A Brief Word About the WORD

[al Hartman]

                        A Brief Word About the WORD:
 
    Someone very dear to me is studying to become a minister in the "church" of Religious Science, which teaches that whatever you may choose to believe is the truth as far as you are concerned.  Religious Science (among other "faiths") views the Bible as a collection of spiritual tales, parables and axioms that mean different things to different people.  For example, verses regarding the kingdom of God may be quoted as references for "believing" one's way to material wealth, attaining a higher level of spiritual insight or any number of other applications.
    The arguments against recognizing the Bible as the infallible Word of God are legion:  The texts were all written by men, events such as the creation and the flood aren't scientifically plausible, the earliest known manuscripts do not date back to the events they record, the teachings were politically motivated;  not to mention how many preachers, priests and officers of scripture-quoting churches have been convicted of crimes and how many over-the-top cults supposedly base(d) their doctrines on the Bible.
    As Christians, we often find ourselves taunted with such dicussion, and the temptation to answer such claims with counter-debate can be nearly overwhelming.  A few months ago this bulletin board hosted a hearty discussion about whether anti-Bible claims should be addressed as a means of opening opposing intellects to the claims of the Scriptures, or simply ignored in deference to the pure and simple preaching of the Gospel.
 
    Our cue in such matters is given by the Bible itself, which makes no attempt to defend, justify or even explain itself to the world (that portion of mankind which does not know or acknowledge the living God).  But to the redeemed of the Lord is stated "...a natural (or unspiritual) man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised (examined).  But he who is spiritual appraises all things..." 1Cor.2:14-15.  What lifts a soul from the natural state to the spiritual is the new birth.  "...unless one is born again (or from above) he cannot see the kingdom of God.  ...That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Jn.3:3,6.    So the pro-Scripture explanations which seem so clear to us are wasted upon the unregenerate.

    The judgment against men is not that they reject the explanation of the Bible's accuracy, but that they reject the testimony to Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God (Jn.3:19-21).  Jesus is the Light of the world, shining in the face of its darkness, and mankind may avail itself of the Light, or not (Mt.6:22-23).  Paul assures us that we received the Spirit of God by "the hearing of faith" Gal.3:2(marg.), which "comes ...by the word of Christ" Rom.10:17.  The eyes and ears of our souls are opened by the Word of God, not by facts regarding the background of the Bible.  All of the wonderful information about the latter cannot penetrate the spiritual darkness to redeem a soul, but must be held in reserve for the encouragement of the saints.

    Concerning those who would disparage the authenticity of the Scriptures, we are admonished to "Preach the Word," not teach about it.  If we are mocked for our simplistic insistence, let us take heart from Paul's words in 1Cor.1:17-2:16, wherein he instructs that he preached the Gospel "not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."(1:17)  He quotes (1:19) from Isaiah 29 God's promise to "destroy the wisdom of the wise," and to set aside "the cleverness of the clever."  "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" he asks, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." (1:20-21)
    "We preach Christ crucified," Paul says, declaring the message to be "to those who are the called, ...the power of God and the wisdom of God," while being a stumbling block and foolishness to others. (1:23-24)    And this, he attests, is "because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1:25)

    God has chosen to make our message to appear foolish and weak to the world in order to shame the wise and the strong, so that the wisdom and strength of the world cannot boast before Him (1:26-31, 2:2).  Let us then preach Christ crucified to the lost and to the young in faith as did Paul, "not with superiority of speech or of wisdom," and "not in persuasive words of wisdom," that their faith will not "rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God."(2:1,4-5)  

al Hartman     (All Scripture references are from the updated NASB)


   

[Kimberley Tobin]

Al:

While I agree with most of what you say, I have a very different view of what "preaching" is now after having left the assembly.  

