from the editor’s desk

What have you been reading lately? Besides, of course, every issue of the Pneuma Review that you receive.

What books are challenging you to think beyond the old boundaries and grow in your relationship with our Master? What ideas and practical insights are you discussing among your friends and peers? I would love to hear from you and know what is touching your heart and life. As one of our readers told me recently, reviews have spared him on a number of occasions. I can really agree with that. Many times a review of a good or not-so-good book has pushed me to either not read it, or to read it with a genuine anticipation of the Lord speaking through it to me.

Please share your insights with us. Others of us will benefit from your discoveries, so I would appreciate hearing from you. Get in touch through: http://pneumareview.com/contact/ and [as of January 2015] More contact options: http://pneumafoundation.org/contactus.jsp

— Raul Mock, Executive Editor

The sixth chapter from Professor Williams’ book, The Gift of the Holy Spirit Today, about the greatest reality of our time.

The Gift of the Holy Spirit Today: Reception (Chapter 5)

Chapter Six: Means

We turn now to a consideration of the gift of the Holy Spirit in relation to water baptism and the laying on of hands. Our concern at this point is the connection between these outward rites and the bestowal of the Spirit. How essential—or dispensable—are they? Is one or the other more closely associated with the gift of the Spirit?

It hardly needs to be said that this has been an area of significant difference in the history of the Church. This is evidenced by the fact, first, that both water baptism and the laying on (or imposition) of hands have been viewed as channels for the gift of the Holy Spirit. Some traditions have held the position that water baptism is sufficient: it is the means whereby the Holy Spirit is given. Accordingly, there is no call for laying on of hands in this situation. Others have held that the laying on of hands is the critical matter: without such, water baptism is incomplete, and there is no gift of the Holy Spirit. How are we to adjudicate between such critical differences?

That this is no small matter would seem undeniable. If the gift of the Holy Spirit is what we have been describing—a veritable outpouring of God’s presence and power—and if this gift is vitally related to an outward rite, then the identity of that rite, the question of its essentiality, and its proper execution are critical matters. If, on the other hand, there is no vital connection between the gift of the Holy Spirit and an outward rite, this ought also to be clarified so that we be not burdened by unnecessary concerns. That there needs to be serious reflection in this area is apparent; we can scarcely afford to be uncertain or confused in so important a matter.

Once again we turn primarily to the book of Acts as the basic historical narrative depicting the gift of the Holy Spirit, and now consider its relationship to water baptism and the laying on of hands. There will be some reference also to the Gospels and the Epistles; however, as has been the case in other previous considerations, Acts must be primary because it is the only New Testament record depicting the interrelationship between the gift of the Spirit, the occurrence of water baptism and the laying on of hands.

Let us begin with reflection upon the relation of water baptism to the gift of the Holy Spirit. We are concerned of course with water baptism as a Christian rite—and only incidentally with “the baptism of John” (which is transitional in Acts to Christian baptism).¹  How does the rite of Christian baptism relate to the gift of the Spirit? By way of reply we shall set forth a number of declaratory statements and seek to demonstrate these in the five basic narratives having to do with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

However, before proceeding further, we find that water baptism, wherever described in Acts, is performed in the name of Christ only. There are four passages that mention His name in relation to baptism: Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; and 19:5—with the slight variation between “the name of Jesus Christ” (2:38 and 10:48) and “the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16 and 19:5).²  What is important is the fact of water baptism in the name of Christ only³  (not the variation in the name) and how this will relate to a proper understanding of its connection with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now we move on to various declaratory statements. First, water baptism⁴  may precede the gift of the Holy Spirit. We begin by observing that Peter, following his Pentecostal sermon, asserts: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Water baptism obviously is depicted as preceding the gift of the Spirit. It is not altogether clear, however, whether a logical or chronological priority is envisioned. Peter’s words—”and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”—could mean either that the gift of the Spirit follows logically and therefore immediately upon water baptism, or that it may happen at some future time. Shortly after Peter’s sermon, the Scripture reads: “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (2:41). Nothing is directly said about their receiving the Holy Spirit; however, that such followed directly upon water baptism seems evident in light of the ensuing account (Acts 2:42-47).⁵

Let us turn next to the Samaritan account where again water baptism is definitely shown to precede the gift of the Spirit. In this instance, however, it is clear that there is an intervening period of several days. The Samaritans “were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12). Later, Peter and John “came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:15-16). So prayer was offered and the laying on of hands was administered with the result that the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit. Hence, there is an unmistakable separation in time between water baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit.

