CBTS Logo

Interpretation that takes into account the Context and Character of the Revelation

by | Feb 27, 2013 | Eschatology, New Testament, Systematic Theology

I was recently involved in symposium on the Book of Revelation sponsored by several churches in Reno, Nevada and held at Sierra Bible Church. Gary Demar defended a preterist, Jim Hamilton a futurist, and I an Idealist approach to the Book. The symposium consisted of three major presentations 55 minutes in length in the morning and three 20 minute responses and question and answer time in the afternoon. Here are the first two of those principles as I presented them at the symposium.

I.        Historical Interpretation that takes into account the Historical Context of the Revelation

The first and most basic principle of biblical interpretation is known as grammatical-historical interpretation.  Simply stated this fundamental principle says that the Bible must be interpreted in terms of the normal grammatical meaning of the language and in a way that makes sense in light of the historical context of the language of the passage. The original sense of the words (first of all) for the author and (secondarily for) his readers is the true sense.  No interpretation that divorces itself from its historical-grammatical meaning of the passage can be correct.

Of course, this strict attention to the grammatical-historical interpretation of the passage must be supplemented by an appreciation of its theological interpretation.  The Bible is a divine-human document.  Each of its parts has both a human author (Isaiah the Prophet or John the Apostle) and a divine author (the Holy Spirit).  Each part of the Bible, then, has both a specific grammatical-historical meaning because of its human author and a larger theological significance because of its divine author.   To put this another way, each part of Scripture is intended by the Holy Spirit as the canon (or rule of faith and life) of the church and has, therefore, a significance for the whole church.  I will point out some hermeneutical implications of this later.

The crucial thing that must be pointed out here, however, is that these two sides of Scripture do not contradict one another.  The human authorship of Scripture does not make it less divine. For instance, its human authorship does not cancel its inerrancy or decrease its infallibility. On the other hand, its divine authorship does not suppress the peculiar personalities or vocabularies of its human authors.  Divine authorship does not mean that we can ignore either the peculiar language or the historical situation of the human author.  Rather the theological interpretation always is consistent with and, in fact, grows out of the grammatical-historical interpretation of the passage.

Now what has all this to do with Revelation 20?  It means that the historical context of its visions cannot be ignored in its interpretation.  The exact date of the writing of the Book of Revelation is disputed.  What is not disputed is this.  It was originally written by John the Apostle in exile at Patmos for his faith to local churches in the Roman province of Asia also suffering for their faith (Revelation 1:9; 2:2, 3, 10, 13; 3:9, 10).  Interpretations that forget that these visions were recorded by a suffering apostle for a suffering church defy the principle of historical interpretation.  A credible interpretation must exhibit a clear line of connection with this historical context. Since the premillennial interpretation of this passage asserts that this passage has to do with a drastically different and distant period of time after the return of Christ, it faces up front a problem with this principle of historical interpretation.  If the Beast is the Antichrist at the end of history and those crowned with glory in the millennium are those who suffer at his hands in the Great Tribulation at the end of history, then this passage has only a tangential and secondary application to believers suffering at the hands of Rome in the first century.

If, on the other hand, those who stand beheaded for the sake of Christ in the vision of Revelation 20:1-10 are exactly Christians martyred in the Domitian persecutions of the late first century, then there is an immediate relevance of this passage to its historical recipients.  If their living and reigning with Christ speaks of their glorious participation in the heavenly reign of Christ immediately after their martyrdom, then there is a glorious relevance and encouragement given to the original recipients of this vision.1

II.       Literary Genre Interpretation that takes into account the Predominantly Apocalyptic Character of the Revelation

The Book of Revelation has a predominantly apocalyptic genre.  I need to explain each of these three words.

By using the word, predominantly, I mean again to emphasize my “Relative Idealism.” Not all of the Book of Revelation is apocalyptic.  Some of it, especially the first three chapters, is predominantly epistolary literature.  The Book of Revelation is predominantly, but not exclusively, apocalyptic literature.  Epistolary literature must be interpreted in a more literal (non-symbolic) fashion, while apocalyptic literature must be interpreted in a symbolic.

The adjective, apocalyptic, comes originally from the Greek word that means revelation.  It may also be derived more immediately from the name of the Book of Revelation.  In some traditions it is called the Apocalypse.  In the present context the word, apocalyptic, has reference to the highly symbolic, continuous, and dramatic figurative language characteristic of the Book of Revelation and also of some parts of the Book of Daniel.  For instances of this sort of language compare Daniel 8:1-27 and Revelation 13:1-4.

The word, genre, is a word of French origin that refers to a kind, type, or sort of literature. Thus, the apocalyptic genre of Revelation 20 refers to the fact that it is a kind of literature that utilizes highly symbolic and figurative language.  It is not ordinary, literal, prose.