Most non-christians will tell you that bible belting, reciting the scriptures, arguing points with this scripture reference and that scripture reference to wow the listener at what a great student of the word we are (wasn't that what we did in the assembly) rarely wins your listener.  In fact, most are irritated and your intent is lost in it's application.  However, LIVING the bible before men/women is a much more ardous task (not really, if you are simply resting in your saviour!)   I believe this is what Christ did when he won the masses.  He didn't 'PREACH' to the wounded, lost and weary.....his was a life of action.  In fact, most of his preaching was reserved for the Pharisee.........HMMMMMMMM........interesting.  It is the Pharisee who needs to have Christ speak to him regarding the scripture, not the other way around.  

I no longer ram scripture down others throats.  I live my life before them. A much more winning way.....and I believe the example our Lord gave us.

Food for thought!

[al Hartman]

Al:

While I agree with most of what you say, I have a very different view of what "preaching" is now after having left the assembly.  

Most non-christians will tell you that bible belting, reciting the scriptures, arguing points with this scripture reference and that scripture reference to wow the listener at what a great student of the word we are (wasn't that what we did in the assembly) rarely wins your listener.  In fact, most are irritated and your intent is lost in it's application.  However, LIVING the bible before men/women is a much more ardous task (not really, if you are simply resting in your saviour!)   I believe this is what Christ did when he won the masses.  He didn't 'PREACH' to the wounded, lost and weary.....his was a life of action.  In fact, most of his preaching was reserved for the Pharisee.........HMMMMMMMM........interesting.  It is the Pharisee who needs to have Christ speak to him regarding the scripture, not the other way around.  

I no longer ram scripture down others throats.  I live my life before them. A much more winning way.....and I believe the example our Lord gave us.

Food for thought!

Hi Kimberly,

     ...food for thought, indeed, and thanks for bringing up this point.  Many of us certainly did ram the Bible and our opinions down people's throats while in the assembly.  As often as not, I for one was "WOWing" myself, if not my listener (victim), with my "wisdom."  This in no way detracts from all the sincere witnessing that was done by assembly saints over the years.

     Genuine preaching is a scriptural reality in both the old and new testaments.  Please, anyone who is concerned about this topic, get a Bible concordance and look up the words preach, preached, preacher, etc., and see the many references.
     Jesus preached to the poor and to the multitudes.  
     He sent His disciples forth to preach.  
     Paul said woe unto him if he didn't preach the gospel.  
     He instructed Timothy to preach the Word.  
     The apostles preached Christ "every day," even (especially)
          after being flogged for doing so.

     I fully agree with Kimberly that preaching is not an end in itself, and that browbeating is not the tactic of choice for bearing witness to the lost.  If the terminology we heard and spoke in the assembly has left a bad taste, we must remember that much was distorted there, and that the misuse of words and terms must not negate their proper use.  As we have moved from the assembly pattern into more "normal" churches, our concepts of grace, worship, commitment, ministry, walking with the Lord, and many other ph(r)ases of Christianity have needed adjustment and clarification.  Preaching is just another on the list.

    True preaching is a positive element of God's working.

     For clarity's sake, my use of "preach" in my previous post is interchangeable with tell, speak, witness, etc., and does not suggest being loud or obnoxious.  The focus of my thoughts is on the state of the hearer's heart, which is infinitely more susceptible to prayerful simplicity than to "learned" argumentation.  Let there be no doubt that the most powerful testimony of Christ in our lives is His life expressed in our everyday doings.  But even if we never stand up and hold forth at length, we must be ever alert to answer the earnest question "What must I do to be saved?"  This, too, is the preaching of the Gospel.

     After telling Timothy to "Preach the Word," Paul instructed him to "be ready in season and out of season..."  Roughly paraphrased:  Be prepared to be prepared even when you aren't prepared.

God bless, and Happy New Year,
al

[Joe Sperling]

I had a quick question. I read all three Bulletin Boards (dealing witht he Assembly) daily. Today I read a thread on the SWTE BB that dealt with conscience and self-condemnation, and putting the blame on others for our problems. There was a statement made which I quote:

"..the monster turns on me and I am under my own condemnation. The conscience is difficult to control once it is unleashed to decide who should go to the gallows and who shouldn't. Haman, as a type of the human conscience ended up receiving his own sentence of death."

