Finding the Will of God - Pt. 2

Last time we saw that it is unwise to put out fleeces a la Gideon and expect to get any direction from the exercise. This is because a. Gideon had a vast army to go up against, and, b. because we are to walk by faith, not by sight. So let us pursue this question of the specific will of God further.

2. How Then Can I Know What God Wants Me To Do?

In his helpful book Decision Making and the Will of God, Garry Friesen puts forth what he calls “the Wisdom View” (p. 199). Friesen defines his view thus (I have clarified some of his wording and added some thoughts of my own):

a. The revealed commands and principles of God’s Word (i.e. God’s ethical code), are to be obeyed. Thus, where we know what God requires of us (e.g. the Beatitudes, the Armor of God, The Ten Commandments minus the Jewish Sabbath, etc.) we should be striving to please Him. This is the burden of passages like 1 Thess. 4:1f. or Rom. 6:11.

b. In those areas where the Scriptures give no specific command or principle, and it is not a question or morality per se, the believer is free to responsibly choose his or her course of action – provided they do not violate God’s ethical requirements as set forth especially in the New Testament (e.g. Eph. 4:1-5:21). All decisions must be faith-decisions, since “whatever is not of faith is sin.” (Rom. 14:23).

Finding the Will of God - Pt. 1

It is a commonly held belief among Christians that one of the most perplexing problems we experience is knowing what the will of God is for our lives. The reason for this is not hard to find. For one thing, we are most sensitive to this question in times of stress, when the stakes are high and our emotions are perturbed. We want a clear path to appear in front of us – we want to know what our heavenly Father would have us do.  In these situations we turn to God and pray for guidance.  But frequently we discover that the help does not come to us when and how we think it should, and we begin to wonder if there is some secret key to the will of God which we need to discover.

1. The Problem with Fleeces

Everyone is familiar with what Gideon did when he wanted absolute assurance that he was not deluded, but that the Lord truly had told him to take on the Midianites – he laid a fleece out, not once but twice (Judg. 6:36-40).

So we say to ourselves, well, if God honored Gideon’s prayer for guidance and God answered him, He may honor my request – after all, we say to ourselves, we just want to do the right thing in God’s sight. So we spread before God our fleeces, metaphorically speaking. For example, we pray,

“Father, if I am meant to go into business with this guy then let such and such happen.”

Or,

“Lord, if it is your will for me to meet the women who will be my wife then let her come and talk to me at church tonight (P.S. and let her friend who despises me be home sick or something).” We may even cite Gen. 24:12-14 to help our case!

But there are several things wrong about this procedure:

EPHESIANS – Chapter 2: 11-22

Chapter 2:11-22 The One New Man.

The Apostle has just shown that the way out of the deathly grip of sin and Satan is the way of God’s grace. Now he moves on to discuss some practical implications of salvation in Christ. The Gospel reaches out to all men, Jew and Gentile, and makes them brothers. In this way, it reconciles two opposing parties. But it also reconciles men to God. The Gospel therefore, brings peace both horizontally—between man and man—and, vertically—between man and God.

Therefore, remember…(v. 11). The apostle, a Jew, invites the Ephesian Gentiles to remember their condition previous to the coming of Christ into the world. The Jews thought the Gentiles were dogs. The Letter of Aristeas, for example, written by a Jew about 170 years before this epistle, refers to Gentiles as “worthless persons.”⁴ To distinguish themselves from the heathen, the Jews referred to themselves as “the Circumcision.” They did this, not because they alone practiced the rite,⁵ but because of its significance in identifying Israel with the God of the Old Testament Mosaic Law. It is hardly surprising to learn of the Jews speaking about Gentiles as the Uncircumcision (v. 11). By drawing their attention to this, Paul is not exhibiting racist tendencies, but he is highlighting the social gulf, which existed between Jews and Gentiles. This he continues to do in verse 12, where he reminds his hearers that at that time (before the Gospel came to them) you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise.

EPHESIANS - Chapter 2:1-10

Chapter 2:1-10: Salvation by God’s Grace.

This chapter can be divided between verses 1‑10, which speak of the method of our salvation; and verses 11‑22, which speak of reconciliation (first, that of the Gentiles and the Jews brought together in Christ vv. 11‑15, second, both reconciled unto God vv. 16‑22). Both argue from what has already been said in chapter one about the power of Christ in us as our resurrected Lord.