I have to confess that when I read many Dispensationalists, I am confused by their approach to the interpretation of symbolic literature in the Bible.  It seems sometimes that they are saying that we must not interpret the symbols of the Bible symbolically.  We must rather, they seem to be saying, interpret the symbolic literature of the Bible literally.  As for myself, it seems obvious to me that if literature is symbolic, then it must be interpreted symbolically.

Thus, the principle of biblical interpretation relevant here is that biblical literature must be interpreted in a way appropriate to its genre.  Genre analysis is, therefore, crucial if the Bible is to be properly interpreted.  R. C. Sproul has these helpful comments on the subject of genre analysis in biblical hermeneutics.

Genre analysis involves the study of such things as literary forms, figures of speech and style.  We do this with all kinds of literature.  We distinguish between the style of historical narratives and sermon, between realistic graphic descriptions and hyperbole.  Failure to make these distinctions when dealing with the Bible can lead to a host of problems with interpretation.  Literary analysis is crucial to accurate interpretation.2

Now the relevance of all this to Revelation 20 should be obvious.  Revelation 20 is clearly written mainly in the apocalyptic genre and should be interpreted in a way that takes this into account.  The opening words of Rev. 20:1, “and I saw,” inform us of the visionary and thus symbolic or apocalyptic character of the passage.  It must not, therefore, be interpreted literally.  It must rather be interpreted figuratively and symbolically in accord with its apocalyptic genre or form.  Dan. 7:2-8 provides an example of such literature.

Dan. 7:16 shows that such language is not straightforwardly literal and involves special problems of interpretation.  Daniel says, “I approached one of those who were standing by and began asking him the exact meaning of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things…”  These words make clear that visions seen by the inner eye of the prophet or apostle are not to be interpreted literally, but figuratively.  Their meaning is not immediately obvious like literal language or prose.  Daniel has to inquire as to its interpretation, because as apocalyptic language its meaning is not immediately obvious to him.

All this leads to a further, important question.  How should such symbolic, apocalyptic, or figurative language be properly interpreted?  This question is all the more necessary because the claim is frequently made that symbolic interpretation is necessarily ambiguous.  I quote Zukeran again:

Second, reading spiritual meanings into the text could lead to arbitrary interpretations. Followers of this approach have often allowed the cultural and socio-political factors of their time to influence their interpretation rather than seeking the author’s intended meaning.  Merrill Tenney states, “The idealist view . . . assumes a ‘spiritual’ interpretation, and allows no concrete significance whatever to figures that it employs. According to this viewpoint they are not merely symbolic of events and persons, as the historicist view contends; they are only abstract symbols of good and evil. They may be attached to any time or place, but like the characters of Pilgrim’s Progress, represent qualities or trends. In interpretation, the Apocalypse may thus mean anything or nothing according to the whim of the interpreter.” 3

Several common sense answers can be made to the concern that symbolic interpretation is necessarily ambiguous and contrary ultimately to the doctrine of the clarity or perspicuity of Scripture.

(1)     Apocalyptic passages must be interpreted in a way that is consistent.  They ought not to be suddenly interpreted literally and then figuratively at the whim of the interpreters. For instance, there is no good reason to exclude indications of time (i.e. the 1000 years) from the overall symbolic or figurative character of Revelation 20.

(2)     Apocalyptic passages must be interpreted in light of the clues or explanations given in literal language in the immediate passage.  For instance, in Revelation 20:2 we have such an immediate explanation:  “And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan…”  In the vision John sees “the dragon, the serpent of old.”  This is figurative language.  He immediately, however, interpolates an explanation or interpretation for what he sees.  This dragon, he says, in the real world where we live, is the devil or Satan.

(3)     This distinction between the world of the vision and the real world where we live suggests another important skill or principle of interpretation when interpreting apocalyptic passages.  We must both be able to distinguish and yet properly relate these two worlds.4

Think about it!  The vision which the prophet sees does not literally exist anywhere in the space-time universe.  It is a visionary world that exists only before the inner eye of the prophet through the revealing power of the Spirit of God.  None of it exists exactly as the prophet sees it with the inner eye in the outer world which can be seen by his external eye.

Yet it symbolizes that world.  One unique feature of apocalyptic literature like that found in Daniel and Revelation is the continued character of the symbols.  You do not have a symbol here and there sprinkled in a passage.  You have long-continued, whole, symbolic passages with, perhaps, here and there sprinkled in an explanation of what this points to in the literal world.   This is the character of the vision of Revelation 20:1-10.  It is continuously symbolic throughout.  It has only occasional exceptions like the opening words, “and I saw,” and the words of verse 2 mentioned previously which identify in literal language the identity of the dragon.

Let me put it this way.  We must not take the vision literally, even though we must take the vision seriously.  We must not cut symbols out of the vision and paste them into the real world.  They may only come into the real world through the gate of symbolic translation.

