by Robert M. Smith
Then the Pharisees and some of the
scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. Now when they
saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed
hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat
unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of
the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless
they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and
hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him,
“Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the
elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
He answered and said to them, “Well did
Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
For laying aside the commandment of God,
you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many
other such things you do.”
He said to them, “All too well you reject
the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses
said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses
father or mother, let him be put to death.’But you say, ‘If a man
says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received
from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let
him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of
no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many
such things you do.”
(Mk 7:1-13 NKJV)
This
confrontation between our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious
authorities of Judaism, two thousand years ago, has always been and will
always be the source of incredible fascination to me. If ever there was
an exposition of the spiritual crimes of all men, this is indeed it. In
man’s estimation, a belief or a tenet of one’s own personal, ethical
code is discretionary; that spiritual matters are relativistic and
thought to be beyond censure [even in evangelical circles, I might add.
And that is precisely why this chapter is in this book.]. God, on the
other hand, being Lord and Creator of all and to Whom most religions
claim as the Object of their intentions and attentions, does not
envision this matter so indifferently. He has dedicated a vast portion
of the Scriptures toward reproving the notion that He may be approached,
pleased and served by any means humanly construed.
Unfortunately, twenty-first century Christianity is not viewed by
secular society as a singular construct; there are so many
denominational variances in the midst of evangelicalism that no singular
distinction stands out. Because of this obscurity the true message of
Christ often lies hidden to the man on the street who, by the standard
we have set for ourselves as Christians, also feels that he has a right
to his own interpretation, which he takes hold of eagerly and readily.
In response to all of the various religious people that come to
his door, send him petitions in the mail, call out on the radio or
appear on his television set, he adds his take to the mix … and
until Christians “get their act together” he is justified in doing so.
That is what the interpreting game is all about: namely, “my conclusions
are as valid and as salient as yours!”
This
argument holds water under most humanistic conditions but as we see with
the reference from the Gospel of Mark, above, spiritual matters are
anything but humanistic. The Pharisees and scribes were accosted by God
with a disclosure of their limitations on spiritual matters and it is at
this same point that we must start to dismantle the interpretation game.
In spiritual issues – even more so than in issues of jurisprudence,
science, math or any other major discipline – all opinions are not
created equal and we must always come to God to verify them. Our concern
here is not about deciphering and isolating cult teachings and
philosophies because our job is already gargantuan within the confines
of Christianity. Many of the cults are so self-evidently erroneous that
most believers do not require special training to offset their teachings
anymore. But there are many things happening within the Christian
context that are being either purposely ignored or slipping under the
radar due to our spiritual slovenliness at the moment. It is our
Christian relativism that we must address for the problem, as Lutzer
relates, is killing us: “We can’t blame postmodernism for the condition
of the church, but there is no doubt that we have all been influenced by
its tolerant mood. Many Christians feel no obligation to share their
faith with others. They believe their own convictions are good for them,
and it would be nice if others became Christians, but they do not see
any urgency for others to hear the Christian message! Perhaps this
explains that, according to pollster George Barna, only 8 percent of
adults have evangelical beliefs compared to 12 percent a decade ago. He
says, ‘The number has dropped by a third as Americans continue to
reshape their theological views.’
Many
Christians feel embarrassed about the fact that we believe in universal
truth, specifically in the uniqueness of Christ and His death and
resurrection as the only means by which we can be accepted by God. In an
age when the greatest sin is offensiveness, and the greatest virtue is
inoffensiveness, it is difficult to share a message that, at its core,
is offensive to the mind of fallen man.”[1]
We must
learn all over again that because the Bible is not merely a religious
book but rather an historical record, a cultural record, a sociological
treatise, a spiritual prognosis and an in-depth analysis of theological
and humanistic issues it can be studied and applied to life. The way in
which one studies it, however, has a direct correlation to the degree of
efficacy obtained. And throughout the centuries of studying the
Scriptures specific principles have been upheld in order to avoid
controversy over doctrine: utilizing literal, cultural critical
methodology or historical, grammatical methodology. Within these
particular fields of investigation there is one particular measure that
assists any and every man to discern theological truth from error
insofar as the Bible is concerned: no doctrine can stand upon a single
verse when the flow of Scripture does not support it and that the
obscure must always give way to that which is clear. Exegetical [to read
out of the text] study is an imperative and isogetical [to read into the
text] study is to be avoided.