This passage is quite important in demonstrating that the reception of the Holy Spirit is not bound to the moment of water baptism. It is sometimes argued that there was a special reason for this in the case of the Samaritans, namely, that because of the longstanding prejudice between Jews and Samaritans, it was fitting that the gift of the Holy Spirit be delayed after baptism until representatives from Jerusalem (Peter and John) could come down, and by ministering the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans, demonstrate love and unity. The argument, however, is tenuous indeed, for if delay could happen here, why not in other circumstances?⁶  Or even if it be agreed that the Jewish-Samaritan situation was maximally one of prejudice, thus calling for additional encouragement from Jerusalem, why not a visit by Peter and John simply to express fellowship and love? Why also the Holy Spirit? In any event the evidence of the text is unambiguous, namely, that regardless of what might later happen, the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Spirit when they were baptized; and this leaves open the possibility that such could happen in other instances.⁷

And the Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Him asked Him to show them a sign from heaven (Matthew 16:1).

This section of Matthew can be troublesome. Who among us has not, at some time or another, asked for a sign from God? Yet the intent behind Yeshua’s (Jesus’) words here may help put the matter into perspective.

First, we once again encounter the Pharisees and Sadducees testing the Messiah. We may be lead to ask, “Why do they bother him? Why do they seem to be testing him all the time?”

As we have encountered their challenges before, it is good to remember that while their tests may seem “bothersome,” they were wise in doing so. History records that there were many men rising up in those days claiming to be the Messiah. How would anyone know who he was? There was one way—through testing. If it was important to recognize the Messiah, it was more important to recognize the true Messiah and not fall into deception.

Even a Pharisee who was “the teacher of Israel” (John 3:10, emphasis mine), Nicodemus, tested Yeshua. Yet few look on him with the same distaste they do for other Pharisees.

The conflict here is not so much that they were testing Yeshua, but how they were testing him. It would seem that they wanted Him to perform a sign, such as we might turn on a light switch. This form of “sign seeking,” particularly from God’s chosen people, did not honor God, but rather turned Him into a circus performer, there for the amusement of an audience.

So far, as we have witnessed in Matthew’s gospel, miracles are a result of faith. This mockery of a test left faith behind and exempted themselves from the process. Throughout the Scriptures, God looks for faith-partners to enter into the work with Him.

This “test” dispensed with faith, reduced God to a conjurer of cheap tricks, and smacked more of Pharaoh’s demand to know why he should acknowledge this God of the Hebrews (Exodus 5:2).

But He answered and said to them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? (Matthew 16:2-3).

Yeshua’s answer is not argumentative, nor is it full of guile or anger. He reminds them of their own traditions and asks them to use the same “logic” here. In John Lightfoot’s 17th Century work, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, he notes that the Hebrew people were quite concerned with reading the weather:

The Jews were very curious in observing the seasons of the heavens, and the temper of the air. “In the going out of the last day of the feast of Tabernacles, all observed the rising of the smoke. If the smoke bended northward, the poor rejoiced, but the rich were troubled; because there would be much rain the following year, and the fruits would be corrupted: if it bended southward, the poor grieved, and the rich rejoiced; for then there would be fewer rains that year, and the fruit would be sound: if eastward, all rejoiced: if westward, all were troubled.” The Gloss is, “They observed this the last day of the feast of Tabernacles, because the day before, the decree of their judgment concerning the rains of that year was signed, as the tradition is, In the feast of Tabernacles they judged concerning the rains.”¹

If Lightfoot is correct, then to some degree judgment and weather worked hand-in-hand. There appeared to be some recognition that God would “give a sign” through the weather, either by wind, by rain, or by storm.