Let me give an illustration of this.  In the history of the interpretation of Revelation 20 not a few have puzzled over the beheaded martyrs of verse 4.  A failure to understand the principle I have just been articulating has led some to affirm that only beheaded martyrs, or at least only martyrs, or perhaps only especially martyrs, share in the reign of Christ.  Such affirmations raise all sorts of silly questions.  Is beheading more heroic (or meritorious) than burning?  Does a person actually have to die to be a martyr for Christ?  Does other suffering short of death allow one to reign with Christ?

But all such reactions to the text fail to see this that the beheaded martyrs of verse 4 are part of the world of vision.  In the vision they are beheaded by a beast for failure to accept a tattoo indicating allegiance to him in their foreheads or hand.  That is what John really saw.  But none of this is to be taken literally.  The question must be asked, How does all this look when it comes through the gate of symbolic translation?  I think it looks like 2 Timothy 2:12: “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us.”  We must beware of taking things seen in visions, cutting them out, and without symbolic translation pasting them into the real world.

(4)     Biblical symbols in apocalyptic passages must be interpreted by means of their biblical origin, background, and usage, if they are not explained in the immediate context.  Great help can be derived in interpreting New Testament symbols by studying Old Testament passages from which such symbolism is derived.  The reference to the birds of the air nesting in the mustard tree in the parable of the mustard seed in Luke 13:19 is illuminated by a study of the use of this phrase in two Old Testament passages (Ezekiel 17:22-24; Daniel 4:12, 21, 22) where it is used of nations coming under the rule of great kingdoms.

(5)     The interpretive principle known as the analogy of faith must also be applied here. No interpretation inconsistent with the analogy of Scripture is tenable.  The Westminster and 1689 Baptist Confession agree in asserting that the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself (Chapter 1, paragraph 9).  The Bible is inerrant and infallible.  No interpretation is acceptable that creates internal conflict in the meaning of Scripture.

One plain and important application of this principle of the analogy of faith is noted in the further statement of this paragraph:  and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.  The application of this to the highly figurative and disputed language of Revelation 20 is manifold.

The symbolic language of Revelation 20 must be searched out in light of other and plainer Scriptures.  The paramount question, for instance, When is Satan bound? must be answered on the basis of the teaching of the rest of Scriptures.  The fact is that nowhere else in Scripture is there any reference to a future interim binding of Satan.  If Revelation 20:1-3 refers to such a thing it is the only reference to it in the entirety of Scripture.  On the other hand, there are many parallel references to a binding and limitation of Satan’s power in the present age.  Cf. Matthew 12:28-29; Luke 10:17-19; John 12:31-32; Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8; and Revelation 12:5-10.

Furthermore, no interpretation of a highly symbolic passage that contradicts the plain meaning of straightforward, literal, or prosaic passages is acceptable.  It demands that plain passages must be given priority over and must interpret obscure passages.  A premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10, in my view, contradicts this principle.  To give only one example of why this is so, the general judgment according to the clear and pervasive teaching of the New Testament occurs at Christ’s second coming (Romans 2:1-16; 2 Pet. 3:3-18; Matt. 25:31f.).  In Revelation 20:11-15—subsequent to the millennium of verses 1-10—the general judgment is depicted.  If Revelation 20:11-15 is regarded as chronologically subsequent to 20:1-10 (as it is by premillennialists), then the analogy of faith demands that the “1000 years” and “little season” precede the second coming of Christ.

These considerations are particularly crushing to premillennialism when we remind ourselves of the state of the doctrinal question about the millennium.  The interpretation of Revelation 20 is absolutely crucial to the premillennialist.  He must prove that Revelation 20 teaches a future millennium and that no other interpretation is possible.  If there is another feasible interpretation of this passage, then premillennialism is left without its central exegetical pillar.  Indeed Ladd is candid enough to admit that Revelation 20 is the sole exegetical pillar of premillennialism.5

1Charles Hill in Regnorum Caelorum (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2001), 75-201, presents extensive evidence from the ante-Nicene church for the interpretation here defended.  He shows many examples of the interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6 that refers it to the intermediate state of believers in heaven.

2R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1979), 49.

3Patrick Zukeran, “Four Views of Revelation,” Internet. Accessed February 19, 2013. http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.5110361/k.5D09/Four_Views_of_Revelation.htm

4I believe that I am articulating the same basic viewpoint here as G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999), 973-74, does when he distinguishes three levels of communication in the apocalyptic genre of Revelation.  He distinguishes a linguistic level, a visionary level, a referential level, and a symbolic level of communication, 52-53.  He complains that many interpreters “typically neglect the visionary and symbolic levels of communication by collapsing them into the referential, historical level.”   This is approximately at least what I mean by visionary world, real world, and the gate of symbolic translation.

5George Eldon Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1998), 182.

A Redemptive-Historical, Modified Idealist Approach to the Book of Revelation

by | Feb 25, 2013 | Eschatology, New Testament, Systematic Theology

I was recently involved in symposium on the Book of Revelation sponsored by several churches in Reno, Nevada and held at Sierra Bible Church. Gary Demar defended a preterist, Jim Hamilton a futurist, and I an Idealist approach to the Book. The symposium consisted of three major presentations 55 minutes in length in the morning and three 20 minute responses and question and answer time in the afternoon. Here from my major presentation is my introduction a modified idealist approach to the Book of Revelation.