My question is the interpretation concerning Haman. How does one come to the conclusion that Haman is a "type of the conscience"? Is there anything in the Bible that leads us to make this interpretation regarding him? Do we not interpret the Bible by the Bible? I ask this because this is exactly the type of thing that we all "accepted" while in Assembly. An interpretation was made on something by George or another and it was "fed to us". Many of us would question certain interpretations, but it was frowned upon to question anything George said. A blanket statement was made like: "Haman is a type of the conscience" and many accepted it, without asking where that interpretation even came from.

And I feel this is very important. The Bible itself says that the Word is not of any private interpretation, but can be understood by all. Like the Noble Bereans, we should ask immediatley, "is that scriptural"? Most of us failed to do that while in the Assembly, accepting the interpretation of men rather than the true interpretation of God. Like a weight scale, interpretation should be both spiritual and intelligent. That is why Hermeneutics is so important. A balanced, even, interpretation of the Bible is extremely important. When someone makes a statement like: "Haman is a type of the human conscience" we should ask "How do you come to that conclusion?" Most likely we'll get the answer "The Lord showed me it is", rather than an intelligent, balanced interpretation that clearly shows that that is the meaning.

I asked the question at the beginning because maybe someone has heard that interpretation of Haman before. Is it an "accepted" interpretation made by many, or an Assembly interpretation made by a man? Just curious what you think.


---Joe

[Kimberley Tobin]

I had a quick question. I read all three Bulletin Boards (dealing witht he Assembly) daily. Today I read a thread on the SWTE BB that dealt with conscience and self-condemnation, and putting the blame on others for our problems. There was a statement made which I quote:

"..the monster turns on me and I am under my own condemnation. The conscience is difficult to control once it is unleashed to decide who should go to the gallows and who shouldn't. Haman, as a type of the human conscience ended up receiving his own sentence of death".[/i]

And the "question" would be?

[Joe Sperling]

Kimberly---

Sorry----I hit post by mistake before I was finished.

--Joe

[editor]

Well,

I haven't ever heard this interpretation before.  I studied the book of Esther under a great Bible preacher, George Geftakys, and he never mentioned it.  

I have never heard of anyone else ever having this interpretation either.  However, if we read the scriptures in the spirit, and interpret them with the understanding of faith, and our spirit regisiters with His Spirit, that we our hearts are being prompted by the Divine Teacher, than I see no problem with this interpretation....

In the book of Esther, Mordecai is a type of a doubting believer, who overcomes doubt by choosing against himself.

Esther is a type of God's Grace removing the sin of an immoral woman, who despite her propensity to sin, has a heart for the things of God.  Man looks on the outward appearance, but God, and only God, looks at the heart.  God knew Esthers heart, which is why we should never judge anyone!  (Unless we don't like them.)

Our judgement is based on words and deeds, the outward man.  God's judgement isn't based on words or deeds, but on the hidden motives of the heart.  Ignore verses that say things like God judges our works, or the words we speak.  They can't be properly understood by the natural man.  When God has judged something, and we are in union with Him in the Spirit, only then can we judge with righteous judgement, which is based in faith, not in sight.  As long as we abide in the soulish twilight of the natural man, we cannot judge correctly.

Haman, as a type of the human conscience, was abiding in self.  He was wrong about the Jews, but everyone judged he was correct.  (Natural man judgement)  However, God knew his motives were selfish, and Mordecai, the doubting believer, made at least one good choice at this time.  God can use the weakest among us to accomplish his purpose....unless we are abiding in self.  George Geftakys was used by God, in spite of the outward appearance of things, because only God knows his heart....we do not, except in the inward man, by faith.

