.

Phrases get their meanings in sentences, so this would be the next logical step. In our example with the light, we now have "bright light." Well, what relevance does this have? If I were to add a few words, then it would have more meaning: "I went outside and saw the bright light of the sun." If I didn't have the rest of the sentence, we wouldn't know that it was the sun instead of say, a light bulb.

IV. PARAGRAPH
Paragraphs contain groups of sentences, often governed by a topic sentence which gives the idea of what the author is talking about in that point. This particular level becomes important when you consider the fact that chapter breaks are not inspired (I'll go into that more in the Chapter section following). If a paragraph is ongoing and there is a chapter break in the middle of it, don't let that stop you from reading the rest of the paragraph and completing the thought.

This may be seen in the middle of Isaiah 52, between verses 12 and 13. This is written in verse rather than in prose (the prophets were, by and large, poets), so it is difficult to make the distinction, but the thought changes in the middle of the chapter and begins something commonly called a "Servant Song," which continues through the end of chapter 53. A new paragraph of sorts starts, however, and the change in thought can be seen with that more clearly than if we were to rely on the chapter breaks alone.

V. CHAPTER
Chapters, for the most part, consist of multiple paragraphs. Using this level of context will often help us avoid common interpretive errors, errors which are more often fueled by our traditions than a careful study of the text of the Bible.

Generally, it is approprate to move from the beginning of a chapter to the end to understand its flow of thought. It is also helpful to look for parallels (grammatical and lexical {repetition of words and phrases}, as well as illustrative) in a chapter to help with meaning and understanding. For example, In Romans 9, Paul makes the comment about it being through Isaac that Abraham's offspring shall be named. However, not all of Isaac's offspring were counted as blessed; God chose one of the boys and not the other, selecting Jacob and not Esau so that "God's purpose of election might continue." From the same parent came one that God chose to bless with the promises of the convenant, and one who He rejected.

Now, if you haven't followed that last link, do it know and scroll down to verse 21. God chose to make one man into a nation that He loved and another into a nation He hated. He used Jacob and Esau to illustrate this point in this verse; God has the right to make out of the same lump of clay someone for honorable use and someone else for dishonorable use, just like He had the right to choose Jacob over Esau, not basing His selection on anything in them at all. This is an important verse for the Bible's teaching regarding election, and there is a parallel in this chapter. Using the chapter as our means of context helps us identify this.

Another example is from John chapter twelve. A lot of people like to latch onto John 12:32 and try to say that Jesus means by this statement that He will draw all people everywhere without distinction, meaning every person who will ever be born. The truth is, this is NOT what our Lord meant, and it becomes clear by the context. If we take a lot of the chapter into play and go back a few verses (a couple of paragraphs in the chapter) we see this pretty clearly. What Jesus is addressing in John twelve starts in verse twenty, and to get the whole idea we need to read all of John 12:20-32. What happened here is that some Greeks came to see Jesus, and apparently they had to get through Philip first. So, they tell Philip that they want to see Jesus. Jesus then goes into a short discourse, explaining that his hour has come. God thunders from Heaven that He has glorified His Name, and will do so again, here in Jesus's hour (as we know from the context). Jesus concludes the section in verse 32 saying when He is lifted up (a reference to His hour), then He will draw all people to Himself -- a reference to the GREEKS. The propitiatory death of Jesus Christ was not just for the Jews, but for Gentiles (Greeks) as well. John used this situation in the life of Jesus and the phrase "all people" to show that the Jewish mindset that the Messiah only came for them was a false belief. Jesus came for all people, that is, for Jews and Gentiles. Verses twenty through twenty-three in this chapter provide the context we need to understand verse thirty-two.

Another example is that of John 6:35-65. Verse 36 gives us the idea that Jesus is addressing in this part of the chapter: He is explaining why they do not believe, principally, and also indicates who those are who will believe.

It's important to note the parallels here in verses 39-40, 44, and 65. Furthermore, I have alluded to an execellent exegesis of this passage before, which I recommend reading if you haven't done so. Evan May over at Strange Baptist Fire has done a very good job with it, and makes excellent use of the chapter's context to explain the passage (at least a good part of it).