Have you ever been told that the charismatic movement is new and therefore theologically suspicious? Do not believe such rumors because they are not true, as this book clearly demonstrates. Actually, there may not be another book available today that presents such a continuity of the ministry of the Holy Spirit throughout church history. This book handily debunks the old claim that Pentecostal/charismatics are the new kids on the theological block.

This readable history of the charismata offers convincing evidence that Pentecostal/charismatics stand in a long tradition of God’s supernatural power in His people. From the book of Acts, to the time of persecution under the Roman emperors, to the suppression of the charismata with the institutionalization of the church, to the preservation of those gifts among some ecclesiastical orders and movements outside the institutional church, to the rediscovery of the gifts by the Great Reformation, to the Wesleys and the holiness movements that followed them, to the 20^th Century Pentecostal and charismatic movements—Hyatt summarizes the history of the supernatural ministry of the Holy Spirit among God’s people.

Eddie L. Hyatt

As a student of Pentecostal/charismatic history, the most significant highlights for me were: the succinct way in which the institutionalizing of the church under Constantine was presented as the quencher of the gifts; the explanation of the Anabaptists and Mennonites in contrast to the excessive movements that started from the same Radical Reformation; and a more thorough look at the real nature of Charles Parham’s ministry and its impact on the early Pentecostal movement. Two things I would have liked to have seen would be, first, a summary of some of the great research Dr. Jack Deere on the charismatic nature of the Great Reformation (see especially Surprised by the Voice of God from Zondervan, 1998). Dr. Deere makes quite a case for how any history of the supernatural has been suppressed by anti-charismatic religious leaders (Unfortunately, Hyatt seems to make the same mistake as many classical Pentecostals in equating Calvinism with cessationism [see page 112]. Of course, charismatic Calvinists would object to this assertion). Secondly, the locations of historical events and people seemed to move further and further west throughout the chronology. Although this is an excellent beginning, I also long to see a history of Eastern and global Christianity from a Pentecostal/charismatic perspective.

Looking forward, Hyatt tells us the lessons we stand to learn, “History would inform us that the key for the church in the twenty-first century is not to be found in outward form and structure. Both the New Testament and church history indicate that the key for the church is to be found in an inner attitude of faith in Christ and an openness to the wind of the Spirit that blows, not where He must, but where He wills” (p. 191).

I highly recommend this introduction to the undeniable history of the gifts and ministry of the Holy Spirit through all of church history.

Reviewed by Raul L. Mock

Preview 2000 Years: books.google.com/books/?id=_7Rr7vX6TegC

Ronald A. N. Kydd, Healing through the Centuries: Models for Understanding (Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, Massachusetts: 1998), xxxi+235 pages.

Although the doctrine of healing has a long history in Pentecostal and charismatic circles, it has rarely been investigated from a sympathetic perspective. Ron Kydd’s work is refreshing, because he explores different healing movements within Christianity without dismissing their importance. Divine healing is defined as the direct intervention of God to restore personal health and Kydd develops six models for understanding how healing both functions in and is interpreted by the various healing groups.

Before discussing the models, however, Kydd addresses a number of misunderstandings regarding healing. First, divine healing is not limited to any one group, but has a robust history throughout Christianity. Secondly, without trying to be deceptive, healers and their supporters tend to overstate the manifestations of healing. This tendency is mostly due to the excitement of experiencing of God presence in their midst. Thirdly, there is no stereotypical healer; healers are a diverse lot. Fourthly, healing flows out of the mystery of God, and cannot be reduced to a simple formula. And fifthly, healing cannot be used as proof of doctrinal correctness. In fact, different healing ministries have opposing and sometimes confrontational doctrines, but these groups still experience the grace of God’s healing power.