When I read Wikipedia’s description of the position I am supposed to be defending at this conference, I have to admit that it made me think twice.  Here is a portion of Wikipedia’s description of Idealism:

Idealism (also called the spiritual approach, the allegorical approach, the nonliteral approach, and many other names) in Christian eschatology is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as non-literal symbols…. It is distinct from Preterism, Futurism and Historicism in that it does not see any of the prophecies (except in some cases the Second Coming, and Final Judgment) as being fulfilled in a literal, physical, earthly sense either in the past, present or future, and that to interpret the eschatological portions of the Bible in a historical or future-historical fashion is an erroneous understanding.1

Now I know that Wikipedia is not the final authority about anything, but this still made me wonder what I had let Brian get me into!

Some of you may wonder what I am doing reading somebody else’s definition of Idealism in preparation for this conference.  You may be asking, “You’re defending it.  Don’t you know what it?”  I am supposed to be the expert on it, right?  Here is the problem.  If you had walked up to me and asked me to name my view of the Book of Revelation before being invited to this conference, I probably would not have told you that my view is Idealism.  I’m not sure what I would have called it, but it probably would not have been that.  But now that I have looked in a little more detail at some of the literature on the subject, it appears that there are only four choices.  You can be a historicist, and scarcely anybody is that today.  You can be a preterist and, of course, that is what Gary has defended.  You can be a futurist, and that is what Jim has defended.  And if you are not any of those three things, then you have to be an idealist.  OK!  So I am an idealist, but I am quite certain I am not the kind of idealist described on Wikipedia and elsewhere.  I was comforted, however, to discover that in not wanting to be the kind of idealist described by Wikipedia I was in good company.  G. K. Beale writes:

The idealist approach affirms that Revelation is a symbolic portrayal of the conflict between good and evil, between the forces of God and of Satan.  The most radical form of this view holds that the book is a timeless depiction of this struggle.  The problem with this alternative is that it holds that Revelation does not depict any final consummation to history, whether in God’s final victory or in a last judgment in the realm of evil.  The idealist notion encounters the opposite problem facing the preterist and historicist views, since it identifies none of the book’s symbols with particular historical events.

Having said this, Beale proceeds to describe the view of his commentary as “Eclecticism or a Redemptive-Historical Form of Modified Idealism.”2  I cannot put it any better than Beale.  I will be presenting to you in this lecture, A Redemptive-Historical, Modified Idealist Approach to the Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

Let me unpack this Puritan-length title a little bit.  Defining Idealism in the same way as Wikipedia, Patrick Zukeran asserts:  “According to this view, the events of Revelation are not tied to specific historical events.”3  My Idealism is different.  It is a modified Idealism.  To put this in a better way, it is a relative Idealism.  That is to say, it is not tied to specific, historical events in the same way as preterism, historicism, or futurism.  They find references to Nero, America, Russia, Napoleon, the Papacy, and Attack Helicopters in the Book of Revelation.  I do not.  Nevertheless, I do believe that it is vital to understand that certain, historical events are referenced in the Book of Revelation.  And that brings me to another aspect of my title.

I spoke of my view as A Redemptive-Historical, Modified Idealist Approach to the Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.  While the common events of history are not specified (in the visions of Revelation 4-22 at least), the great events of redemption are certainly in view.  And these events are certainly historical.  Let me postulate, then, that the visions of Revelation 4-22 do refer to historical events like the enthronement of Jesus in heaven as Mediatorial Priest-King, the present gospel or missionary age, the Second Coming of Christ in glory to judge wicked, the new heavens and new earth, and I think as well the brief period of global persecution of the church which precedes the Second Coming.  These are specific and real, historical events and my kind of Idealism sees them as depicted in the Book of Revelation.  In fact, I think this cycle of events forms the very backbone of the Book.

So I am here to defend a Relative or Modified Idealism.  But this does not worry me too much.  It puts me in about the same situation as both Gary and Jim.  Gary defends not a full but a partial preterism.  Having read large parts of Jim’s commentary, it is clear to me that he believes and is defending something much less than the consistent futurism of Dispensationalism.  I read with pleasure and appreciation, for instance, his interpretation of Revelation 11-12 and found his comments about the meaning of the 70th week of Daniel both appealing and attractive.  Here is the bottom line.  Gary defends what we well might call a Relative Preterism.  Jim defends what might well be called a Relative Futurism.  So I am not embarrassed to say that I defend a Relative Idealism.

