Views: 4<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n It should be obvious to all that many statements of Scripture are misapplied when we think of the almost innumerable errors held and promoted in the so-called \u201cbelieving\u201d world at large. In fact, many of these errors are founded upon such misuse and\/or misapplications, whether by ignorance or design, to bolster their doctrines and practices.<\/p>\n Often the simple failure to consider the context can lead us to false ideas. For example, Paul stated that \u201cit is good for a man not to touch a woman\u201d (1 Cor. 7:1), and he later counsels in the same chapter against marriage. Ignoring the context, one might conclude that Paul was opposed to marriage. However, further reading of the context brings us to his statement that these cautions concerning marriage were temporary due to an unnamed \u201cdistress\u201d the saints at Corinth were experiencing (v. 26).<\/p>\n Those who teach the damnable doctrine of salvation from past sins at the point of faith alone make the same mistake concerning Acts 16:30\u201331, which records the account of the Philippian jailer\u2019s asking Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved. Paul told him to \u201cbelieve on the Lord\u201d and he would be saved, from which words careless or biased readers conclude that Paul meant that all he need do was to believe in Christ to secure forgiveness of his sins. Such exegetes either fail to read\u2014or they reject\u2014the larger context, which states that these two servants of God then taught him and his family the Word of the Lord, whereupon he and they were baptized immediately (vv. 32\u201333). Only after their baptism does Luke, the inspired writer, state that they \u201drejoiced, having believed in God\u201d (v. 34). These two accounts demonstrate the significance of recognizing the context of every Scriptural statement and also of the principle, \u201cDon\u2019t quit reading too soon.\u201d<\/p>\n The goal of honest and earnest Bible students is to ascertain\u2014neither more nor less than\u2014what the Scriptures actually teach. It must always be our desire to make sure that we are not drawn too quickly to what a passage seems<\/strong> to say before we understand what it does in fact<\/strong> say. Upon careful examination, we sometimes discover that the two are not the same. Is it possible that we, who genuinely seek only to \u201cspeak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent\u201d misapply\/misuse some passages, even familiar ones? It is not only possible; it is a reality, as I shall demon\u00adstrate. The passages under consideration in this study are ones that I have heard brethren misapply. For the most part, these misapplications have not involved crucial doctrinal errors, but in a few cases they have done so. Even when the doctrines\/ practices we may think we see in a given passage are taught elsewhere in the Bible, this fact does not excuse misappli\u00adcation of Scripture. One should never rest a principle of God\u2019s Truth upon shallow and faulty interpretation or application. Let us now review and examine some of these passages.<\/p>\n Proverbs 22:6<\/strong><\/p>\n Train up a child in the way he should go, And even when he is old he will not depart from it.<\/strong><\/p>\n In the book of Proverbs Solomon addressed numerous statements of sage instruction and advice both to parents and to children. One of these he aimed at parents is Proverbs 22:6: \u201cTrain up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it\u201d (ASV). This passage has been quoted innumerable times to advance the idea that, if parents teach their children as they should, those children will absolutely and always remain steadfast in the faith. Countless sermons have been built upon thus interpreting Solomon\u2019s words. However, if this is the meaning of the passage, we have at least one Scripture that teaches the impossibility of apostasy. Further, this application of the passage implies the cancellation of the free will of that child to reject in later years his upbringing.<\/p>\n Some, citing this proverb, have been quick to judge parents whose offspring went astray after leaving home. The stubborn, undeniable fact remains, however, that a large number of dedicated Christian parents, who did all within their power to rear their children to be stalwart citizens in the kingdom, have suffered the agony of seeing them rebel against and renounce that sound teaching. Further, we can frequently observe the circumstance in which conscientious parents provided identical <\/strong>spiritual instruction, environment, and example for a plurality of children, but with great sadness, saw one or more reject it all in later years, while his\/her siblings remained steadfast. The passage does not <\/strong>say or mean, as Matthew Henry (Commentary<\/em>) suggests it might, \u201cwhen he is old, it is to be hoped<\/strong>, he will not depart from it.\u201d Rather, the promise is stated as an unqualified certainty instead of as a mere general, hoped-for principle. How is this apparent paradox explained?