As an
example of the proper way to study the Word of God I shall cite a
prominent philosophy promoted in our time that, in an attempt to give
honour and recognition to the sovereignty of God [a very good cause
indeed and a very true cause] it has tragically missed the mark about
the responsibility found in the human condition and about God’s
interaction with man. The former emphasis is true according to
Scripture, the latter is also true according to Scripture … in the
spiritual realm many issues are not either/or issues; several are
and/also issues. Here is one of those and/also issues: The
word “seek” is used more that 220 times in the Bible. Of all those
occurrences only Rom 3:11 is utilized by hyper Calvinism to support a
particular tenet while the rest [217 other occurrences explained below]
are surreptitiously ignored or revised.
Under
Calvinist thought there is only one way to look at the mental and
spiritual exercise of a person who “seeks” the Lord: the Lord had to
have changed the nature of the man or woman prior to their search
because the Apostle Paul emphasized in this single verse that no one
seeks the Lord (Rom 3:11). Paul is quoting Psalm 14 [or Psalm 53 which
is a repeat of Psalm 14 actually] and laying the foundation for his
conclusion of justification through faith. In essence this coincides
with an even later conclusion where Paul finally declares that “whatever
is not from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23). Both the Psalms and the reference
in Romans chapter 3 have a distinct purpose: to establish that there is
no advantage for a Jew over a Gentile when it comes to salvation. That
is the context from chapter 2 to chapter 5. To utilize this reference
for something other than that is to take it out of context. In addition
to this, even a cursory look at Psalm 14 or 53 will also reveal that
this passage is not to be used as hyper Calvinism emphasizes [ie. That a
man’s nature must be changed so that the man may subsequently
start seeking the Lord]. There are statements to the contrary even
within the Psalm itself.
How can
I say these things with such assurance? Because there are other
Scriptures that prove it to be so. In fact the bulk of Scripture does
not support the conclusions made by hyper Calvinism in this matter and
it is exegetically inaccurate to suggest otherwise. The following verses
come with the word “seek” firmly entrenched within them … so we’re going
to have a brief look at them here.
These verses encourage men and women to “seek” the Lord [not to have the
Lord change their “natures”]: Deut 4:29; Ezra 6:21; Ezra 7:10; Ezra
8:21-23; Ps 9:10; Ps 22:26; Ps 27:4 & 8; Ps 34:10; Ps 40:16; Ps 69:5-6;
Ps 69:32; Ps 70:4; Ps 83:16; Ps 105:3-4; Ps 119:2; Ps 119:45;
Isa 26:9; Isa 51:1; Isa 55:6-7; Isa 58:1-2; Jer 29:13; Jer
50:4; Hosea 3:5; Hosea 5:15; Hosea 10:12; Amos 5:4-8; Zeph
2:1-3; Zech 8:21-23; Mal 3:1; Matt 6:33; Matt 7:7; Lk
11:9; Lk 12:31; Acts 17:25-27; Heb 11:6
The
underlined, in particular and for various reasons within the text [none
of which includes changing the “nature” of the seeker … the change comes
after finding the One sought], show very substantially that the
erroneous conclusions adopted via the use of primarily one passage (Rom
3:10-12) cannot be maintained. The weight of evidence – something that
is fundamental in doctrinal issues – does not support Calvinist
assumptions in this area. We are, therefore, to be very careful about
building an entire spiritual philosophy around the assumptions presumed
upon a single verse or a couple of verses when the rest of Scripture
cannot be rallied in support of said assumption.
