If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

1. Preunderstanding fallacy: Believing you can interpret with complete objectivity, not recognizing that you have preunderstandings that influence your interpretation.

There is no such thing as a “white-coat” interpreter. In other words, there is no one who comes to the text as a scientist who objectively interprets the data. We all are influences by many things including our upbringing, culture, personality, and others preunderstandings. Once we recognize this, we are better equipped to interpret the text honesty. Otherwise, our preunderstanding will always rule over our interpretation.

2. Incidental fallacy: Reading incidental historical texts as prescriptive rather than descriptive.

While the Bible teaches us truths, not every incidental detail is meant to teach these truths. Much of the Bible is made up of information that is important to the overall story, but is not important in isolation to the rest. We must understand the difference between ”prescriptive” and “descriptive” material.  Prescriptive: information that provides the reader with principles that they are to apply to their lives. Descriptive: incidental material that describes the way something was done but is not necessarily meant to encourage the reader in the same action. A good example of this is the Apostles casting lots to elect a new Apostle to replace Judas in Acts 1. This is not mean to teach us how to elect church leaders, it is just the way it was done at that time.

3. Obscurity fallacy: Building theology from obscure material.

Much of the Bible is very clear and understandable. Some of it is very difficult to understand. Do not build theology and doctrine from passages of Scripture that are not clear. For example, it is very difficult to understand what Christ was talking about in John 3:5 where He mentions being “born of water.” “Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” Because of its obscurity, one should not build a theology that places too much weight on what being “born of water” means. The Bible speaks clearly on many issues concerning salvation in other places. It is best to take the obscure passages and interpret them in light of the clear passages. In doing so, the interpreter can create an interpretive framework upon what these obscure passages cannot mean, even if discovery cannot be made with certainly about what they, in fact, do mean.

Obscure passages can be the most dangerous teachings in Scripture. Sadly, it is often the case that many people and traditions take obscure passages and pack their theology into them since there is no definitive way to say that they are wrong in their interpretation. This is a common fallacy committed among “Christian” cults. In other words, there simply is no more fertile ground for cults and false teaching than obscure passages of the Bible. 

4. Etymological root fallacy: Looking to the root etymology of a word to discover its meaning.

The problem with this is that etymology can often be deceiving, such as in the English word “butterfly” taken from “butter” and “fly.” An etymological study of this word only confuses the current usage. The same can be said of the word “good-bye,” which is taken from the Anglo-Saxon, “God be with you.” When someone says “good-bye,” it does not necessarily (if ever) mean that they are calling a blessing of God’s presence to be with you.

From D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies:

“One of the most enduring fallacies, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is by the roots of a word.  How many times have we been told that because the verbal cognate of apostolos (apostle) is apostello (I send), the root meaning of “apostle” is “one who is sent.”?  In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the literal meaning of monogenes is “only begotten.”  Is that true?  How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love) and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that agapao is used?

All of this is linguistic nonsense.  We might have guessed as much if we were more acquainted with the etymology of English words. Anthony C. Thistleton offers by way of example our word nice, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning “ignorant.”  Our “good-by” is a contraction for Anglo-Saxon “God be with you.”  Now it may be possible to trace out diachronically just how nesciusnice”; it is certainly easy to imagine how “God be with you” came to be “good-by.”  But I know of no one today who in saying that such and such a person is “nice”  believes that he or she has in some measure labeled that person ignorant because the “root meaning” or “hidden meaning” or “literal meaning” of “nice” is ‘ignorant’.”

Continue Reading »

As a Christian, I would love to have a magic wand.  I would wave it like the fairy godmother did in Cinderella and make obstacles that impede my spiritual progress to magically disappear.  Poof!  Now they’re gone, all the nagging doubts, issues from my past that seem to crop up in certain situations, pain that inhibits a full surrender and old habits that die hard.  Wave the magic wand, and its all gone.  Poof! Poof! Poof!  And now I can truly and fully worship God.

Unfortunately, I see this magic wand syndrome applied to Christianity but in different forms and utilizing different language.  No one would cite it as waving a magic wand, but the reality of the formulas that are used to strengthen the sanctification process are in essence applying the same goal.  Do this, and you no longer have to worry about whatever it is that is challenging your commitment to Christ.  Do this, and you will have no problem at all worshipping God.