<\/p>\n Without controversy God\u2019s Word teaches parents to indoctrinate their children with its spiritual and moral principles (Gen. 18:19; Deu. 6:4\u20139; Eph. 6:1\u20134; Col. 3:20\u201321; Tit. 2:3\u20134; et al.). Christian parents who neglect this responsibility have no valid excuse. But is this what Solomon was discussing in Proverbs 22:6? Not only many brethren (as noted above), but some commentators believe it is (e.g., Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry). However, Pulpit Commentary <\/em>states: \u201cThis [duty of spiritual nurturing] is a very true and valuable rule, but it is not what the author [Solomon] intends.\u201d The late Guy N. Woods says of the common application of this passage: \u201cThis is far\u2014very, very far\u2014from what the verse either says or teaches\u201d (Questions and Answers<\/em>, v. 1).<\/p>\n Perhaps some additional translations will help demonstrate the force of Solomon\u2019s injunction. Keil and Delitzsch (Commentary<\/em>) render the passage, \u201cGive to the child instruction conformably to His way; so he will not, when he becomes old, depart from it.\u201d Young\u2019s Literal Translation reads: \u201cGive instruction to a youth about his way, Even when he is old he turneth not from it.\u201d F.C. Cook (Barnes\u2019 Notes<\/em>) states that the way he should go <\/em>would be better rendered, \u201caccording to the tenor of his way.\u201d Pulpit Commentary <\/em>states that the Hebrew literally says, \u201cInitiate a child in accordance with his way.\u201d<\/p>\n Keil and Delitzsch believe that Solomon was urging parents to suit their instruction and training to the age and maturity level of each child. Others (Woods, Cook, Pulpit) aver that his way <\/em>or the way he should go <\/em>refers to discovering the child\u2019s disposition, natural capacities, and individual personality traits, and so customizing the child\u2019s rearing and education to such traits. I have believed for many years that this is the message of Proverbs 22:6. Instruction and rearing thus given in harmony with the child\u2019s natural attributes becomes so much a part of the child that it is almost inbred\u2014creating a \u201csecond nature\u201d that lasts a lifetime.<\/p>\n Woods points out in his comments on this passage that people almost universally\u2014and erroneously\u2014take when he is old <\/em>to mean when he is grown <\/em>or when the child reaches adulthood (Q and A<\/em>, v. 1). Rather, this statement means what it says in reference to old age<\/strong> and emphasizes the practical impossibility of finding one who has lived a long cultural, moral, spiritual, or employment life pattern, abandoning it in his declining years.<\/p>\n Obviously, the chances of seeing their offspring mature into stalwart saints as they leave the parental nest to make their own ways are infinitely increased <\/strong>if parents have imbued them with Truth and righteousness from their early years (Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14\u201315). However, the most conscientious training in spiritual and moral principles that godly parents can give brings no guarantee that the children receiving it will remain faithful to it. This fact should not discourage parents from doing their utmost to fulfill their responsibility in this regard, however.<\/p>\n Nor does the Bible teach (either implicitly or explicitly) in Proverbs 22:6 or any other place, the impossibility of apostasy or the cancellation of free will under certain circumstances. When one argues an application of this passage that implies either of these heresies (i.e., the cancellation of free will or the impossibility of apostasy) we know that something is dreadfully wrong with his interpretation. Godly parents who did their best by the spiritual training of their children, only to see them later apostatize to false religion or immorality, have no cause for self-blame or guilt. Those children are still individuals with all of the powers to choose their courses that God gave us all as human beings, and they can\u2014and sometimes do\u2014choose darkness over light. Brethren are as uncharitable as they are misguided when they harshly judge righteous parents who have suffered the misfortune of seeing their adult children go astray.<\/p>\n Matthew 26:26\u201328<\/strong><\/p>\n And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, <\/strong>Take, eat; this is my body.<\/strong> And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.<\/strong><\/p>\n The New Testament gives us no explicit information on what should characterize our prayers in the Lord\u2019s Supper other than His example at its institution. This information, however, is very instructive if we will but examine it carefully. A brief examination of the pertinent passages is therefore in order. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul give descriptions of the inauguration of this memorial. (Mark\u2019s account so closely parallels the very words of Matthew\u2019s that we will henceforth refer only to the other three.)<\/p>\n Perhaps the most common phrase in prayers at the Lord\u2019s Table is \u201cFather, bless this bread\/cup.\u201d Likely, whoever first employed these words believed that he was expressing the meaning of the opening words of Matthew\u2019s account of the institution of the Supper: \u201cAnd as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body\u201d (Mat. 26:26).