All this relativity makes possible, I hope, a reasonable discussion among us about the Book of Revelation true to the purpose of what Brian has called this conference.  It is a symposium and not a debate.  This relativity also, however, creates a difficulty for me and the other participants.  In the midst of the modifications we each want to introduce to the more extreme variants of our respective positions it becomes more difficult to distinguish our positions from one another.  What I propose to do to solve this problem, therefore, is to present the various principles of interpretation which control my kind of modified Idealism in conjunction with the one passage in regard to which I am quite sure we do differ, Revelation 20:1-10.  By doing this, I may suggest in the clearest possible way the distinction between my Relative Idealism, and the Relative Preterism of Gary, and the Relative Futurism of Jim.

After reading and listening to the positions of both Gary and Jim, I believe they both want to say that Revelation 20:1-10 is about something different from—something that goes beyond—what is taught in the rest of the Book of Revelation.  For both of them, it is my impression, the vision of Revelation 20:1-10 stands in a kind of contrast to, or at least goes beyond, the teaching or focus of the rest of the Book.

I think Gary would say that the rest of the Book is about the period of time surrounding the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but Revelation 20 vastly expands the vision of the Book to the period following.  At least if he agrees with his friend, Ken Gentry, that is what he thinks.  He does not want to identify the thousand years with the 40 year period of time between Jesus’ crucifixion and Jerusalem’s destruction.

Similarly, I think Jim would say that the period in view in Revelation 20 is different than the period in view in Revelation 11 and 12 or the time in view in the rest of the Book.  The rest of the book discusses the time leading up to the Second Coming of Christ, while Revelation 20 discusses what happens afterwards in a way unparalleled in Scripture.

For me in contrast, Revelation 20 is literally about the very same period of time about which the rest of the Book speaks.  It is exactly about the 1260 days and 3 and ½ days of Revelation 11.  It is exactly about the period of time discussed in Revelation 12.  I will, therefore, illustrate my principles of interpretation from Revelation 20 in an attempt to distinguish my Relative Idealism, from the Relative Preterism of Gary and the Relative Futurism of Jim.

In the time that remains, then, I want to provide you with a number of  principles of interpretation that constitute the hermeneutics of my Relative or Modified Idealism.  The various definitions of strict or extreme Idealism to which I have previously referred emphasize that Idealism understands the Book of Revelation symbolically.  They also go on to say that these symbols do not have any historical fulfillment.  Please read Wikipedia’s definition once more.

Idealism (also called the spiritual approach, the allegorical approach, the nonliteral approach, and many other names) in Christian eschatology is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as non-literal symbols….

Listen also to Patrick Zukeran:

However, there are several weaknesses of this view. First, this view denies the book of Revelation any specific historical fulfillment. The symbols portray the ever-present conflict but no necessary consummation of the historical process.4

My Relative Idealist approach to the Book of Revelation stands in contrast to such extreme Idealism.  Of course, I do believe that the literary genre of the Book of Revelation is relatively symbolic as compared to most of the rest of Scripture.  It is mostly apocalyptic.  Further, I believe that a method of interpretation that takes this into account is necessary.  But I do not want to describe this method of interpretation as either “allegorical” or “spiritual.”

Further, and as I have said, I do believe that both Preterism and Futurism have typically gone too far in identifying certain prophecies in Revelation with specific historical events.  At the same time, I emphatically disown the kind of Idealism that according to Zukeran “denies the book of Revelation any specific historical fulfillment.”  I also deny that its symbols “portray the ever-present conflict but no necessary consummation of the historical process.”

But having said all of this, I admit that my relative Idealism assumes a relatively more symbolic approach to the Book of Revelation than that typically associated with either Preterism or Futurism.  With this in mind, I will present five principles of interpretation which guide my Relative Idealism in my following posts.

1Wikipedia. Internet.  Accessed February 19, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_(Christian_eschatology)

2G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 48.

3Patrick Zukeran, “Four Views of Revelation,” Internet. Accessed February 19, 2013. http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.5110361/k.5D09/Four_Views_of_Revelation.htm

4Patrick Zukeran, “Four Views of Revelation,” Internet. Accessed February 19, 2013. http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.5110361/k.5D09/Four_Views_of_Revelation.htm

The Regulative Principle of the Church 17: Its Contemporary Objections (Part 2)

by | Aug 15, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

The second contemporary objection to the regulative principle which I have isolated is as follows:

(2) It implies a different hermeneutic for the church than for other areas of life.

This objection and my answer to it constitutes a kind of footnote to the first issue.  I am uncertain who first opined that the regulative principle provides a different hermeneutic for worship than for the rest of life.  In my search online I found several persons using this terminology. They said things like:

Author/evangelist Mark Driscoll did a series of sermons on the topic of “Religion Saves and 9 Other Misconceptions.” The last sermon in that series had to do with the Regulative Principle, the hermeneutical approach that says that unless Scripture specifically authorizes something, that thing is prohibited.

I have two responses to this notion that the regulative principle is a different hermeneutic.  First, ignoring the rather odd use of the word, hermeneutic, I have made clear that I certainly do think that the regulative principle has a scope or application far narrower than the all of life and, in fact, was never intended traditionally or biblically to be applied to all of life.  My second response has to do, however, with the odd and, now I will say, inappropriate and misleading use of the term, hermeneutic, in this context.  A hermeneutic is a principle of interpretation.  The regulative principle is not primarily, if at all, a principle of interpretation.  It is not an interpretive principle, but a governing principle.