What are these formulas?  One is leaving our problems at the altar and setting at the feet of Jesus.  There are even altar calls to do just that.  Another formula is worship.  Some suppose that if we worship God hard enough, he will come and wave the magic wand and make all our problems disappear.   Unfortunately, it is based on a misunderstanding of Psalm 22:3, that God shows up when corporate praise is offered, with an expanded version indicating that worship then becomes warfare and an instrument to de-shackle whatever has challenged forward progress.  These are magic wands and I think yields a disconcerting blow to the sanctification process and disengages from the reasons we choose self over God.

Please do not misunderstand me.  I am not saying that we don’t bring our burdens, conflicts, sinful pulls and challenges to the Lord in prayer.  Of course we do, as Peter commends in 1 Peter 5:7.  Nor am I dispelling the need for worship, both individually and corporately.  But the problem comes when we use these methods as formulas that are disconnected from the source of scriptural based sanctification and moreover, render troubled promises of spiritual maturity based on these formulas and expectations of devotion towards God.

The reason these formulas don’t work in and of themselves is because it negates the substance of sanctification and the necessary components to promote spiritual maturity.  It does not happen overnight.  Sanctification is a tedious and messy process that can become discouraging at times.   It is a process where obstacles confront spiritual progress, self-focused thoughts confront Biblical truth,  flesh confronts spirit.  And there are failures; at times lots of failures.  It doesn’t work itself out through sheer will or because we’ve raised our hands in worship.

When a person becomes a Christian, there is a natural opposition to this and its called “flesh”.  The flesh wants its own way and continue to dominate thoughts, motives and deeds. It does not want to be subject to God’s requirements (Romans 8:7).  It does not drop off when we become Christians and will seek to hinder us at every turn.  Moreover, the Christian has a ready-made enemy upon conversion that hates God, his program and his people.  He will do whatever he can to frustrate any steps towards spiritual maturity.

So what does the Christian do?  I believe Romans 12:1-2 provide a great model for the sanctification process, which hinges on two important criteria: 1) offering ourselves and 2) being transformed through a mind renewal.  Worship, according to Romans 12:1-2, is when we avert our affections from self and place them on God.  This requires a transformation of thinking. We will only invest ourselves in Christianity to the extent of the value we have placed on the benefits of following Christ.  Our worship is motivated by this investment.  It unfolds based on how we think about God and his expectations for us.  That does not happen because we engage in a corporate congregational service but unfolds through the realization of the object of faith and worship, which is the triune God.

This is where I think the teaching of doctrine is critical.  Doctrine is not a dry, intellectual subject for academic oriented people but is a necessity for spiritual growth.  Doctrine is teaching and Christian doctrine provides the tenets of why we follow Christ.  To the extent that learning about the nature, character and work of the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is to the extent that we will avert our affections towards him and away from the obstacles that would impede progress.  The more we learn about Him, his plan for history, his expectations for his people, both corporately and individually, the stronger the impetus should be to direct decisions in his favor and away from selfish desires.

Discipleship is learning.  An ignorant saint who raises their hands in corporate worship is still an ignorant saint who will quickly yield to fleshly desires given the opportunity.  I do believe there are times when desires and ingrained sinful habits are removed.  But the overwhelming evidence in both scripture and real life, is that we must engage in an intentional process whereby the Holy Spirit is increasingly relied upon and Christ becomes a greater focus of our affections.  In this way, we learn to discern what is fitting for spiritual maturity. This is aptly summed up in Hebrews 5:14 – “but solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trainded to discern good and evil“.

The bottom line is that sanctification does not happen overnight.  It takes engaging in a continual learning process and wrestling with impediments to the Christian walk to the point where discernment of what is right and pleasing towards God is increasingly realized.  That will motivate decisions when confronted with decisions of self vs. God.  Moreover, it will motivate pure worship, from the heart that should increasingly place its affection towards God.  There is no magic wand, only lives making the choice to surrender wholly to God although at times, those choices falter.

But the beautiful thing about that is, as Paul points out in Philippians 2:12-13, that as we walk out the sanctification process, that God is at work in us, both to work and will for his good pleasure.  His grace is sufficient and his remedy through the cross is permanent, offering endless access to his throne of grace where we can find help in our time of need (Hebrews 4:16).

My sincere thanks to Michael for inviting me to guest post this series.  I manage the Evangelical Portal at Patheos (you can see the Vision for the Portal here, and you can check out a great sample article , an interview with a Christian professor at Harvard Law School with terminal cancer).