\u201d<\/p>\n Thus, before Jesus broke and distributed the bread to the apostles He \u201cblessed\u201d (ASV) (\u201cblessed it<\/em>,\u201d KJV [it <\/em>was supplied by translators, as indicated by italics]). What did the Lord do when He \u201cblessed\u201d before breaking and distributing the bread? Note that, unlike the familiar prayer phrase, Jesus did not ask the Father to bless the bread<\/strong>, but Matthew says Jesus \u201cblessed.\u201d It is merely the KJV translators\u2019 opinion that He \u201cblessed\u201d the bread specifically by their addition of the pronoun, it<\/em>. Even if we allow the KJV speculation, the text still fails to depict the Lord as asking God\u2019s blessing <\/strong>on the bread.<\/p>\n With but little reflection one should be able to understand that Jesus did not (nor do we) need to ask God\u2019s blessing on the bread and what it represents. The Father\u2019s blessing has been on the sacrificial offering of the Lamb of God from before the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20). His blessing was surely also on the Supper and its elements without the Lord\u2019s asking His Father for such. If Jesus did not ask God\u2019s blessing on the bread when He \u201cblessed\u201d before breaking and distributing it, what did He do? What does Matthew mean? It is important for us to answer this question because of its bearing on the nature of our prayers at the Lord\u2019s Table.<\/p>\n In his very next statement, Matthew provides his own explanation of the meaning of the \u201cblessing\u201d Jesus did: \u201cAnd he took a cup, and gave thanks<\/strong>, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins\u201d (vv. 26\u201328, emph. DM). Unless the Lord did one thing relating to the bread and something different relating to the cup when He \u201cblessed\u201d before breaking the bread, this term simply means that He expressed thanks for it.<\/p>\n Luke\u2019s account is an additional inspired commentary on the \u201cblessing\u201d Jesus did before breaking the bread:<\/p>\n And he took bread, and when he had given thanks<\/strong>, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you (Luke 22:19\u201320, emph. DM).<\/p>\n Instead of saying, as Matthew did, that Jesus \u201cblessed\u201d before He broke the bread, Luke says Jesus \u201cgave thanks for the bread\u201d in describing the very same event. Jesus then did the same (\u201cin like manner\u201d) for the cup. Obviously, Luke is not telling us that the Lord did something different concerning the bread from what Matthew says He did in saying that he \u201cblessed\u201d concerning it. Thus, when Jesus \u201cblessed\u201d (Matthew), He simply \u201cgave thanks for the bread\u201d (Luke). An additional instance in which Matthew used the term blessed <\/em>in reference to thanksgiving is found by comparing Matthew 14:19 with John 6:11 in the accounts of Jesus\u2019 feeding the 5,000.<\/p>\n Consider now the further witness of Paul:<\/p>\n For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread<\/strong>; and when he had given thanks<\/strong>, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me (1 Cor. 11:23\u201325, emph. DM).<\/p>\n Paul did not get his information from another apostle or any other man, but directly from the Lord (cf. Gal. 1:11\u201312). As did Luke, Paul specifically stated that the Lord gave thanks <\/strong>for the bread. Luke and Paul say explicitly that Christ gave thanks for the bread and Matthew states explicitly that He gave thanks for the cup.<\/p>\n Let me summarize:<\/p>\n If this example teaches us to pray before passing each of the emblems, it also teaches us that thanksgiving for each of these emblems should characterize those prayers. (Incidentally, the simple reading of the Lord\u2019s example exposes the error of the trendy practice in some congregations of having only one prayer, which includes both the bread and the cup before the bread is distributed.)<\/p>\n The New Testament explicitly teaches us to intercede for one another, for the sick, for those who preach the Gospel, for our rulers, and, by implication, for and concerning many other things and\/or persons. It also teaches us to bring other requests and supplications before God\u2019s throne. Most of the Lord\u2019s people likely do not do enough of such praying. However, at the Lord\u2019s Table is not the place for such varied prayers<\/strong>. They only serve to distract from the singular emphasis of the Lord\u2019s Supper\u2014the redeeming death of our Savior. The one type of prayer, authorized by the Lord\u2019s example, in the Lord\u2019s Supper, is thanksgiving\u2014first for the bread, then for the fruit of the vine. Yet, the prayers at the Lord\u2019s Table often include many extraneous things while altogether omitting<\/strong> thanksgiving for the respective elements. I urge brethren, when called upon to lead a prayer at the Lord\u2019s table, to take care specifically to thank God for the bread and for the cup, and for that which they signify.