And you has He quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins. If one is going to speak about the grace of God, as Paul does in this section, one cannot ignore the effects of the Fall upon mankind. All men born into the world are dead in trespasses and sins (cf. Col. 2:13). This deadness (the term nekrous is used figuratively not literally - they are children of disobedience!) is total in regards to spirituality. The day Adam disobeyed God was the day God said he would die, and he did; not physically, but spiritually; that is, he was alienated from the life of God. His spirit was separated from its Creator, and his heart and mind were corrupted by sin. “There being nothing of that spiritual life in them [mankind after the fall] which consisteth of the union of the soul with God.” (J. Fergusson, The Epistles of Paul, 144). This is the doctrine known as Total Depravity.¹ It is vital that men understand their plight with God. They are utterly unable to do anything ‘spiritual’ without the Holy Spirit. And since “God is a Spirit” (Jn. 4:24) all an unsaved man’s religion and good works are as filthy rags in His sight (Isa. 64:6). From this spiritually dead condition has He quickened us. This means that Christ has infused His life (by the Spirit) into His redeemed ones.

Ezekiel’s Temple: Premillennial Achilles’ Heel?

This is the outline I used for a presentation at a Conference in 2005.

Let me begin this short study with a quotation from two former DTS graduates who have since abandoned and then rounded on dispensationalism:

The passage most commonly mentioned that presents great difficulty to dispensational literalism is Ezekiel’s temple vision (Ezekiel 40-48). The dispensationalists are looking for a reinstitution of bloody animal sacrifices in a millennial temple built in accordance with the description found in this passage. Dispensationalists are careful to qualify that these sacrifices are merely memorials of Christ’s death and will be the millennial equivalent of the Lord’s Supper. The problem with this is that Ezekiel’s vision refers to these sacrifices literally making atonement (Ezekiel 45:15, 17, 20; Hebrew: “kaphar,” to atone). Of course, a dispensationalist can go to the book of Hebrews to prove that animal sacrifices in the Old Testament never literally atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:4). When the Reformed theologian, however, goes to Hebrews to prove that animal sacrifices were rescinded forever [no memorial sacrifice] by Christ’s once for all offering (Hebrews 10:10-18), then that is “theological interpretation” and “reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament” – two practices which dispensationalists routinely criticize. – Curtis I. Crenshaw & Grover E. Gunn, III, Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow, (Memphis: Footstool Publications, 1989), 221. Emphasis added.

This is a representative criticism of dispensational writers from people who now find themselves on the other side of the theological fence.

SEQUEL BOOKLIST FOR THE MORE ADVENTUROUS

This list of books is for those believers who wish to dig more deeply into their faith without getting bogged down in a load of footnotes and scholarly conjecture. Some of these works will make demands of the reader, but nothing is listed which will be beyond the average mature Christian reader.

BEGINNERS BOOKLIST FOR BIBLE STUDY AND PERSONAL GROWTH

This booklist is meant to serve those believers who are either new to the faith or are not used to reading and may feel inhibited at the prospect of beginning to study or at a loss as to what pick up and read in a day when we are awash with Christian books.

I should say immediately that there must be a willingness to read good books. We live in a day when many Christians are reluctant to take advice on such matters. We also live in a day when many of God’s people underestimate themselves and their ability to comprehend so-called “serious” Christian literature. There is great release in realizing the truth that this is just not the case.

I have chosen those books which I think will both inform and encourage the reader while not leading them astray and not over-taxing them. This is not to say that these works are somehow inferior or of less value than “scholarly” tomes. On the contrary, any who read these books, whether new to the faith or seasoned student, will be blessed. Happy reading.

FF Bruce’s Eschatology

As I was doing my all-too-infrequent clearing up of my email messages I inadvertently removed a question I was asked about FF Bruce’s position on eschatology.  I place an answer of sorts here in the hope that Prof. Fred Hall’s eyes might fall on it.

As far as I can make out Prof. Bruce’s position was in line with the B. W. Newton stream of Plymouth Brethren interpretation.  That is to say, he was a historic premillennialist in the vein of C. H. Spurgeon (Baptist) and J. C. Ryle (Anglican).  I say this because I remember reading his Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians in the WBC Series and coming away with that opinion.  I don’t actually own that book, but my opinion is bolstered for the following reasons:

1. Bruce writes the Forward to the English translation of Erich Sauer’s The Dawn of World Redemption.  The Forward is very commendatory even though Sauer adopted what could be called a modified dispensational approach.