Every now and then, the course of history hinges upon a a single person, a single event, a single year.  Such is the case with Martin Luther and his theological disputation in the city of Heidelberg in the Spring of 1518.  Martin Luther inverted the theological method of his day, and the consequences for the history of western thought have proven nothing short of revolutionary.

In the first installment of this series on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, I described the significance of the Disputation in the unfolding of Luther’s life and thought.  In contrast to the better known ­Ninety-Five Theses, which focused on the selling of indulgences and other abuses of papal power, the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518 offers a more expansive vision of the relationship between man and God.

Here, I will consider the first 7 of Luther’s 28 theological theses.  The preface is also significant:

“Distrusting completely our own wisdom, according to that counsel of the Holy Spirit, “Do not rely on your own insight” (Prov. 3:5), we humbly present to the judgment of all those who wish to be here these theological paradoxes, so that it may become clear whether they have been deduced well or poorly from St. Paul, the especially chosen vessel and instrument of Christ, and also from St. Augustine, his most trustworthy interpreter.”

Luther makes clear from the beginning that the theological case he presents is not to be judged by its persuasiveness to ordinary human reasoning, but solely by its fidelity to scripture.  The implication is that worldly wisdom will be offended by the essential “paradoxes” of Christian theology.  This will be a major theme of the Disputation.  The theology of his day, Luther believed, had become an intellectual form of works righteousness.  If God were best encountered in the elaborate edifices of the philosophers and theologians, then knowing God would be a matter of intellectual achievement, and a cause for pride—and our relationship with God would have all the passion of a relationship with a philosophy textbook.  Thus God revealed Himself such that only the humble can receive him.  The wise must become fools, and the mighty meek, if they would know a God who gave Himself as a humiliated and crucified carpenter.

Thus we come to the theological theses.  The fundamental question of the Disputation is implicit in the first: what is the “way to righteousness”? Continue Reading »

As many of you know, I have written much about the epidemic of people losing their faith. It is not only a concern, but an obsession of mine. Because of this, I engage with quite a few people on the issue. I often feel as if I serve as a last chance stop for many who are in their darkest hour, heading out the door of Christianity.

Recently, I received an email from a lady I know. Not too long ago I met with her and her husband to discuss her doubts about her faith. She now informs me that her niece who is a missionary in China is experiencing the same doubts about God.  Here is some of what her niece has to say:

“I don’t know what to do. When I hear people talk about God I almost feel uncomfortable…THAT scares the heck out of me. I find myself being pessimistic or maybe just skeptical. When people talk to me about trusting God for my finances, for my time here,  finding a mate, or what comes after China, etc I hear the thought in my head “yea, if He’s real.” What is going on with me?!! How did I get this far? I feel like such a child; an immature Christian. I went from a huge turn around in my faith in 2005 and continually growing closer to him, being closer to Him than ever right after my dad died all the way until last September (God and I were best buddies) to completely questioning his existence.”

Her brother advised her: “Push those thoughts out of my head and simply believe what I know to be true.”

I responded:

______________________________________________

Thanks so much for remembering me!

I feel for you both so much. It looks as if you have such a wonderful relationship with your niece. She sounds like she respects you a great deal.

You both are in such a hard position right now. It is often referred to as “the dark night of the soul” (Google it). It is a time of substantial doubt and disillusionment, and it is common for Christians, even very good Christians, to go through. I don’t have any silver bullet that will get either of you out of this, but I can say that it is often a very positive thing for your faith. But, I have to admit, it is often a time when one comes to the realization that they don’t have any faith. I don’t know where either of you are at, but I know that it is dark. Continue Reading »

I am not a charismatic.  It is hard for me to describe myself as a traditional cessationist either. I refer to myself as a “de facto” cessationist. What does this mean? Essentially, when it comes to the so-called supernatural sign gifts such as gifts of tongues, prophecy, workers of miracles, etc, I have never seen anything which would convince me that there are modern day manifestations of these gifts. There certainly could be, I just have not seen them. (I have written about it here.)

Concerning the gift of prophecy (the idea that one can speak on behalf of God in a “thus-says-the-Lord” type way), I have never seen this either. I would love to have God speak to me, or better, through me, in such a way, but he never has. I have never heard the voice of God and have never been his spokesperson other than through my interpretation of Scripture. Although, I must admit, I had a strange occurence twenty years ago. I had a drunk I gave a ride to in downtown Oklahoma City tell me that God told him I was going to be a preacher. At that time in my life, it was a joke to think such. It was not enough for me to think much of, and the guy was drunk!