Considering Heb 11:6 alone – which is actually a summation of all these
other references combined – the contrast with Rom 3:11 is stark beyond
degree. Heb 11:6 (“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for
he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder
of them that diligently seek him.”) sets the record straight. There is a
requirement of the man that longs to come to God and to please God. He
must exercise faith in order to be rewarded by God … and here’s the
“catch phrase”: “of them that diligently seek him”! The emphasis in this
phrase is that there are some, through the initiative of faith, who God
recognizes and rewards. Is God playing a cruel joke with this verse and
others like it? After all, if a man is to do nothing in the
process of salvation – no thinking, no accepting of the truth, no
choosing, no seeking, no diligence, no decision to make – then this
verse and all others listed above is nothing short of cruelty … and God
rewards only Himself all the time. There is also, by extension however,
no accountability/responsibility on the part of man either: if there is
nothing of man in the process of salvation he cannot, therefore, be held
accountable for missing out on salvation. Calvinist thought simply
cannot “have it both ways” on this issue!
As a
result of this thinking I have found hyper Calvinism to be one of those
philosophies that hinge upon minute nuances which do not fit the general
tenure and scope of the Scriptures. In an endeavour to shore up various
spiritual perspectives it has become reactionary in its approach instead
of remaining truthful to the tenor of the Word of God. Thus when
formulating a doctrine from one verse, in contradiction to 217 others,
we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the doctrine is in error.
Proper exegetical study of the Bible demands that the lesser
interpretation [the one that is based upon the least Scriptural
evidence] must always serve the greater [the one that is based upon the
most Scriptural evidence]. If this principle is ignored Christianity
would become even more twisted and convoluted than it is at the moment …
and it is indeed distorted enough in many instances already.
The
aforementioned is only one example among many within the church at the
moment. It is intended to trigger an understanding of what every
Christian should know and attempt to know about Bible study. Every
Christian is called to grow to maturity (Eph 4:9-16 and Heb 5:11-14) and
thus he/she has a responsibility before God to learn and discern truth.
We must, however, go about learning and interpreting upon the right
principles rather than the wrong.
There
are some individuals who will pursue wrong doctrine through wrong means
… we are told this in the pages of Scripture (2 Tim 4:3-4; Jude 8-23).
So we must ask what would drive a person to start playing these
interpretation games? Why would one start to play around with things
that are so spiritually volatile? Some of the reasons are found in the
texts referenced: personal preference, rebellious attitudes, ignorance,
personal gain, selfishness, ungodliness, selfish passions, worldliness,
and those who are devoid of the Holy Spirit. Although some of those
characteristics can be applied to some of the interpreting games played
within the church by believers I think that there is another that I’d
like to analyze. It is the “control factor” that most people do not want
to surrender. In other words, this is where one can, as is often coined
in our time, “find the handle” on some issue. Any time one can define
and wrap one’s mind around some concept it will not be given up
without a major fight … and even when pummeled and beaten capitulation
may yet obstinately be avoided at all cost. [In the case that I have
chosen above a typical rejoinder, from a hyper Calvinist, to the
Scriptural information that I have set forth would be to raise other
strawman issues in desperation, like divine election and covenant
theology; using circular argumentation in the hope of avoiding loss. But
Calvinism unravels quickly once a thread or two of the doctrine of man
is revealed.]