2.  In some of his commentaries Bruce seems to hold out for a “renovation” of this earth after the appearance of the final (and personal) Antichrist.  On the latter, see especially his remarks in Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 233.  On a future hope for the planet, see his Romans (Tyndale series), 174  where he refers to a “worldwide regeneration” after all Israel has been “reincorporated…among the people of God.”  (Ibid. 205).

3. It is easy enough to prove that Bruce believed that Israel (i.e. the ‘Remnant’) will be saved by believing the Gospel and so brought into the fold of the Church (See above).  In his Romans, 208 he maintains that there will be no restoration of an “earthly Davidic kingdom.”  I take him to mean that even though there will be a future millennium of some sort, this will not have OT characteristics but “Churchly” ones.

4.  Finally, in his commentary on the Greek text of Galatians Bruce allows that the kai of 6:16 ought to translated “and” thus drawing a distinction between “all them who walk according to this rule” and “the Israel of God,” but he then refers “the Israel of God” to the “all Israel” of Rom. 11:26 (275).

My interpretation is hardly incontrovertible, but when one considers his Brethren affiliation and his endorsement of Sauer I think it bears up quite well.

I should say that Bruce wrote the entry on the Apocalypse in the old one volume International Bible Commentary.  Perhaps this would help put the matter to rest.  But as I do not have access to a copy, that will have to be the work of another.

Hermeneutical Confusion and Hermeneutical Consistency

The Rationale Behind Dispensational Hermeneutics

Without a doubt, the issue of hermeneutics is one of the hottest issues in theology today. The word comes from the Greek hermeneia which basically means “interpretation.”[1] How do we interpret the Bible, and, in particular, those relatively few, yet significant parts of it which cause puzzlement or debate?

 

No one can enter upon the task of theology without confronting this question. Yet the answer to it is not as straightforward as it may appear at first sight. Take for an example this quote from an important work on biblical ethics:

 

The church dares to articulate fresh and audacious readings of Scripture only because it relies upon the work of the Holy Spirit in the community – as promised in the New Testament texts themselves (cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-16; John 16:12-15). The Spirit reshapes the community into unexpected metaphorical reflections of the biblical stories and thereby casts new light back onto the texts. Such illuminative conjunctions are impossible to predict and difficult to discern, but the church that seeks to deny or preclude them will find itself locked into the stifling grip of “the letter” (gramma, 2 Cor. 3:6), unable to hear the Word of God. Another way to put this point is to say that it is finally God who writes the metaphors.[2]

 

The quotation is reproduced to show that there are a lot of scholars out there whose idea of how to interpret the Bible is wildly different than dispensationalists. The writer wants the broad church to explore interpretive possibilities and discover novel new interpretations of well-worn texts. In this way, he says, the church avoids getting cemented in a particular time and culture. More importantly, God is not similarly confined.

The trouble with this kind of view is that is violates the Golden Rule.[3] It treats the passages of the Bible differently than its own passages. That is to say, the writer of the above statement wants to be taken literally, at face value. He employs numerous figures of speech; “The church dares”; “The Spirit reshapes the community” and “casts new light back onto the texts”; a church that denies this risks becoming one that is “unable to hear the Word of God”; “God…writes the metaphors.” But he does this without giving a second thought as to whether his language will be misunderstood by literalistic interpreters. Moreover, he cites certain texts of Scripture (1 Cor. 2:6-16; John 16:12-15; 2 Cor.3:6), presumably with the intent that the reader will turn to those verses and read them in their plain sense – figures and all.

EPHESIANS -Chapter 1:15-23

Chapter 1:15-23. Paul’s Prayer

Verse 15 is supposed to be proof that Paul did not write this letter to the Ephesians. But as Paul had been away from Ephesus for a number of years, it is not unusual that he writes of having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints.

Faith in Jesus as Lord produces love between Christians. The fruit that God most desires to see His adopted children bearing is love (cf. v. 4; 1 Jn. 4:7, 8). From the subjective angle, the sign that a person is under the Lordship of Christ is the love they have for the saints. The news of the Ephesians’ love, not only among themselves, but unto all the saints, encouraged the apostle to give thanks (v. 16), and to pray for them. We might ask ourselves, how often do we thank God for faithful saints, and intercede for them?

The content of this prayer is most instructive.