Haman was hung on his own gallows, as a type of the human conscience being put to death on the cross.  This is what needs to happen in each of us, if we are going to pass from soulish, natural, finite life, into spiritual life.

I really think this interpretation has "wings."

Can I preach it or what?  

[vernecarty]

Well,
 However, if we read the scriptures in the spirit, and interpret them with the understanding of faith, and our spirit regisiters with His Spirit, that we our hearts are being prompted by the Divine Teacher, than I see no problem with this interpretation....

Could you repeat that...??!!  
Verne

[Joe Sperling]

Thanks for that expository gem Brent I think

--Joe

[editor]

Thanks for that expository gem Brent I think

--Joe

sure Joe, anytime.

However, I assumed that you were not serious in wanting an to know if that interpretation was correct.  If you were sincerely asking the question, I apologize for getting sarcastic about it.

In all sincerity, there is absolutely no basis for making the statement that Haman is a type of the human conscience.  None, absolutely no possible way to back that up.

We could, or course, draw the obvious parrallels between Haman and other wicked, ambitious people who have been consumed with hatred for the Jews throughout history.  In this sense, Haman is a "type," of Satan.  However, typology goes too far, most of the time.  Haman is an historical figure, who died on his own gallows, meant for the Mordecai, I believe.

Satan is going to be cast alive into the Lake of Fire, which he did not make, which was not made for the Jews, but made especially for him.  The typology does not hold up, except insofar as they both hated Jews in an illogical way, which resulted in their ultimate demise.

Haman could be a type of foolish master builder, I suppose, but I have never heard of such a thing.

Personally, I think it is unwise to view everything as a type of everything else.  Scripture frequently has plain meaning, and far less frequently has hidden, allegorical meaning.  Tom Maddux said something that was quite enlightening a while ago I shall attempt to repeat it:

The PB like to talk about mustard trees, and birds that nest in them.  In their thinking, the mustard tree is a "type" of christendom, which has grown into something it was never intended to be.  (Mustard should be a small shrub, not a tree)  OK...interesting point, perhaps.

The reason the Mustard Tree is so bad (modern Christendom) is because the birds of the air nest in its branches.  The birds are a "type" of demons.  Why?  Because in the parable of the sower and the seed Jesus interprets them as such.

That's the key, Jesus interpreted his own parable, but he didn't tell us the interpretation of the birds in the Mustard tree.  I guess it's OK to run with it though.  Let's stick with the analogy for this passage:

Psalm 84:1  How lovely is your dwelling place,  O LORD Almighty!  2  My soul yearns, even faints,  for the courts of the LORD;  my heart and my flesh cry out  for the living God.  3  Even the  sparrow  has found a home,  and the swallow a nest for herself,  where she may have her young--  a place near your altar,  O LORD Almighty, my King and my God.  4  Blessed are those who dwell in your house;  they are ever praising you. Selah

In keeping with the idea that we "interpret scripture with scripture, and that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed," we must rejoice with David (a type of Christ) that the "blessed" demons have a place in God's house, where they can raise their young!  Perhaps we should reconsider this before adopting such an idea.

Ah...but that's the Old Testament.  Let's talk apples to apples:

Matt 6:26  "Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

Here, if we stick to our typology of birds being demons, we must conclude that God feeds and cares for demons!  (same word in Greek as in the Mustard Tree parable.)

The point is that we must be careful when assigning typology to everything.  I do not think the PB are totally out to lunch with their interpretation, but it is quite easy to go too far.  In the case of Haman, way too far.  

Please instruct me if I am wrong.

Brent

[Joe Sperling]

Brent----

Thanks for your post. I must say that I asked that question knowing the answer to it. But I thought it brought up an important issue, and showed what a lot of us bought into a lot of the time in the Assembly.

Without properly interpreting the Bible, and using "types" without using discretion, great damage can be done. Though my question was asked seriously, it was asked to provoke thought. But I must say I truly appreciated your sarcastic and very funny take on it. You are a master of Biblical Exposition using the Assembly mindset---you understand it expertly and always send me into a fit of the giggles when you use it.  thanks.