<\/p>\n Romans 3:23<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0\u2026for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; <\/strong><\/p>\n In Romans 3:23 Paul states a simple conclusion, based on his discussion of salvation through faith for Jew and Gentile alike: \u201cFor all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God\u201d (Rom. 3:23, ASV). I have heard various brethren, some of them Gospel preachers, misquote this verse as follows: \u201cFor all have sinned, and have fallen <\/strong>short of the glory of God\u201d (emph. DM). Admittedly, this misquotation does not involve one in teaching error. Obviously, if all have sinned, they have all done so because they have fallen short of God\u2019s glory. (The KJV rendering, \u201cFor all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God,\u201d tempts one to understand Paul to be saying that \u201call have sinned, and [have<\/strong>] come short.\u201d)<\/p>\n However, Paul is not merely repeating himself in these two predicate forms, have sinned <\/em>and fall short<\/em>. Rather, the apostle uses two distinct verb tenses. Have sinned <\/em>is an aorist tense form in the Greek New Testament (hemarton<\/em>). The sense is that all mankind, from the beginning and in all of history up to the point of Paul\u2019s statement, had sinned. However, fall short <\/em>is a present tense form (husterountai<\/em>), indicating continuing action\u2014that is, men not only sinned in the past, but they were (and are) continuing to sin. Paul\u2019s statement here is a strong declaration of the universality of man\u2019s sinfulness from the beginning of time, continuing in the present, and, by implication, into the future. Men could not be justified from sin through the works of the law (v. 20). Thus, because of the universality of sin through all time, he sets forth the need for justification and redemption in Christ (v. 24).<\/p>\n Romans 14:23<\/strong><\/p>\n But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because <\/strong>he eateth <\/strong>not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. <\/strong><\/p>\n Paul concluded Romans 14 with the scripture above. Numerous times over the years I have heard and\/or read statements similar to the following: \u201cRomans 10:17 says, \u2018So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God\u2019 (KJV), and Romans 14:23 says that \u2018whatsoever is not of faith is sin.\u2019 The practice of ________________ (e.g. sprinkling, using mechanical instruments of music in worship, et al.) is therefore sinful because it is not in the Word of God and cannot be done \u2018of faith.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n All who understand New Testament teaching relative to the acts of baptism and Christian worship will readily recognize that the conclusion is true, namely that the practices of sprinkling and the employment of instruments in worship, are not in the Word of God and are sinful. However, Paul\u2019s statement in Romans 14:23 has nothing to do with this principle or conclusion. The key to understanding what Paul is teaching in this verse is to recognize the sense in which he uses faith <\/em>in the latter part of this verse.<\/p>\n Our English word, faith<\/em>, is used in at least three senses in the New Testament:<\/p>\n Paul uses faith <\/em>with this meaning in Romans 14. Paul begins the chapter by saying: \u201cBut him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decision of scruples. One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs\u201d (vv. 1\u20132). He is definitely not talking here about the <\/strong>faith, that is, the Gospel, so he is using faith <\/em>in some subjective sense. He can hardly be talking about one\u2019s faith in Christ or the Gospel. The point of the entire chapter from its beginning is to discuss practices that are not<\/strong> regulated by God or the Gospel, particularly whether to eat meat and herbs or to eat only herbs and no meat (v. 3). The one \u201cweak in faith\u201d in Verse 1 is the same as the \u201cweak\u201d who only \u201ceateth herbs\u201d in Verse 2. The other man in these verses is one who has \u201cfaith to eat all things.\u201d It is manifest therefore that faith <\/em>in this context refers to one\u2019s personal persuasion, opinion, or conscience concerning the practice of eating flesh.<\/p>\n In Verse 22 Paul uses faith <\/em>with the same meaning as in Verses 1 and 2: \u201cThe faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God\u201d (v. 22a). The faith one has in Christ and His Word is not <\/strong>to be kept to oneself but is to be spread abroad to all who will hear (Mark 16:15; 2 Tim. 2:22; et al.). However, the \u201cfaith\u201d in Verse 22 is to be kept to oneself, so it cannot refer to one\u2019s faith in Christ and the Gospel. The \u201cfaith\u201d that is to be kept to oneself is one\u2019s own personal scruples about whether to eat meat, as in Verses 1 and 2.<\/p>\n This is also its meaning when Paul says, \u201cbecause he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin\u201d (v. 23). His statement is a strong warning that one dare not eat meat (or do anything else) while being persuaded it is wrong to do so. Such behavior violates the conscience and badly damages one\u2019s own character and personal integrity. It constitutes sin. Even if the practice is not wrong in itself (as eating meat is not, 1 Tim. 4:3\u20135), eating it under the conviction that it is wrong is sinful. It is in this context that Paul says that if a matter is \u201cnot of faith it is sin,\u201d meaning that if one is not fully persuaded in his own mind of the rightness or innocence of a practice, he dares not do it lest he sin. Let us not misuse Romans 14:23 to mean something Paul did not mean.