I could not make a very strong argument that God has stopped sending prophets or stopped speaking directy to people. My theology does not demand such. I have simply just never seen one. However, there is an argument out there that more traditional cessationist’s (those who’s theology argues that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased in the first century, usually with the death of the last Apostle or the completion of Scripture) make to argue their case. It is an argument that I think is very weak and fails to understand the nature of prophecy and the nature of what constitutes Scripture. It goes like this:

If the gift of prophecy is still being given and there are people out there who speak directly on behalf of God, then the canon is still open.

What this means is that if God is still speaking in any way, whatever is spoken, by virtue of it being God’s words, needs to be added to Scripture. Maybe a new book, letter, Psalm, or just a page added to the end of the Bible, this argument insists that a belief in modern day prophecy demands an open canon.

I disagree.

Here is the basic problem I see with such an argument: It misunderstands the nature of prophecy and the nature of the canon. Continue Reading »

Dave Burke, a well-known Christadelphian, and I will be debating the doctrine of the Trinity for six weeks beginning Sunday, April 11, 2010, here on Parchment and Pen. Over a thousand people voted for Dave to be the non-Trinitarian in this debate. He and I have agreed to limit our weekly statements to 5,000 words apiece (down from the 10,000 stated in the “challenge” post back in November).

In this post, I will list books and articles that are generally supportive of the approach I take to defending from the Bible the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as the books and articles that Dave recommends as generally supportive of the approach he takes in defending his non-Trinitarian theological position. Continue Reading »

The term “canon” refers to the accepted books of the Scriptures. The Protestant canon contains 66 books, while other Christian traditions will vary, adding a few books often referred to as the Deuterocanonical books (“second canon”) or the “Apocrypha.” A commonly accepted understanding among most Christians of all traditions is that the books that belong in the Scripture cannot be added to. In other words, the canon is “closed.”

While there is a sense in which I believe the canon is closed, there is also a sense in which I don’t believe the canon is closed. Let me explain.

In order to maintain that the canon is closed, most Christians would refer the the first few centuries of the church. In particular councils such as Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, as well as Athanasius’ Easter Letter will be referred to as evidence that the canon of the New Testament had closed. The Old Testament, according to most, was already established and closed by the time of Christ. For this, reference would be made to the New Testament itself, as well as the testimony of Josephus, Philo, and some of the inter-testamental works.

My contention with this assumption is that to say that the canon is “closed” needs to be understood more in an observational way rather than an authoritative pronouncement. The term “closed” might not be the best word since it implies a necessary finality concerning the contents of Scripture. This is something that I don’t believe we can say in the way that we often say it for two primary reasons:

1. Scripture itself does not limit the canon to 66 books. No matter how hard you look, one would be hard pressed to find a place that definitely “closes” the canon. Revelation 22:18-19 is often referred to as evidence:

Revelation 22:18-19: I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

The problem with using this passage is that it is specific to the book of Revelation. Just because the book of Revelation occurs last in our canon does not mean that this warning serves as a book end for the entire Bible. It is meant to communicate a general statement about those who would be tempted to add to or take away from God’s word in general, and to the book of Revelation in specific. Yet the same warning is given in the book of Deuteronomy and the Proverbs:

Deuteronomy 4:2: You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.

Proverbs 30:6: Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Does this mean that once Deuteronomy or Proverbs were complete that no one was supposed to add any other books? I don’t know anyone who would make that argument. Continue Reading »

If you’re like me, you’ve been told there are different types of reading plans for the Bible.  There are time when we crack open all the study aids and decipher what’s going on.  Then there is the devotional reading, where you just read and let the passage speak to you.  Therefore, it is common to have a time set aside for just devotional reading and a time set-aside for some serious, academically oriented studying.  I have accepted this polarized approach for years but lately have come to find some problems with it.

This morning was a perfect illustration.  I try to read at least one Psalm in the morning as part of devotional time.  However, I got hung up on a passage this morning in Psalm 39.  I was having trouble deciphering what exactly the author was getting at, especially in vs. 5 and the “handbreath”.  My initial inclination was to not bother with any commentaries because after all, it was devotional reading and in devotional reading you just let the passage speak to you. The problem was that I really needed to understand what it was saying, so I did some research.  One commentator explained the context and the chiastic structure and the meaning of “handbreadth” in Hebrew.  I was relieved.  Not only that, but the greater clarity gave the passage more significance because as it resonated with some deeply personal challenges I have experienced.  It prompted worship. And it also clarified for me why I have a problem with this polarized approach to scripture.