D. Scott Meadows provides my response to this terminology.

Some allege that the RPW presents a “different hermeneutic,” or “principle of interpretation,” for worship than for everything else, and therefore it is implausible on the face of it. Such critics argue that “all of life” is worship, and therefore, the Bible should not be applied any differently to the church’s worship than it is to our daily, mundane activities.

With the best of intentions, I am sure, even one advocate of the RPW asserts that “in point of fact, however, the regulative principle does provide a different hermeneutic,” but he adds, he finds “no cogency in this difficulty,” nor did he “find it a difficulty” to maintaining the RPW (T. David Gordon, “Some Answers About the Regulative Principle,” Westminster Theological Journal, 55:2 [Fall 1993]).

So one interprets the RPW as a “different hermeneutic” and rejects it, while the other allows that it is a “different hermeneutic” and accepts it. This “two hermeneutic theory” seems to me to fall short of a proper understanding both the Scriptures and the RPW as found in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith XXII.1. A much simpler and biblically-defensible way to think about this is that a single, sound hermeneutic recognizes that God has given us much more specific direction about worship proper than he has about other spheres of life, which we admit, in a very broad sense, may also be thought of as worship.1

1This quotation comes from a series of sermons by D. Scott Meadows posted online.  They are entitled, A Call to Pure Worship.  I am quoting from the third of these sermons.  The web address for the one I cite is http://ibrnb.com/articles1/?p=139.

The Regulative Principle of the Church 16: Its Contemporary Objections (Part 1)

by | Aug 8, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

After considerable thought I have isolated ten such objections and questions.  The first of these is perhaps the most important and is the subject of this blog post.

(1) It implies a counterintuitive regulation of worship (or the church) different from the rest of human life.

As noted previously, one of the major directions in which John Frame re-interprets the regulative principle is by arguing that it applies to all of life.  So understanding it, he is able to adopt it verbally, though not, I would argue, substantially in its historical form.  In a key statement of this re-orientation of the principle, he says:

I therefore reject the limitation of the regulative principle to official worship services.  In my view, the regulative principle in Scripture is not about church power and officially sanctioned worship services.  It is a doctrine about worship, about all forms of worship.  It governs all worship, whether formal or informal, individual or corporate, public or private, family or church, broad or narrow.  Limiting the doctrine to officially sanctioned worship robs it of its biblical force.1

Others adopt Frame’s rejection of the historical limitation of the principle, but see this as a reason to reject the regulative principle itself.  Mark Driscoll, for instance, in a preaching format says the following:

I appreciate that freedom in the normative principle. And thirdly, it treats gathered and scattered worship the same. What I don’t understand is why we would treat 1 hour a week by a certain set of rules, and the other 167 hours of the week by a different set of rules. When you were scattered for Mars Hill Church, you lived by the green?light normative principle. You don’t wake up in the morning acting like a regulativist. You don’t wake up in the morning and say, “Okay. I need to brush my teeth. Where is that in the Bible? It’s not in there. Golly, I was hoping I could brush my teeth, but I can’t. Well, I guess I’ll have breakfast. Well, the Bible doesn’t say breakfast. It says to eat, but it doesn’t say when. Is it okay to eat in the morning? I’d better pray about this. Okay. I gotta put pants. Uh?oh, pants aren’t in the Bible. Oh no. This is gonna be a bad day.

“Well, I gotta go to work now. I’m gonna drive my car. Uh?oh, cars aren’t in the Bible. I guess I’ll walk, show up five hours late with no pants. Boss is like, ‘What are you doing?’ I’m being biblical. He hands you a computer you say, ‘That’s not in the Bible. I can’t do that.’ He’ll say, ‘You’re fired, biblically. You’re fired.’ We don’t live that way. We don’t sit at home paralyzed saying, ‘I can’t do it unless the Bible says to.’ No. We can live freely and do what Scripture encourages us and what our conscience dictates and what our life requires until we bump up against something that’s a sin, and we say, ‘No. That’s red light. I can’t do that.’ But we live by green light until we see red light.

Why is it that we live by normative green?light principle until we get to church, and then we have to live by regulative red?light principle just for an hour a week as if there’s not a blur in between the lines? We also have other church gatherings, meetings, Wednesday night classes, community groups. Do they count red light, green light? The whole things gets very confusing. I think we live our whole life by the same principles, whether we’re scattered or gathered for worship, it’s green light. We’re free until we see something that is sinful and forbidden, then it’s red light and we stop.