---Joe

[vernecarty]

I think Brent is right in suggesting that Haman is a type of our great adversary Satan. Old testament anti-Semetism had a very simple objective - destruction of the Saviour's lineage by destruction of God's chosen people. The objective is the same today...
Verne

[Oscar]

I had a quick question. I read all three Bulletin Boards (dealing witht he Assembly) daily. Today I read a thread on the SWTE BB that dealt with conscience and self-condemnation, and putting the blame on others for our problems. There was a statement made which I quote:

"..the monster turns on me and I am under my own condemnation. The conscience is difficult to control once it is unleashed to decide who should go to the gallows and who shouldn't. Haman, as a type of the human conscience ended up receiving his own sentence of death."

My question is the interpretation concerning Haman. How does one come to the conclusion that Haman is a "type of the conscience"? Is there anything in the Bible that leads us to make this interpretation regarding him? Do we not interpret the Bible by the Bible? I ask this because this is exactly the type of thing that we all "accepted" while in Assembly. An interpretation was made on something by George or another and it was "fed to us". Many of us would question certain interpretations, but it was frowned upon to question anything George said. A blanket statement was made like: "Haman is a type of the conscience" and many accepted it, without asking where that interpretation even came from.

And I feel this is very important. The Bible itself says that the Word is not of any private interpretation, but can be understood by all. Like the Noble Bereans, we should ask immediatley, "is that scriptural"? Most of us failed to do that while in the Assembly, accepting the interpretation of men rather than the true interpretation of God. Like a weight scale, interpretation should be both spiritual and intelligent. That is why Hermeneutics is so important. A balanced, even, interpretation of the Bible is extremely important. When someone makes a statement like: "Haman is a type of the human conscience" we should ask "How do you come to that conclusion?" Most likely we'll get the answer "The Lord showed me it is", rather than an intelligent, balanced interpretation that clearly shows that that is the meaning.

I asked the question at the beginning because maybe someone has heard that interpretation of Haman before. Is it an "accepted" interpretation made by many, or an Assembly interpretation made by a man? Just curious what you think.


---Joe

Joe,

GG had to believe in this method of reading the Bible.  The entire PB church system is built on a foundation of such interpretations.

If GG hadn't accepted this, his whole ministry would have dissolved.

Too bad it didn't.

Tom

[Oscar]

By the way,

Some of you will remember a discussion about "Big Tree Churches" several months ago.  Back in the days when John Malone senior, of fond memory, was whispering his sweet nothings to any and all.

He condemned me and others for going to Big Tree Churches.  In fact, this idea comes from exactly what Joe was speaking of...."the mustard plant grows into a big tree, something unnatural, and represents the corrupt religious system.  The fowls of the air represent the teaching demons that dwell in the corrupt religious system..."

This is exactly the same kind of nonsense.  What he, and others I have heard teach this, fail to do is to show why this is true.  Lacking clear Biblical statments the best anyone can do is to make a plausible case.  However, I don't even consider this idea plausible.

Thomas Maddux
Gas Bag First Class

[Oscar]

I think Brent is right in suggesting that Haman is a type of our great adversary Satan. Old testament anti-Semetism had a very simple objective - destruction of the Saviour's lineage by destruction of God's chosen people. The objective is the same today...
Verne

Verne,

When I took hermeneutics at Talbot they were teaching that in order for an OT person to qualify as a type, it must be so stated elsewhere in the Bible.

On this basis, they would say that Haman was carrying out Satan's program, just as Pharoah had earlier.  However, he wouldn't qualify as a genuine type.

Interestingly, Haman was an Amelekite.  God told Saul to exterminate them, and now here they were in Babylon after the Persian takeover still pursuing Satan's program for Israel.  "Obedience is better than sacrifice...".

Tom