For the Christian, the whole point of studying scripture is to understand the very revelation of God and his ultimate revelation in Christ.  The Bible is God’s self-disclosure as he has exposed himself and his plan for history through the pens of human authors.   God’s plan of redemption and reconciliation to mankind, is the overriding messages that coalesces the diversity of genres and the seemingly disjointed eras into a unified whole.  Therefore, reading the Bible is not just for information purposes but is expressly designed to make an impact on the lives of those have placed faith in the salvation that Christ offers.   Those authors were writing with a particular purpose as they record events, narratives, poems, letters under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all to unveil the overriding message of Christ.   That message speaks volumes but it must be understood in light of how the authors intended it.  I have been dragging my tail on a post about authorial intent hermeneutics and the importance of meaning, which will provide more detail on the subject (hopefully I now have the incentive to get off my duff and finish it!).  But suffice it to say that understanding what we are reading is significant.  Moreover, it is to understand where the Christian fits into that plan and how to apply what is learned so that our lives are transformed by the very words we read.

I think you lose something with the design and application of scripture by creating this dichotomy.  On one hand, reading with the intention of academic study can circumvent the application of scripture and associate studying with anti-spiritual activity.  This type of reading can be considered less spiritual.  On the other hand, reading devotionally can create a false sense of meaning upon scripture because we may not be fully engaged with where the author is coming from.  It also can give the false impression that you are engaged in a spiritual activity simply because you’re not bogged down with investigation or that devotional reading is somehow more spiritual.

An academically oriented investigation of scripture and Biblical theology  need not be devoid of the spiritual significance of God’s revelation.  In fact, I would argue that it intensely spiritual thing to do to gain as much understanding as possible, which builds the foundation for Christ-centered spirituality.  I have discovered that even the most academically oriented study can be transformed into an intense devotional.  I have this especially true with Greek.  The learning process is tough as the mechanics of the language are learned.  But those same mechanics compel the force of the original language to illustrate what God would have us to know.  It does not have to stop at just learning the information but should be followed up with deep reflection about what the information means.  The same is true for studying theology proper or an intense investigation into scriptural analysis and background studies.  More information should lead to more understanding, which should create a greater heart impact, which should lead to more worship.  It is all in how the information is applied not the fact that you have more information.

On the flipside, if we just pick up the Bible and read along for devotional value and not be concerned with authorial intent, we can really miss what the author is trying to get at.  Even worse, we can derive a misunderstanding of what the author is communicating through a self-focused desire to have our heart impacted, without reconciling our understanding with that of the authors’ and especially the context.  I recall a time I used to do this with the Old Testament prophets and wanted God to speak to me personally.  A lot of misunderstanding was developed because of that and to this day it is continually being unraveled.  How rich and rewarding that correction process has been!

Now, I am not saying that every reading session needs to treated like a seminary course.  But I do think there is a danger in pitting one type of study against the other, as if one type of reading precludes the other.  If we are seeking to know about God on his terms, it is all spiritual.  In that way, every study session should be devotional.

I may be alone in not wanting to have two different kind of reading programs.  But the thought of God condescending to make Himself known, really encourages me to strive as best as possible to understand what is meant by what is being communicated.  In this we who call Christ savior and king, come to know and understand His heart, which should open ours and bow down in worship.

“Give me understanding, that I may observe Your law and keep it with all my heart.” (Psalm 119:34)

Sometimes it is frustrating to introduce yourself to theological issues. Most people who get deeply involved in theology quickly realize how much they don’t know. Confident seminary students enter their training thinking that they are going to breeze their way through as they have their prejudices confirmed by their soon to be impressed professors. After the first year, their countenance is soured as their confidence turns into an insecure angel (or devil) on their shoulder who says, “Who did you think you were presuming God called you into ministry?” They begin to realize that they came to seminary to find out how much they did not know! Some get discouraged and leave, others harden in their categories becoming unable to learn. But the best adjust their expectations, knowing that an admission of ignorance is a fundamental foundation to learning.