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 1:21<\/strong><\/p>\n For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe. <\/strong><\/p>\n The latter half of 1 Corinthians 1 (beginning with Verse 18) is devoted to contrasting the true wisdom of God with the foolishness of even the most learned, powerful, and reputedly wise men. In the setting of this subject, Paul wrote the following: \u201cFor seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe (v. 21). I have often heard this passage quoted in an effort to demonstrate that, to those who are worldly (and perhaps even to a few brethren!), the very act of preaching<\/strong> is foolishness. Now it is most likely true that some thus view the work of preaching, but I doubt that this is Paul\u2019s meaning here on the following grounds:<\/p>\n Assuredly, it was not the mere act of preaching that so riled the Jews that they chased Paul all over the New Testament map, but the message he preached, denying that salvation was through the Law and affirming that it was only through the blood of Jesus of Nazareth. It was not the act of preaching that was repugnant to the Greek philosophers in Athens, but the content of Paul\u2019s sermon. They could not tolerate the idea of one living God Who created all things and all men, much less the doctrine of the resurrection, which caused them to mock (Acts 17:21\u201332).<\/p>\n When we leave the impression that Paul was saying that the work of preaching is counted as foolishness by unspiritual men, we misapply what he said. But why would he call the message that is preached, the Gospel, \u201cfoolishness\u201d? He simply did so by way of accommodation. Were we writing this statement today we would put foolishness<\/em> in quotation marks to so indicate. Paul used the same term the enemies of the Gospel used in reference to it. To them, but not in actuality, it was foolishness. However, in actuality the message of \u201cChrist crucified\u201d is \u201cthe power of God, and the wisdom of God\u201d (vv. 23\u201324). Paul was thus determined to preach nothing to the Corinthians but \u201cJesus Christ, and him crucified\u201d (2:2).<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 2:9<\/strong><\/p>\n \u2026but as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of man, whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him. <\/strong><\/p>\n Paul\u2019s words are a combination of quotations from Isaiah chapters 64 and 65. Uncritical readers might assume that this statement refers to the indescribable and unimaginable beauty of Heaven. This is exactly what many have assumed\u2014erroneously. As with Revelation 2:10b (reviewed later in this MS), I have heard preachers use this as an appropriate passage for the funeral of a dedicated saint. Unquestionably, Heaven is a place that no human being can fully either describe or imagine, and it awaits the faithful. It is also a place that God, through Christ, has prepared for His faithful disciples (John 14:2\u20133). However, 1 Corinthians 2:9 does not remotely relate to the subject of Heaven. One must completely ignore the context of the passage in order thus to misapply it.<\/p>\n To what does Paul refer in 1 Corinthians 2:9? A careful reading of the context reveals the subject matter clearly. Paul begins the chapter by reminding the brethren that he did not attempt to impress them with oratory or human wisdom, but simply preached the crucified Christ (vv. 1\u20134). The Holy Spirit powerfully demonstrated the fact that God was the source of his message (v. 5). Although he did not bring them a message of wisdom from the world or its rulers, he did bring them a message of wisdom\u2014wisdom from God (v. 6).<\/p>\n God\u2019s wisdom through the ages (His plan to redeem mankind) was inscrutable and hidden, even to rulers with all of their resources (vv. 7\u20138). The Holy Spirit used these facts to prompt Paul to remember some statements Isaiah had made seven centuries earlier, which he then quotes (v. 9). His point in this verse is to emphasize the fact that no man or group or men through all of the ages possessed enough knowledge or wisdom to \u201cfigure out\u201d God\u2019s gracious plan of salvation. Rather, the only way that men could know God\u2019s will was by His revelation of it (v. 10), which, Paul says, He revealed \u201cunto us\u201d (i.e., the apostles [John 14:26; 16:13]). This revelation was in words <\/strong>from God (i.e., verbal inspiration)\u2014not from human wisdom, but from wisdom that the apostles were taught by the Holy Spirit (v. 13).<\/p>\n Peter also expounded upon the same hidden-for-ages, but now-revealed-plan-of-God theme. Even the inspired men before the apostolic era could comprehend only the limited concepts <\/strong>God revealed to them as they foretold various details of His great plan:<\/p>\n Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them (1 Pet. 1:9\u201311).