…. The three weaknesses, one, again, it separates gathered and scattered worship. When you walk in the building, you flip into a totally new paradigm as if Jesus wasn’t Lord over all, as if he ruled in the church in a special way that he does, and as soon as you step outside of the door, very peculiar. 2

It is clear from these citations that the notion that all of life is worship provides writers like Frame and Driscoll (and Gore) one of their primary reasons for either re-interpreting or rejecting the regulative principle.  They, so to speak, intuitively dismiss the distinction between worship and the rest of life historically associated to the regulative principle in favor of the popular contemporary notion that all of life is worship.  By way of a response to this intuitive dismissal of the distinction between worship and the rest of life historically associated with the regulative principle, let me begin by summarizing my view of this matter.

First of all, I have a sympathetic response.  I do not believe that the distinction involved in the regulative principle has been adequately or at least clearly articulated in Reformed tradition.  Of course, I will confess the limitations of my own study of the matter.  But in my view the description of this principle as the regulative principle of worship says both too much and too little.  It says too much because it speaks of worship generally when there is reason both in the tradition and in the Bible to limit the (strict) application of the regulative principle to that worship carried on by the gathered church.  It says too little because it limits (or seems to limit) the regulative principle to worship, when there is reason both in the tradition and in the Bible to apply the regulative principle more broadly to the doctrine, government, and tasks of the church.  This lack of clarity has perhaps contributed to way in which the regulative principle of worship has struck men like Frame, Driscoll, and Gore as odd and contrary to God’s normal way of doing business.

Second of all, I have a critical response.  The motto that all of life is worship has blinded Driscoll and Frame to important distinctions and qualifications which the Bible provides to the notion that all of life is worship.  Once the true framework and rationale for the regulative principle is understood to be the distinctive identity of the church and therefore of its worship, the solid, biblical evidence for it becomes clear.

Now with these initial observations clearly before us, let me summarize the evidence against the intuitive dismissal of the distinction between the church and its worship and the rest of life.  Much, of course, of this evidence has been reviewed above.

First, the “all of life is worship” motto forgets the distinction between the gathered church and the scattered church (to allude to Driscoll’s words).  Remember Driscoll says of the regulative principle of worship:  “…it separates gathered and scattered worship. When you walk in the building, you flip into a totally new paradigm as if Jesus wasn’t Lord over all, as if he ruled in the church in a special way that he does, and as soon as you step outside of the door, very peculiar.”  Driscoll is right that the regulative principle separates (or at least distinguishes) the gathered and scattered church, but as we have seen so does the Bible.  The notion that Christ especially present in the gathered church is supported throughout the Bible, but it is given explicit warrant in two classic passages.

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.

1 Corinthians 14:23-25 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

In both Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 14 the pregnant context of these assertion of Christ’s presence is the assembly of the church.  It defies reason to argue that such assertions promise nothing more than the same presence of Christ that is with His scattered church.

There is, thus, a special presence of Christ in the corporate worship of the church which requires a special regulation of that worship different than the rest of life.  Since I have made this point above, let me buttress by perceptive words of well-known contemporary Reformed theologians.  Ligon Duncan writes:

The strong and special emphasis on the corporate worship of God being founded positively on the directions of Scripture came to be known as the regulative principle.  It is an extension of the Reformational axiom of sola scriptura.  As the Bible is the final authority in faith and life, so it is also the final authority in how we corporately worship—but in a distinct and special way.  Whereas all of life is to be lived in accordance with Scripture, Scripture does not speak discreetly (discretely?—SW) to every specific component of our lives.  There are many situations in which we must rely upon general biblical principles and then attempt to think Christianly without specific guidance in various circumstances.

The Reformers thought the matter of corporate worship was just a little bit different than this.  They taught that God had given full attention to this matter in his word because it is one of central significance in the Christian life and in his eternal purposes.  Therefore, we are to exercise a special kind of care when it comes to this activity—a care distinct from that which we employ anywhere else in the Christian life….

Paul regulates the number and order of people allowed to exercise extraordinary  gifts vested in them by the Holy Spirit during corporate worship! One cannot conceive of such a restriction on “worship in all of life.”  (Duncan is speaking of 1 Corinthians 14–SW.) ….

It is also apparent … that the New Testament has a distinctive category of corporate worship and that it has a special concern about worship that  is uniquely and distinguishably corporate.  This is important to say because serious voices in the worship debate question whether a distinct category of corporate worship can be found in the new-covenant era.3

Derek Thomas adds:

No amount of theological hair-splitting over what may be termed broad and narrow worship can overcome the definable moment (signaled by a call to worship) when God’s covenant people gathered together and it is no longer permitted to do certain, otherwise legitimate, things.  To cite Terry Johnson:   “Whether or not I ought to dig ditches, fly kites, or bathe my children in the context of public worship is not the same question as whether or not God may be glorified by them.”4

Second, the motto that all of life is worship is associated with views that blunt other related and important biblical distinctions.  Driscoll remarks at one point:  “What I don’t understand is why we would treat 1 hour a week by a certain set of rules, and the other 167 hours of the week by a different set of rules.”  To which I respond, “If you understood the biblical teaching on the Christian Sabbath, perhaps you would understand not only this, Mark, but also why one day a week has a different set of rules.”  My point is, of course, not that Driscoll has to agree with me about the Christian Sabbath.  My point is that the Christian Sabbath is another place where we have to say something like what I have said about the regulative principle of the church’s worship.  Yes, all of life is worship, but that does not mean the gathering of the church is not worship in a special sense.  So again here, I say yes every day is holy, but one day is especially and distinctly holy.   But this brings me to a third response to this objection to the regulative principle.