Most of the time, the chapter divisions help distinguish the thoughts of the writer, showing where the logical divisions of a book are. However, at times, chapter breaks need to be overlooked because the thought wasn't finished yet (such as the inappropriate break at the end of Malachi 2. Furthermore, just because there is a new chapter and a change in thought has happened, it does NOT mean that the new chapter's subject is devoid of any relation to the previous chapter(s) in the book that contains them all. With that said, we travel on to the next level of context:

VI. BOOK
Most of the time, books of the Bible are composed of multiple chapters. Understanding the book context does a couple of things for us:

1.) First, it shows how the author put the book together. Generally, there is a common theme around which the author of a particular book was writing, with a large part of the theme usually found in the first chapter of the book (though The Gospel of John and Ecclesiastes are exceptions to this; there may be others). Galatians, for example, was written by Paul to address a serious problem in the Galatian church -- they were adding qualifications to the Gospel, and apparently were wanting to please men (1:6-10). It turns out that there were Judaizers (people who were insisting on Jewish customs, most notably circumcision) among them who were insisting that the new Gentile believers be circumcised and obey the Law. Paul rebuked the Galatian Christians and speaks strongly against the Judaizers and their practices (see especially chapters three and five).

2.) Secondly, since we already know that chapter divisions are not inspired (added MUCH later than the writings of the books), it only stands to reason that the next thought of an author is not completely changed when a new chapter starts, sometimes not being changed at all. In other words, just because we have a new chapter doesn't mean we've left the previous subject.

Romans nine is an example of this (though there are many more). In Romans 8:28-39, Paul has been establishing the benefits and security of individual believers, having made reference to both Jews and Gentiles in the earlier parts of his letter. So, to say that Paul is making the leap in Romans nine to talk about nations and their historical destinies is not warranted by the context of Romans 8, the place he just left. Moreover, Romans 9:6 indicates a couple of things. First, it mentions that not everyone in Israel is of Israel, singling out individuals rather than the nation as a whole (i.e., people in Israel). Second, why would Paul make the statement that the Word of God hasn't failed? The context of the referenced part of Romans 8 and the first five verses of 9 tell us -- God secures those who believe, but He has not chosen to save all of His Old Covenant people in the Messiah, nor was it ever His ultimate intention to do so. Did God then not follow through on His Word since every person in Israel is not saved? No, Paul tells us in verse six, because not all of them really are Israel. Paul then goes on to describe the reasons throughout much of the rest of the chapter, and brings the Gentiles into the same fold in verses 24 through 33.

Understanding the book context is critical. However, how do we bridge context across books? I'll lump the next two together.

VII. AUTHOR
It's commonly known that one person wrote more than one book in the Bible in many cases. Paul wrote several in the New Testament for example (13 I think), as did John (5), Luke (2), and Peter (2). Sometimes, with Paul especially, more than one book was written to a particular audience.

Often, when multiple books were addressed to a set group of people (or a single person), the same issues surface in those books. If we understand how an issue is addressed in one of the books to the same audience, or how a word is used in the same respect, we can very often understand how it was addressed/used in the other book.

Two examples of this come to mind. First is one I address over at my good friend Andrew Short's Blog. He raised a very good question about 2 Timothy 1:12 and how several translations differ over it (even excellent translations like the NASB and the ESV). The analysis used authorial context along with the audience context; we went to 1 Timothy to understand 2 Timothy. The results are very interesting, and I think it is worth your while!

The second exmaple is something I put into my blog a while back about 2 Peter 3:9. This verse is often quoted by Univeral Redemptionists to try to indicate that God intends to save every single person on earth without distinction. At first glace, without reference to context (not to mention grammar with special attention being paid to the antecedents of certain pronouns), they appear to be right. However, when context is used for the book and the author, a different (and correct) conclusion is reached. Follow the above link and read it over to see how important using context is!

Another example of Authorial context (moving outside of the audience now) can be seen with how Paul uses the illustration of Isaac in Romans 9:7-9 with how he uses references to Isaac in Galatians 3:29 and 4:28-30. Knowing that Paul refers to the Galatian Christians (who are mostly Gentiles) as "children of promise" and uses the same phrase in Romans 9:8 is quite telling.

The New Testament is not alone in having this kind of context either. Several of the Psalms were written by King David; Solomon wrote most of Proverbs, the book of Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes; Jeremiah wrote the book that bears his name as well as Lamentations; Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Knowing the author can be a GREAT help in interpretation as I've discussed and briefly demonstrated.