<\/p>\n Our gratitude should never end for the privilege of living in the time when God\u2019s wonderful plan of grace for our salvation has been fully and finally revealed, and that we have had the opportunity to believe and obey it.<\/p>\n While Paul\u2019s statement in 1 Corinthians 2:9 does not <\/strong>refer to Heaven, he does <\/strong>beautifully refer to the inconceivable glories of the eternal heavenly realm is 2 Corinthians 4:17\u20135:1:<\/p>\n For our light affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for us more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. For we know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 2:14\u201316<\/strong><\/p>\n While we are in 1 Corinthians Chapter 2, we do well to consider some other verses that are often misunderstood and misapplied. Beginning with Verse 14 Paul wrote:<\/p>\n Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ .<\/strong><\/p>\n Two groups of people misuse the foregoing passage in two different ways. The first group teaches a grievous error based on its misapplication. Denominationalists and some liberal brethren (e.g., Arlie J. Hoover of Abilene Christian University thus argued) erroneously argue that the \u201cnatural man\u201d is a non-Christian who does not have any direct help from the Holy Spirit to understand His Word. He is therefore unable correctly to interpret Scripture. However, they aver, the Christian has such help. (Akin to this aberration is the idea some brethren have been arguing that by means of the Holy Spirit\u2019s dwelling in the Christian, the Spirit aids one in understanding the Scriptures.) This direct-help-from-the-Holy Spirit<\/em> error has no Scriptural foundation whatever; it is the figment of fertile human imaginations.<\/p>\n The second group does not teach error in their misapplication of this passage, although these brethren also allege that the \u201cnatural man\u201d is a non-Christian. However, these exegetes do not blame the \u201cnatural man\u2019s\u201d lack of understanding upon the absence of the Holy Spirit\u2019s direct help, but upon his rebellious attitude toward God. These misinterpreters point out that as long as the sinner continues in this attitude, he will not understand God\u2019s will because he chooses to not do so. True, the New Testament teaches that one\u2019s attitude does affect his understanding of the Truth (e.g., John 7:17; 8:31\u201332; Acts 2:41; 17:11\u201312; 1 The. 2:13; et al.). (Even being a faithful saint doesn\u2019t guarantee that one will not occasionally misunderstand the meaning of a given Biblical statement.) One\u2019s attitude <\/strong>toward God\u2019s Word, however, is not the point of Paul\u2019s statement in 1 Corinthians 2:14\u201316.<\/p>\n Remember, Paul spends the first nine verses of the chapter emphasizing the fact that the wisest and most powerful men, from their mere human resources, could never comprehend or discover God\u2019s plan for man\u2019s redemption. He devotes Verses 10\u201316 to declaring the means by which the mystery has now been made known\u2014that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the context dictates that the \u201cnatural man\u201d is the man who is not inspired\u2014thus the description: he \u201creceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.\u201d Since he is not inspired, he has no means of knowing God\u2019s will by himself (independent of an inspired teacher to whom it had been revealed, of course).<\/p>\n He that is spiritual <\/em>is a reference to those to whom God revealed His will\u2014inspired men. At first the apostles alone were thus blessed (John 14:26; 16:13). They later imparted various miraculous gifts to others, including wisdom, knowledge, and prophecy, all of which may have involved inspiration (Acts 8:17; 1 Cor. 12:8\u201310; 2 Tim. 1:6). The inspired men were able to correctly judge all things, and no man had the right to sit in judgment of their infallible message.<\/p>\n Ephesians 4:13<\/strong><\/p>\n \u2026\u00a0till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: <\/strong><\/p>\n Paul wrote on the subjects of \u201cunity\u201d and \u201cpeace\u201d among brethren in the beginning verses of Ephesians 4, urging his readers to be diligent in their efforts to \u201ckeep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace\u201d (v. 3). He then proceeded to list seven unique spiritual entities (doctrines) on which the Lord\u2019s people should\/must be one (vv. 4\u20136). These constitute absolute fundamentals of the Christian religion. They are obligatory dogmas that one must believe to be a faithful child of God. Those who once walked with us, but who have surrendered some of these elements (e.g., the one body\/church, the one faith, the one baptism) have amply earned the identity of \u201cheretic\u201d and \u201capostate.\u201d They have forfeited the precious unity and peace they once had with their brethren who are still dedicated to the Truth. The only diligent concern for unity and peace many of these have had for years is toward their denominational friends.