Kydd develops six models of healing based on his observations in the field: the confrontational, intercessory, reliquarial, incubational, revelational, and soteriological. The confrontational model focuses on the confrontation, victory and liberty of Jesus Christ over sin to heal, in order to plant his kingdom. It includes many early church Fathers, German Pietist Johann Blumhardt and Vineyard leader John Wimber. The intercessory model looks for divine healing through the intervention of saints who have led an exemplary life, and is characteristic of Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. The reliquarial model (meaning “relic”) focuses on the relics of the saints (bodies, objects or tombs) as the vehicle through which healing occurs. Examples include Roman Catholic belief in late antiquity and Middle Ages, and an eighteenth-century group in Paris, which centered on the tomb of François de Pâris. The incubational model insists that divine healing does not come swiftly, but over a period of time in a prayerful, nurturing and hospitable environment. The healing centers in Männedorf, Switzerland and the Morija (also in Switzerland) are representive, but certain healing centers in the Wesleyan Holiness movement could be included as well. In the revelational model, healers are given special, divine knowledge of the need for healing, so that the healer can act accordingly. William Branham and Kathryn Kuhlman are representative of this model. The soteriological model is theologically supported by the notion that miraculous healing is possible through the atoning work of Christ. It has a prominent history in nineteenth-century American religion, culminating in the Pentecostal movement. Healing in this model oscillates between the certainty and the sovereignty of God in healing. Like salvation, healing is certain because it is offered in the atoning work of Christ on the cross, but sovereign in that God may say “no” or “not now” to a person’s healing. Oral Roberts is selected as the quintessential Pentecostal.

“Encouraging the Team” by Rick Kamrath. From the Worship Leader series.

No matter what kind of team, and for whatever purposes the team exists, (ministry, sports, business, etc.), individual players are likely to perform better if they receive encouragement from their leadership. In a worship band, this is often vital to success.

Ideally, a worship band functions creatively as a close-knit group with a respected leader. But, some of the elements which comprise a functional band can contribute to a discouraged team member becoming even more devastated.

Copyright Stan Myers. Used with permission.

Since creativity most often involves the expression of the heart, rejection or even ambivalence toward a band member’s contribution can lead to discouragement, especially if it comes from a leader who the band member respects. Also, if rejection comes from a close-knit group, the member not only risks feeling alienated from her ministry, but from her group as well.

Many times temporary worship bands are pulled together to minister at specific events, and the opportunity for personal interaction between players is minimal. But most praise and worship bands are comprised of regular team members, ministering at a home church. Members need to know their function, reciprocal commitment, and value. After all, while their primary motivation may be to serve the Lord first, and the congregation second, they are also serving the worship leader to help implement how the leader sense worship ought to be performed and led. By their very function, members exist to help the worship leader. Worship pastors sometimes receive a paycheck. Worship team members rarely get a paycheck. They definitely deserve appreciation.

The apostle Paul exhorted Timothy to correct, rebuke and encourage with patience and careful instruction (2 Tim. 4:2). When attempting to build someone up, remember: Encouragement should be honest.

Worship pastors and leaders have found themselves in trouble integrating a much-needed but temporary player into the team only until someone comes along who is better. If the person’s talents aren’t particularly strong, he shouldn’t be “setup” for later disappointment. Be up front about that person’ place on the team, so you don’t have to use the Lord as a scapegoat later. Some people shouldn’t be encouraged to continue in certain functions of a ministry for the long run, but can be an incredible lifesaver until someone else takes the position. If team members have been properly built up and encouraged so that they are secure in what they can do, they will be much more able to accept what they cannot do.

Don’t miss the right opportunities. The time to recognize a team member’s contribution should not only proceed a criticism. Show a valued band member appreciation when they see other more talented musicians around whom could “threaten their job.” Don’t’ wait until the “goodbye party” for a person who feels led to resign from the bad, even if it’s much easier to express appreciation to them. One vineyard worship leader/songwriter created a “7 to 1″ ratio: give at least seven encouragement’s for every one (loving) criticism.

If a leader routinely says “thanks for playing in the band” the same way each week, it won’t mean much after a while. But, if the leader gives the piano player a subscription to “keyboard” magazine, or the church sponsors a worship team dinner occasionally, the team knows that the leadership took the time to think about how to express their appreciation.