Third, as I have said, the true and basic distinction which gives rise to the regulative principle is the distinction between the church in its unique identity and the rest of life.  I have presented several, solid reasons to grant the truth of the Nicene Creed when it makes one of the attributes of the church holiness.  The church is holy, as we have seen, in a way that the rest of life is not.  It is holy in a sense that even other divine institutions like the family and the state are not.  This unique identity of the church is, as we have seen, emphatically stated in 1 Timothy 3:15.  We have also seen that in that passage the unique identity of the church is connected to the necessity of special conduct in the church.

For all these reasons, the objections to and reinterpretations of the regulative principle advocated by many in our day are to be seen as completely unnecessary.  To put this another way, they are not counterintuitive to those who understand the biblical teaching that some things in life are especially holy and that one of those things that is especially holy is the church and its worship.

1Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth, 44-45.
2Mark Driscoll, http://marshill.com/media/religionsaves/regulative-principle; Steve Schlissel, http://www.messiahnyc.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?id=89 illustrate this tendency;  Cf. also R. J. Gore’s discussion of this issue and consequent rejection of the regulative principle in Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R Publishing, 2002), 112-116.
3Give Praise to God:  A Vision for Reforming Worship, edited by Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W. H. Thoomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 21, 47, 49.
4Give Praise to God, 87.

Should We Witness for Christ? (Part 5)

by | Jun 18, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Missions, Practical Theology

Matthew 12:30a says:  “He who is not with Me is against Me…”  This is the uncompromising assertion of the text.  What we may call the unmistakable amplification of these words comes next:  “and he who does not gather with Me scatters.”  The implication that every Christian must and does have a heart and concern for evangelism finds indisputable confirmation in the rest of the New Testament.  1 Cor. 10:33-11:1 says:  “Just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.  Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.”

All of this then requires that we think about the unavoidable application.  It is this:  Every Christians must and does have a heart for biblical evangelism.   This heart must be at the center of the lifestyle of every Christian.  Let me mention several specific applications of this.

1.       Biblical evangelism is an important responsibility of every Christian.

No Christian can exempt himself from the requirement of our text.  Each of us—the text clearly implies—have the responsibility to be gathering with Christ.

2.       Biblical evangelism is an identifying mark of every Christian.

The main point of our text is not, however, that Christians should gather with Christ.  It is that Christians do gather with Christ.  Every Christian gathers with Christ.  That is to say, biblical evangelism is his lifestyle.  He has a heart to see men gathered to Christ.  His heart is manifested in some efforts in his life to gather men to Christ.

Now I do not say what I have just said lightly.  I say it carefully.  I say it trembling for myself and for those I love.  Having a heart for biblical evangelism is a necessary mark of being a Christian.  If you rarely or never think about the salvation of the lost, if you have no concern for them or for the glory of Christ in their salvation, if you have no heart to gather with Christ, then I may tell you, I must tell you, straightforwardly that you are no Christian.

3.       Biblical evangelism is a means of grace for every Christian.

Some struggle a great deal with assurance of your salvation.  One reason may be that you are not giving yourself to this responsibility and grace as you ought.  Start doing something to gather with Christ.  John Piper once articulated at “Together for the Gospel” the common experience of Christians when they have an opportunity to speak for Christ:  He said after such an opportunity which God had given him that he went home thinking: I really am a Christian!

4.       Biblical evangelism may not be what you think.

The text defines evangelism as gathering with Christ.  Passing out tracts or going door to door may be good for some people.  “From scratch” evangelistic conversations may be possible for some gifted Christians.  They may not work out well for the rest of us.  They may not be societally or culturally effective ways of promoting the gospel of Christ.  So let me give you some advice about how to do biblical evangelism.

  • Biblical evangelism is consistent with and promoted by the diligent pursuit of your callings.  Some think of their jobs as a hindrance to evangelism or even as an alternative to evangelism. For some the best way to do biblical evangelism is to do as well as you can at your vocations and professions.  This will open doors to gather with Christ to you.
  • Biblical evangelism means cultivating relationships with unconverted people.  One good way to do that is by showing mercy to people and ministering to their felt needs.
  • Biblical evangelism means plugging your gifts into an evangelistically minded local church and supporting others with better evangelistic gifts than our own.  This thought has often encouraged and motivated me to use whatever gifts I have for my local church.  I end on the point which I made in my first blog.  We must not think of thee work of evangelism individualistically, but as the work of the church, the body of Christ.  We can gather with Christ by using the gifts God has given us in the church which is His body.

Pin It on Pinterest