<\/p>\n Paul writes of \u201cunity\u201d again in Verse 13: \u201ctill we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:\u201d Some see the word unity <\/em>in this verse and assume that Paul is also writing about unity among brethren here as he was in Verse 3. I believe this assumption is erroneous.<\/p>\n First<\/strong>, note the apostle\u2019s words in Verses 7\u201312\u2014the immediate pre-context of Verse 13. He begins a discussion of spiritual gifts in Verse 7, especially as they resulted in offices\/functions in the early church: the appointment of some as apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors\/teachers (Greek construction indicates that these two should be taken as one class), respectively (v.11). While two of these classes (evangelists and pastors\/teachers), as we learn elsewhere in Scripture, were to be permanent in the church, the other two (apostles and prophets) relate to miraculous callings or appointments. From the listings of spiritual gifts in Romans 12:6\u20138 and 1 Corinthians 12:4\u201311, 28\u201329 it is obvious that some spiritual gifts involved appointments besides those of apostles and prophets.<\/p>\n In the context of Ephesians 4:11 we should understand that all four of these \u201coffices\u201d resulted from miraculous gifts\/appointments (cf. vv. 7\u20138). These were for the purpose of \u201cperfecting\u201d (completely equipping) the saints that they might serve and that the infant church might be edified (v. 12). These were to last \u201ctill we all attain unto the unity\u201d of which he writes in Verse 13.<\/p>\n Second<\/strong>, note that is not discussing a \u201cunity of the faithful\u201d nor merely a \u201cunity of faith\u201d (i.e., one\u2019s subjective faith in Christ), but a \u201cunity of the <\/strong>faith.\u201d The faith <\/em>is frequently used in an objective sense by the inspired writers to refer to the entire body of doctrine that comprises the Gospel message. \u201cThe faith\u201d is that which men obey in becoming Christians (Act 6:7), from which men sometimes fall away (1 Tim. 4:1), and for which we are commanded to \u201ccontend earnestly\u201d (Jude 3). I therefore understand Paul to be saying that the spiritual gifts\/offices mentioned in Verses 7\u201312 will produce a \u201cunity\u201d (i.e., unanimity, agreement) of some sort in the Gospel, the doctrine of Christ.<\/p>\n Third<\/strong>, note the post-context of the expression, the unity of the faith<\/em>, in Verse 13. The gifts\/offices that will produce the \u201cunity of the faith\u201d will also produce:<\/p>\n All of these are expressions relating to spiritual maturity and the means of attaining it, rather than to oneness among brethren.<\/p>\n Fourth<\/strong>, note the remaining post-context Verses 14\u201316, which state that in attaining the \u201cunity of the faith\u201d we will be able to (1) grow out of spiritual childhood (literally, infancy) and (2) grow up in all things into Christ.<\/p>\n Thus, rather than referring to unity among brethren, the unity of the faith <\/em>refers to the completion\u2014the bringing together\u2014of the written Word, by which the early saints would have the means of attaining complete knowledge of the Christ and of thereby becoming \u201cfullgrown.\u201d At the time Paul wrote to the Ephesians the New Testament had not been completed in written form. There was still the need for inspired apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors\/teachers to teach infallibly God\u2019s revelation with both tongue and pen.<\/p>\n Accordingly, God gave to the church men with such spiritual gifts to serve, perfect, and build up the church in its infancy. God would (and did) provide these inspired men to do their work \u201ctill we all attain unto the unity of the faith,\u201d that is, until such a time as the perfected, completed Word of Christ had been made available to the whole church in a permanent (i.e., written) form. After this time the perfected Word would enable and empower the church to have the knowledge and the maturity the Lord desired it to achieve.<\/p>\n Ephesians 4:7\u201316 is thus closely parallel to 1 Corinthians 13:8\u201313, which speaks of the completion of the Gospel message as \u201cwhen that which is perfect is come\u201d (v. 10). As Ephesians 4:7\u201316 implies, 1 Corinthians 13:8\u201310 teaches explicitly that the miraculous spiritual gifts\/offices would \u201ccease\u201d and \u201cbe done away\u201d when the completed message of Truth was realized. Paul even uses the same analogy in both passages\u2014the development from childhood to full-grown manhood\u2014to illustrate the temporary need for the miraculous element in the apostolic church.<\/p>\n Colossians 2:21<\/strong><\/p>\n \u2026Handle not, nor taste, nor touch<\/strong><\/p>\n The New Testament warns us continually about participating in things of the world that will defile us (1 Cor. 6:9\u201311; 2 Cor. 6:14\u201318; 1 The. 5:22; 1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 2:16, 22\u201323; et al.). Some of these things will cause physical, as well as spiritual, harm. At first glance, Paul\u2019s statement in Colossians 2:21 seems ideally suited to use when preaching and teaching about behaviors we should avoid. The verse reads: \u201cHandle not, nor taste, nor touch\u201d (Col. 2:21). The only problem involved in thus applying this verse is that Paul had no such idea in mind when he wrote it.