This article describes and critiques the pervasive denial of the supernatural elements of the Bible among Rationalism thinkers and philosophers of the last three centuries. Pastor Larson offers convincing proofs for why these rationalistic objections to the miraculous are unfounded. This article is significant for the Pentecostal/charismatic reader because the same arguments used for defending the miracles of the Bible are applicable to the defense of the contemporary gifts of the Holy Spirit. Pastor Larson has, however, written off the contemporary ministry of the miraculous by quoting an erroneous statement by the famous cessationist B. B. Warfield. “Miracles indeed are remote from most people; but this much be the case! They do not happen indiscriminately throughout history; they ‘belong to revelation periods, and appear only when God is speaking through accredited messengers’” (page 92). For a refutation of this cessationist argument, please see the book by former Dallas Theological Seminary professor Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Zondervan, 1993), especially Appendix C “Were There Only Three Periods of Miracles?” pages 253-266.

“When Wal-Mart Moves In” John M. De Marco. Outreach (May-June 2003), pages 46-53.

Pastors of “small” congregations discuss the challenges and opportunities found while ministering in the shadow of the megachurch. Outreach magazine is dedicated to the “Ideas, Insights, & Stories of the Intentional Church” and is in its second year of publication.

Of related interest, although with a near-opposite point, Pastor Daniel A. Brown offers practical insights for the “stuck” church in “Help! My Church Won’t Grow” Ministries Today (July/August 2003), pages 44-48.

“Breaking Chains” Christianity Today (March 2003), pages 46-54.

Two advocates of religious-rights discuss what should be done to help persecuted Christians worldwide. Michael Horowitz, director of the Hudson Institute’s Project for International Liberty, and T. Jeremy Gunn, senior fellow for religion and humans rights at Emory University, present sharply different perspectives. The second half of the debate, “Breaking Chains II” appeared in the April 2003 issue of Christianity Today, pages 88-89.

“The Ruach, the Jews, and the Pentecostal Experience” Ray Gannon. Enrichment (Summer 2003), pages 110-111.

Dr. Gannon succinctly relates that Jews have responded positively to the good news of Messiah when the Spirit is manifested in their midst. He challenges his Assemblies of God readership to be people of the Spirit in order to reveal Jesus as Messiah to the Jewish community.

“Miracle on my street” Tricia Goyer. On Mission (Jan-Feb 2003), pages 35-37.

Using statistics (in Newsweek, May 1, 2000) that 84% of all Americans believe in miracles and a majority of them have themselves experienced one or know someone that has, this article urges using miracle testimonies for evangelistic openers. Predominantly about the miracle power of sharing your testimony, this article is significant in that it appears in the magazine “Helping You Share Christ in the Real World” published by the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

John Eckhardt, “Can a Christian Have a Demon?” Charisma (March 2003), pages 66-68.

The subtitle of John Eckhardt’s article states, “Church people have been arguing for years over the issue of deliverance. I think that it is time to stop arguing and start setting people free.” He then relates how his church used to teach that Christians could not be possessed by a demon since, “Jesus and the Holy Spirit could not live inside the same body in which demons reside” (p. 66). That all changed when they realized that their doctrine did not square with their experience:

The problem was, our experience did not match our theology. When we ministered deliverance, we frequently prayed for people we knew were born-again, Spirit-filled believers—and they manifested demons! We had face the fact that either our experience was wrong or our doctrine was wrong.

We couldn’t question our experience because we knew what we were seeing. So we began to question our theology (p. 66).

Eckhardt then explains that, “Jesus tells us to cast devils out, not to cast devils off” (p. 66) and that demons promote the teaching that Christians cannot have a demon because, “they gain strength from staying hidden” (p. 67). He goes on to explain that deliverance from demon possession is a “covenant right” for believers, and should be performed on every new convert. Near the close of his article Eckhardt concludes, “We don’t question if the new believer has a demon, only how many he has” (p. 68).

John Eckhardt is “Apostle and Overseer of Crusaders Church Chicago.”