There is an old dictum to knowledge. It goes something like this:

There are four types of people:

1. The one who doesn’t know, and doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. He is a fool–shun him.

2. The one who doesn’t know, but knows that he doesn’t know. He is a student–help him learn.

3. The one who knows, but doesn’t know that he knows. He is an unenlightened person–enlighten him.

4. The one who knows and knows that he knows. He is a wise man–follow him.

I would like to add a fifth:

5. The one who knows but does not know how he knows. He is naive—deconstruct him.

This fifth category refers to those who have all the right beliefs for all the wrong reasons. This is very common in theological circles. I believe that it is prevalent within Evangelicalism as a basic creedal confession takes the place of doctrinal understanding. I know of many people who confess a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, but they really don’t know why they believe in this doctrine. I know of many people who believe that Christ rose bodily from the grave, but they could not give you even the most basic defense of their confession. Both the bodily resurrection of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are good and right beliefs, but if someone cannot justify these beliefs, do they really believe them? Continue Reading »

My first case study in inerrancy comes from the story of David when he was on the run from King Saul.

1 Sam. 26:5-16:
5 David then arose and came to the place where Saul had camped. And David saw the place where Saul lay, and Abner the son of Ner, the commander of his army; and Saul was lying in the circle of the camp, and the people were camped around him.
6 Then David said to Ahimelech the Hittite and to Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab’s brother, saying, “Who will go down with me to Saul in the camp?” And Abishai said, “I will go down with you.”
7 So David and Abishai came to the people by night, and behold, Saul lay sleeping inside the circle of the camp with his spear stuck in the ground at his head; and Abner and the people were lying around him.
8 Then Abishai said to David, “Today God has delivered your enemy into your hand; now therefore, please let me strike him with the spear to the ground with one stroke, and I will not strike him the second time.”
9 But David said to Abishai, “Do not destroy him, for who can stretch out his hand against the LORD’S anointed and be without guilt?”
10 David also said, “As the LORD lives, surely the LORD will strike him, or his day will come that he dies, or he will go down into battle and perish.
11 “The LORD forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the LORD’S anointed; but now please take the spear that is at his head and the jug of water, and let us go.”
12 So David took the spear and the jug of water from beside Saul’s head, and they went away, but no one saw or knew it, nor did any awake, for they were all asleep, because a sound sleep from the LORD had fallen on them.
13 Then David crossed over to the other side and stood on top of the mountain at a distance with a large area between them.
14 David called to the people and to Abner the son of Ner, saying, “Will you not answer, Abner?” Then Abner replied, “Who are you who calls to the king?”
15 So David said to Abner, “Are you not a man? And who is like you in Israel? Why then have you not guarded your lord the king? For one of the people came to destroy the king your lord.
16 “This thing that you have done is not good. As the LORD lives, all of you must surely die, because you did not guard your lord, the LORD’S anointed. And now, see where the king’s spear is and the jug of water that was at his head.”
(NASU)

I wonder if you notice the issue. It is not easy to find, but it is very interesting (at least to me). Here we have David, the heroic and God fearing protagonist, being in error. I will explain the error in just a moment.

Let me give you some background to my hermeneutics (method of interpretation): Generally, I follow a rule in narrative portions of Scripture. I allow for error in the “bad guys” but don’t expect it from the “good guys.” In other words, when the Bible has put someone in a positive or authoritative light (such as Peter in Acts 2), most of the time what they say can be trusted. For example, when Daniel (who is a very flat yet godly character) speaks, there is not any reason to think that what he says contains error. Therefore, we can build doctrine from it. With “bad guys,” such as Satan, Nebuchadnezzar, and Job’s friends, it is hard to know whether to believe what they are saying.

Now, back to our current passage. David here is at the height of his heroic ventures. It is not possible for him to be in a more Godly light. He is the one who trusts the Lord. He is the one who will not usurp authority from “God’s anointed.” He, as we follow the narrative, is the one who acts on behalf of God. So there is no question as to his status at this point in the narrative. However, David makes a false accusation against Abner and calls for his execution based on this false accusation. Abner had fallen asleep and failed to protect King Saul when David took the spear from where he slept. David goes a distance away and brings an indictment against Abner for not protecting the King implying that it was his negligence. But the text tells us that it was not Abner’s fault. Verse 12 says that the Lord was responsible for Abner’s inability to protect the King: “So David took the spear and the jug of water from beside Saul’s head, and they went away, but no one saw or knew it, nor did any awake, for they were all asleep, because a sound sleep from the LORD had fallen on them” (Emphasis mine). David, in verse 16, says wrongly to Abner: “This thing that you have done is not good. As the LORD lives, all of you must surely die, because you did not guard your lord, the LORD’S anointed.” Continue Reading »