“… Knowing this first of all that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
2 Peter 1:20-2:1
Principles are the heartbeat of understanding truth forged in the crucible of cultures long ago to discover their relevance and significance for our own context. They help us understand Jesus’ profound statement of Matthew 4:3, “Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” We discover God’s truth transcends culture and continues to be relevant for time and eternity. Despite how powerful principles are, there is also a danger. I have seen people extract principles from a truth and leverage it like a weapon to justify any idea that the exegete thinks supports any exegetical truth that needs support.
Principles based on concept. This may seem self-evident. Principles are eternal truths that are not limited to the culture or circumstance in which we discover them. They do not change because they are anchored to eternal realities about God, humanity, or God’s activity in a broken world. But the danger is that principles built just on concept are sometimes exploited and “swung like a dead cat” to support ideas and “truths” that result in eisegesis not exegesis.
Principles built on context. I am a firm believer that every principle must be drawn from a biblical context or timeless truth. But this is absolutely critical…a principle can only be applied properly when we frame the application of that truth from the context in which it was extracted. If we ignore the original context we are in grave danger in misapplying a principle to support truth that is not actually true.
Concept vs. Context: Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”(Matt. 18:19-20).
A unique form of prayer or something else? Many suggest if two or three come before God and “agree” with each other, God is obligated to give them their request. It assumes that “asking” refers to prayer and it is asking God to do something. Many use this “magical prayer promise” to get God to act that a singular person could not accomplish (cf. James 5:16-18). But if we examine the context, we discover this is about dealing with a sin issue and the two or three are witnesses who are to confirm the veracity of the offense (18:16). If the offender refuses to listen to the two or three (assuming they have confirmed the sin properly), they are to take it before the church. If the person refuses to listen to the church, the church is to treat him as a tax collector. What does it mean for the church to treat a person like a tax collector? Binding and loosing are about restricting or freeing someone from privileges or prerogatives; in this case, to restrict a person from the freedom of fellowship, ministry, and privileges of the Body. If the two or three still agree and ask the church to restrict this person from normal privileges because of unresolved sin, then the text tells us the Lord supports the action of the church. God supports this action, and He is “with them.” (18:18-20).
In other words, these statements, based on context, are not even about prayer but the two or three asking the church to deal with an unrepentant sinner.
Pastor Brad