While I agree that squabbling over doctrine should not lead to the ruin of those in need, this is a topic that must be engaged. I am encouraged that Charisma is having this discussion, but I fear that the quality of the dialogue must be raised or it will only muddy the waters further. Eckhardt admittedly leans heavily on experience, even going so far as to say that their experiences were beyond question. Yet, he does not deal seriously with scripture. Most of his references are from the Gospels where Jesus is clearly dealing with the unsaved. No text relating specifically to the topic of Christians and demon possession is quoted. This is troubling, because if his teaching is biblical then we should expect it to be supported by Acts and the writings of Paul. Unfortunately for this discussion, Eckhardt never attempts to locate his beliefs on possession within the early church.

This is rather remarkable when you consider some of the claims made in his article. He states as a matter of fact that, “For every sin in the Bible there is a corresponding demon” (p. 68) without any qualifications. He claims the following concerning generational sin:

If we can be subjected to the conse­quences of sin to the fourth generation, as Exodus 20:5 says, and a biblical generation is 40 years, then we are subject to the demonic influence of what people in our family lines were doing 160 years before us. This means that, taking the year 2000 as a starting point, we are affected by what those in our bloodlines were doing as far back as the year 1840.

Think about it. Even if a person has a great genealogy, he can’t know everything his ancestors were doing in secret that long ago. And if, in addition to genera­tional sin, he has committed personal sin or has been traumatized or victimized in any way, by the time he comes to the Lord, he is going to need deliverance on some level. There is just too much defilement and contamination on Earth to escape it (p. 68).

Certainly the above could lead to further bondage such as paranoia and superstition, divorced as it is from New Testament teaching. In the end, I felt that Eckhardt put too much emphasis on experience and too little on scriptural backing. Eckhardt bases his teaching narrowly. If it is biblical, then not just the Gospels, but Acts and the Epistles will support it. Without even an attempt to locate his teaching broadly on scripture, Eckhardt has failed to advance this important discussion.

Reviewed by Michael J. Dies

Read the article online (available as of Aug 7, 2014): www.charismamag.com/spirit/spiritual-growth/846-can-a-christian-have-a-demon

Michael L. Brown, Revolution in the Church: Challenging the religious system with a call for radical change (Grand Rapids: Chosen Books, 2002), 224 pages.

Dr. Brown has authored a provocative book that puts forth his view of how the church needs to change to best fulfill the mandate set forth by Jesus.

The book is divided into eleven chapters. Dr. Brown begins his work with a mixture of opinions and facts designed to convince the reader that the world is on a downward spiral and that it is up to the Christian community to be “radical” and show the world the example of Jesus. Dr. Brown raises concerns about how he believes the Christian community could do a better job of being “radical.” Chapter three, entitled, “The Church is not a Building (and the Family is not a House)” argues that the Christian community is too preoccupied with structures (“cathedral mentality”) and not enough with the “true” message of Christ. He uses appropriate biblical citations to make his point. He ends each chapter by asking the reader if they are willing to join his revolution. In the next chapter, Brown argues that the Christian community is also preoccupied with preachers being performers and the “Body” being an audience instead of a spiritual leader and a “Body” of believers. Unfortunately, Brown begins to attack other members of the Christian community. For example, he expresses his concern about the wearing of vestments and what he describes as “priestly robes” (p. 61). He argues that there is no scriptural basis for the wearing of such garments. This diatribe detracts from his major point, encouraging clergy and laity alike to become more committed to Jesus’ calling rather than the preachers performing and the audience watching.

Brown moves on in Chapter five to explore what it really means to be a disciple. In chapter six, he explores what it means, in his opinion, to follow the “Jesus Pattern.” He calls Christians to not obey the world but to obey Jesus. In chapter seven, Brown asks the question, “Has God ordained Protestant Popes?” The substance of this chapter is a warning to pastors not to abuse their authority. He makes the important point that, “God’s Kingdom operates on different principles…” than the world (p. 121). Unfortunately, Brown lost me in chapter eight: he attacks labor unions. As a sociologist who has studied and teaches about labor unions, Brown’s attack reflects stereotyping at its worst. His main point appears to be that some pastors are more concerned about their own personal interests than spreading the Kingdom of God. In chapter nine, Brown argues that his radicalism is shaped by his view of Jesus, which he sums up by asking, “Dare we rebel against the Lord?” In Chapter ten, Brown argues that the church should explore its Jewish roots. Brown closes his book by arguing that if we are “true” followers of Jesus, we will question the status quo. Brown points out, “Yes, following Jesus means going outside the camp—even though the camp is familiar to us…” (p.188). Brown implies that the Church is too worldly. Unfortunately, if we leave the “camp,” which I assume means denomination, we simply start another movement, which will most likely resemble the one we left. After all, we are human and as humans, we will ultimately fail. Brown argues there must be a revolution and that “biblical blueprints” must be followed (p. 200).