VIII. TESTAMENT
This one almost goes without saying; whatever you are reading in a particular book by a particular author has either the New or Old Testament as its context; it either happened before or after Christ, and the writers of the respective Testaments will have that in common.

A brief example of this is when Peter makes the comment over in his second letter that Paul's writings are Scripture. Well, where do we have to go to find these writings? Much of the New Testament of course was written by Paul, and it isn't hard to find an example of what Peter was talking about. :)

Something else comes into play here as well as in the next context grouping, and that is something I like to call "Theological Corroboration." What is this? Well, let's move on!

IX. BIBLE
The entire Bible is without error and speaks in unity with itself. That being true, we can use Scriptures from both Testaments to illustrate and help verfiy something in a difficult passage that, on its own, would be hard to comprehend. This principle, which I often call "theological corroboration" is usually referred to as the rule to "let Scripture interpret Scripture." If you don't know what a verse in Matthew means, Luke might have the answer for you. If you are wondering what Mark means when Jesus says He's a "ransom for many," perhaps Isaiah can help you. The usefulness of this rule is great, but remember: the closer contexts have greater impact on the meaning than the broader contexts. Further, when doing corroborative work and letting Scripture interpret Scripture, make sure you are not taking a verse or two and tearing it away from its immediate context(s) to make it support something elsewhere in the Bible that it is really not addressing.

There you have it, the Hierarchy of Biblical Context. I hope and pray this can and will be useful to you as you seek to divide the Truth rightly.

May God be Honored and Glorified in it!

The Hierarchy of Context, Part I

The issue of context in interpreting Scripture is of highest importance. We simply cannot understand how to interpret Scripture properly without seeing a particular verse in its context.

There are a lot of different kinds of contexts, but I'm going to address the issue of what I'll call "textual context" in this post, as opposed to say, historical context.

The context of a passage is how it fits in the development of the words, paragraphs, etc. around it. A classic example that I've often heard that fails to take context into account is to grab three Bible verses that are completely unrelated and stick them together like this:

"Judas went and hanged himself."
"Jesus said, 'Go and do likewise.'"
"Jesus said, 'What you are going to do, do quickly.'"

So, we should quickly go and hang ourselves! Of course, these passages are not related to each other like that, and this might be considered an extreme example. However, abuses of context are rampant, and they are usually much more subtle than the above nonsense.

Why should we take context into account? Can't we just quote a Bible verse here and there, and be sure we're right in our theology? Hardly. The Bible DOES give us an example of the improper use of context, and it shows how dangerous it can be if we don't know the larger contexts. Let's have a look at Matthew 4.

Matthew 4:3 And the tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." (4) But he answered, "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (5) Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple (6) and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, "'He will command his angels concerning you,' and "'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'" (7) Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (8) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. (9) And he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." (10) Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'"

Can you see it? What was Satan doing when he was tempting Jesus? He quoted a Scripture to Him, right? However, was he using that Scripture properly? NO! Jesus corrected Satan, rebuking him for that (and in two other cases), because Satan failed to use the WHOLE COUNSEL of God as the largest context for understanding. Jesus used the Bible properly, and was able to refute the misuse of the Bible that the devil threw at Him.

Of course, Satan was misusing the Bible intentionally. However, I would submit this to you all for consideration: even if we do it unintentionally, we are still guilty of the sin, are accountable to God, and the people who we are talking to won't have quite the same knowledge of the Bible as Jesus and might be led astray.

We cannot afford to do that! God forbid that we would be so careless as to take a verse of the Bible, ignore the context, and tell someone that it says something it doesn't. Understanding the context is THE most important interpretive principle that there is, and we cannot afford to ignore it, no matter how and where we use the Bible.{1}

Context exists in a kind of pyramid or chain, going from most narrow to most general. It looks like this:

Word
Phrase
Sentence/Verse
Paragraph
Chapter
Book
Author: Audience
Author: General
Testament
Bible

I'll break each of those down a bit in my next post, and yes, I'll finish my book review at some point. :)

_______________________________________________

1. This is not to say that we can never quote a single verse and make an accurate point. Jesus did just that when He responded to Satan, and Paul frequently did so too. However, when we do cite a single verse, we need to be sure we've done our homework and know that what we're saying about it is an accurate representation of its teaching in the context where it came from.