Only
with the most intense reluctance is the hand of man pried from its
treasures – both material and immaterial. I found that Oswald Chambers
had such a grasp on this human travesty. His assessment of
self-realization is second to none and certainly has great pertinence at
this point because it is very much a part of the obstinate Christian as
well: “There is nothing more highly esteemed among men than
self-realization, but Jesus says that ‘that which is highly esteemed
among men is abomination in the sight of God.’ We are apt to have the
notion that all Jesus Christ came to do was to deliver morally corrupt
people from their corruption. A man is largely responsible for the
corruption of his actual life; Jesus Christ does not deal with my
morality or immorality, but ‘my right to myself.’ Whenever our Lord
talked about discipleship He always said ‘IF’ – ‘If any man will
be My disciple, let him deny himself,’ not deny himself things as an
athlete does, but ‘let him give up his right to himself to Me.’ If I am
going to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Master I must realize what I have
to forego, viz., the best thing I know, my right to myself. It is easy
to say, ‘Yes, I am delighted to be saved from hell and put right for
heaven, but I don’t intend to give up my right to myself.’ Apart from
Jesus Christ, conscious self-realization is the great thing – the desire
to develop myself. My natural self may be noble, but it is a moral
earthquake to realize that if I pursue the conscious realization of
myself it must end in losing my ideal of life. It is a tremendous
revelation when I realize that self-realization is the very spirit of
antichrist. Self-realization is possible in the spiritual domain as well
as the natural. Much of the ‘Higher Spiritual Life’ teaching is simply
self-realization veneered over with Christian terms. For a man to be set
on his own salvation, on his own whiteness, to want to be ‘the one
taken’, is not Christian. The great characteristic of our Lord’s life is
not self-realization, but the realization of God’s purposes.”[2]
There
are many points of view that can and should be applied within the church
in order to bring about maturity. We should have no trouble with a good
new vantage point on truth and every individual believer has the
potential of “bringing something to the table” as they say. An artist
will see things from a different perspective than a business manager,
and a janitor will have a different take on a spiritual truth than a CEO
… all valid and worthy of examination. Within the proper atmosphere of a
church that is keen on edification, these same people, however, do not
rearrange or remake the object of their affections by their unique
viewing angles. We must be careful to encourage perspectives as vehicles
of growth and appreciation among the Lord’s people without promoting a
“new gospel” that would only wreak havoc within the church. And that is
the fundamental key in avoiding any interpreting game isn’t it? To
appreciate various vantage points as long as they do not alter or
attempt to alter the truth upon which they gaze. “Strictly speaking it
is not possible to move beyond Christianity; you must abandon
Christianity to move beyond it! Whenever you try to add to Christianity
you subtract from it. Just as wine is diluted with every drop of water,
so the power of the gospel must remain distinct or be reduced to
something it was never meant to be. Those who surrender the uniqueness
of Christ do not simply surrender a part of the Christian message, but
they surrender it entirely. We cannot remove the foundation and profess
that the building is still intact.”[3]
It is
with great anticipation that I move from this chapter into the next two.
There is an expanse of interpretation taking place within the
evangelical Christian world at the moment, where new interpretations –
not new viewing angles – are being foisted upon unsuspecting believers.
New gospels are springing up within the church and old heretical
teachings that were once thought to be dead and buried have arisen in
our time. Everything from Gnostics and Deists to humanists, from
exhibitionists to legalists, from stoics to emergents, from
socialists to isolationists, from new agers to old covenanters, have
taken up positions within the North American evangelical community … all
under the banner of the interpreting game. To weed out the bad while
retaining the good is the modern-day task of the church. Recall that
Jesus, in His assessment of the seven churches of Revelation chapters
two and three, gave six of those churches a task to accomplish. They
were to repent of the major problem in their midst and fix it … He
wasn’t going to do it for them. We are in a similar dilemma for if the
church in North America persists with its present course we shall be
ushering in the apostate church that we have been warned about in Matt
24:24-25, Mk 13:22-23, and 2 Thess 2:3. In fact, there are many roots of
this apostate version of the church already firmly ensconced and leading
astray.
One
question remains: are we going to continue playing interpreting games or
are we going to get down to the business of cleaning house? It is a
choice that each must make in accordance with Mk 8:34 – “If any
man would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and
follow Me.” You can indeed choose to leave your cross lying there … you
might prefer to grab that bag of gold and follow Christ … you might
prefer to get your leg healed first and then follow Him … you might even
fancy picking up that Phd. lying there and follow Him … but those
weren’t among the options He specified. We’ve got a choice between a
cross and not following. It may not be comfortable but I suggest we
embrace the cross and start getting rid of our prideful selves; it’s the
only way to move forward.
[1]
Erwin W. Lutzer, Who are you to judge?, Moody Press, Chicago,
2002, Page 26
[2]
Oswald Chambers, The Complete Works of Oswald Chambers,
Discovery House Publishers, Grand Rapids, 2000, Page 496
[3]
Erwin W. Lutzer, Christ among other gods, Moody Press,
Chicago, 1994, Page 111