Part of the Rightly Understanding God’s Word series by Craig S. Keener.

As appearing in Pneuma Review Fall 2003.

Take a course on biblical interpretation with New Testament scholar, Professor Craig S. Keener.

Continued from Part 1 in the Summer 2003 issue

Paragraph Context: Checking yourself 

13. What is the “word of God” (or “word of Christ” in most translations) in Romans 10:17? Does it specifically refer to the Bible in this case or to something else?

14. According to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, when will the gifts of the Spirit pass away? What is the immediate context? (cf. 12:31; 14:1) What is the function of 13:4-6 in the context of the whole letter to the Corinthians? (You may save this question until our study on book-context if you wish.)

15. Is faith in Hebrews 11:1 oriented toward receiving something in the present or toward receiving it in the future? (Start back around 10:25 and read through 12:4.)

16. Revelation 3:20. When Jesus knocks at the door, is He trying to get someone converted? To whom is the verse addressed?

17. When God “gave” his Son (Jn 3:16), does this refer to giving Jesus at His birth in Bethlehem or giving Him to the world when God raised Him from the dead? What does “giving” the Son mean in context?

18. When one seeks first the kingdom, what things are added to one (Matt 6:33)?

19. Who are Christ’s ambassadors in 2 Corinthians 5:20? Whom are they entreating to be reconciled to God?

20. Some people say that the “witnesses” in Hebrews 12:1 are the dead watching us from heaven. But in the context of Hebrews chapter 11, does “witnesses” refer to those who watch us or to those who testified to the truth of God’s claims?

21. Some people claim the promise that no weapon formed against them would prosper (Isaiah 54:17). Is this a guarantee for every individual Christian or for God’s people as a whole protected by His plan for them?

22. Does Proverbs 23:7 mean that whatever we think about ourselves will come true? (“As a person thinks in their heart, so they are.”) Or does it mean something else? (Read 23:6-8.)

23. Does Psalm 18:7-15 refer to Jesus’ second coming? Read 18:4-6, 16-19.

24. Who is the rose of Sharon and the lily of the valley in Song of Solomon 2:1-2?

25. In Matthew 18:18, what does Jesus mean by “binding and loosing”? Does He refer to how to treat demons here, or does He refer to something else? (Read especially 18:15-20.)

26. What is the “coming” to which Jesus refers in John 14:1-3? Does He refer here to His second coming or to something else? (Read 14:4-23, and perhaps 13:36-38.)

27. This final question may be the most difficult one. Read Isaiah 7:14 in context (especially 7:10-16; 8:1-4). In the immediate context, to whom does this newborn son refer? (If your conclusions may disturb you, don’t worry; we will clarify them below. But it is important for you to grapple with the text intelligently in its context first, and not simply to interpret the passage according to how you have seen it used elsewhere.)

13. Saving Faith through the Gospel in Romans 10:17

Some people quote Romans 10:17 to support repeating Bible verses to ourselves aloud: “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Of course, repeating the Bible to ourselves is important (if we understand it in context). But those who quote this particular verse to support this practice have neglected the context of Romans 10:17. Paul argues that no one could be saved unless they heard this word, this message of Christ (10:14-15), the “report” of the witnesses (10:16), the “word” in their mouths and hearts (10:8-10). Faith could only come from hearing this word, the gospel of Christ (10:17). In contrast to Hebrews 11:1, where “faith” in context means persevering faith, this passage refers to saving faith. One can’t get saved till one hears the truth about Jesus. This verse doesn’t directly address reciting Bible verses.