<\/p>\n What did he have in mind? Many commentators believe that Paul addressed at least an embryonic form of Gnosticism that later grievously plagued the church, beginning at the close of the first century, in his letter to Colossae. Beginning with Verse 8 of Chapter 2 Paul addresses and issues warning concerning some of the Gnostic-like doctrines, which he calls \u201cphilosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world.\u201d These involve denial of the Deity and authority of Christ (vv. 9\u201310), certain Judaistic features (vv. 16\u201317), the worship of angels (v. 18), and asceticism (vv. 20\u201323).<\/p>\n Verse 21 that speaks of not handling, tasting, or touching certain things is in the midst of this latter context. The incipient Gnostics apparently had set up some rigorous and rigid rules of conduct and were demanding submission to them (v. 20). Those false teachers had been telling the Colossians saints what things they could not handle, taste, or touch, but their only authority for these prohibitions was men. Practicing such a life of unnecessary deprivation might make a big show, cause one to appear to be humble, and punish the body, but it was worthless regarding the control of fleshly lusts (v. 23). Therefore, instead of inspired prohibitions for the saints, this verse is apparently quoting what some of the false teachers were saying in their list of humanly authorized rules, with Paul\u2019s urging them not to submit to them.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:15<\/strong><\/p>\n Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth. <\/strong><\/p>\n The KJV reads: “Study to show thyself approved unto God…rightly dividing the word of truth.” Innumerable brethren continue to suggest that this passage is enjoining Bible study in a sense that differs from what the verse actually teaches. Carefully reading and discerning the meaning of Scripture (i.e., studying it, as we are presently doing) is an essential part of living for Christ. However, this is not the meaning of study <\/em>in this passage.<\/p>\n The word study <\/em>translates the Greek word, spoudason, <\/em>which means “to hasten, exert oneself, endeavor, give diligence” (Thayer, Vine<\/em>). From the beginning of the chapter, Paul instructed and exhorted Timothy concerning his work as a Gospel preacher. In all these things he was to strive diligently for God’s approval. Therefore, the message to us is that we should earnestly endeavor to seek God’s approval in all that we may think, say, or do. Study <\/em>likely conveyed this idea when the KJV was translated, but it is rarely, if ever, so used in modern parlance. Only one entry under study <\/em>in Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary <\/em>is close to the meaning of spoudason <\/em>(\u201cendeavor, try”), and it is far down the list of definitions and current usages.<\/p>\n The KJV translators were far more consistent in their rendering of spoudason <\/em>in the remainder of the New Testament, as the following citations demonstrate (all emph. DM):<\/p>\n Had study <\/em>not appeared in 2 Timothy 2:15, it is unlikely that anyone would ever have misapplied it as so many have done and continue to do. The ASV rendering of this verse is clearly superior: “Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God….” In place of study <\/em>various other translations have the following: “Bend your every effort,” “Earnestly endeavor,” “Earnestly seek,” “Try hard,” “Let it be your care,” “Aim first at,” and “Be eager.”<\/p>\n Further, some may assume that Paul’s exhortation in this verse relates to Bible study due to its final injunction, rightly dividing the word of truth<\/em>. However, this assumption likely would never have been made were it for not the misleading word study <\/em>at the verse’s beginning. True, we must be earnest students of the Word to be able to handle it aright, but again, both the context and the meaning of spoudason <\/em>demonstrate that studying the Bible is not Paul’s emphasis here. Rather, he urges us to give earnest attention to everything God requires of us. We will thereby be able to meet with His approval and not have to cower in shame before Him. None should infer from the foregoing comments that I am suggesting that our approval by God does not also depend upon our rightly handling\/dividing His Word (i.e., correctly interpreting and dispensing it to others).<\/p>\n The Bible is not lacking in exhortations and\/or implications concerning serious study of God’s Word:<\/p>\n Add to the above, which is not an exhaustive list, the fact that all but 2 verses of its 176 verses, Psalms 119 exalts God\u2019s Word, and by implication, urges the careful study of it. However, 2 Timothy 2:15 does not belong on it. It is ironic that a passage that so strongly emphasizes a proper handling of God’s Word has been so frequently and consistently mishandled.<\/p>\n\n
\n2. He simply uttered a prayer of thanksgiving for each element.
\n3. When He \u201cblessed\u201d before He broke the bread simply means that He gave thanks for it.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n