Shepherds' Fellowship

(By John MacArthur)

In a column published some years ago in a popular Christian magazine, a well-known preacher was venting his own loathing for long sermons. January 1 was coming, so he resolved to do better in the coming year. "That means wasting less time listening to long sermons and spending much more time preparing short ones," he wrote. "People, I've discovered, will forgive even poor theology as long as they get out before noon."¹

(By John MacArthur)

Today’s post adapted from the Q&A section of Rediscovering Expository Preaching (Nelson, 1997).

How long should a sermon be?

As long as it takes to cover the passage adequately! I do not think the length of the sermon is as important as its content. At times I have preached fifty minutes and it has been ten minutes too long. Other times, I have preached an hour and twenty-five minutes and it has been just right. The important thing is to cover the main point so that people are convinced of its truth and comprehend its requirements. If you have nothing worthwhile to say, even twenty minutes will seem like an eternity to your people. If you are interesting, they will stay with you. Do not mistake persuasion for long-windedness, however. If you preach longer than you should, you will sacrifice persuasiveness.

I am convinced that biblical exposition requires at least forty minutes. Less than this just is not sufficient to probe the text deeply. If it takes fifteen to twenty minutes to give the setting, ten to fifteen minutes to draw out the principles, five to ten minutes to cross-reference them, and five to ten minutes for a conclusion, you already have about fifty minutes. Rarely does a man preaching twenty-five to thirty minutes do doctrinal exposition.

That is why developing the logical flow of a sermon is crucial. If your message is clearly outlined and you lead your people through the process of discovery, you will hold their attention. Your sermon must be going somewhere. You cannot merely give a number of assorted truths unrelated to each other. If your sermon lacks interest because it is disjointed, your people will lose interest.

If you are going to be a Bible expositor, forget the twenty- and thirty-minute sermons. You are looking at forty or fifty minutes. In any less than that, you can’t exposit the Scripture. The purpose of a sermon is not to get it over, but rather to explain the Word of God. My goal is not accomplished because I am brief. My goal is accomplished when I am clear and I have exposited the Word of God.

Won’t people get bored if you preach too long in the same book?

I think people will be bored if you are boring. It is not related to how much time you spend in a book. As long as you are saying things that capture their interest and challenge their lives, they will not care what book you are in or for how long.

I think, however, that a balance is desirable. If you are preaching through a heavily doctrinal book like Romans or Hebrews, it is good to give your people a break from that periodically. If you are preaching through one of the Gospels, such may not be necessary. When I preached through Matthew over an eight-year period, I rarely felt the need to take a break. Matthew contains such a mixture of doctrinal passages, parables, and narrative passages that it changes pace frequently on its own.

At times, too, you will need to deal with a specific topic. You may find that people in your church are being influenced by an unbiblical teaching that you must combat. Or they may be confused over a Bible passage or a theological issue. Also, you may occasionally see a need to preach about the biblical view of a significant world event. In general, though, preaching through a book will not bore people if you are an interesting preacher. This is the purest form of expository preaching.

(By Robert Thomas)

* Dr. Thomas serves as a Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary.

How do you strengthen people who are persecuted because they are Christians?  How do you motivate God-rejecting people to repent and turn to Him?  God’s answer to both questions is by telling them what is to happen in the future, the very thing He does in the last book of the Bible.

That book, Revelation (sometimes called the Apocalypse) by name, centers around prophetic predictions of the future (Rev 1:3; 10:11; 18:20; 19:10; 22:6, 7, 9, 10, 18, 19).  Revelation plays a significant role in biblical prophecy as a whole.  John, one of Jesus’ twelve Apostles, wrote the book in about A.D. 95 while in exile on a small Mediterranean island off the coast of Asia Minor (1:9).  The resurrected Jesus appeared to Him there and gave him information about the future for him to deliver to messengers from seven churches of the nearby Roman province located in the western portion of what is today the country of Turkey.

The announced subject of the book is “things that must happen soon” (Rev 1:1), the highlight of which is stated in the book’s theme verse, “Behold, He (Jesus) will come with the clouds” (1:7).  Revelation deals with the return of Jesus Christ and all the events accompanying His return.  In instructing John to write the book, Jesus appeared to the Apostle in a glorified state (1:12-16) and gave him an advance outline of the prophecy (1:19).  It was to include the vision of Jesus he had just seen (1:12-16), a message to each of the seven churches (Revelation 2–3), and events that were to transpire on earth after the faithful in the churches were taken away to heaven at Jesus’ promised coming (Revelation 4–22).

Two themes recur in Jesus’ messages to the churches, one of threat and one of encouragement.  The threats He issued to those in the churches whose relationship to Himself was only superficial.  Those He promised to come and judge because of their empty profession (2:5; 3:11, 16).  For them an unparalleled hour of trial is imminent (3:10).  His words of encouragement went to the faithful who had stood firm in the face of persecution caused by their faith in Him.  For these He promised His imminent return to deliver them from their adversity (2:25; 3:11, 20).  Chapters 2 and 3 advise the churches about needed adjustments in their lives in view of the outpouring of God’s wrath about to be described in chapters 4 and following.

Jesus devoted the bulk of His revelation to John to describing judgments about to fall on an unrepentant world because of their rebellion against God.  Through prophetic vision He first allowed John to visit the heavenly throne-room from which the judgments will proceed (Revelation 4–5).  There the prophet encountered the Father seated on His throne and the slain Lamb Jesus who was the only one worthy to open a seven-sealed scroll that the Father gave Him.

As it turns out, that seven-sealed scroll contained the remainder of Revelation except for some concluding remarks in chapter 22.  John saw the breaking of the first six seals (Revelation 6) portrayed as a drama before his eyes.  First came four different-colored horses with riders depicting peaceful conquest of the world, warfare and bloodshed, widespread famine, and death to one-quarter of earth’s population.  Then he witnessed martyred saints in heaven praying for God to avenge their blood by punishing people responsible for their deaths.  Next, the sixth seal divulged various cosmic and terrestrial disturbances that signal unmistakably to earth’s inhabitants that the seal judgments have initiated the predicted wrath of God against rebellious humanity.

The breaking of the seventh seal (8:1) resulted in the sounding of seven trumpets (8:7–11:15), in themselves seven physical judgments additional to and more severe than those of the first six seals.  The first six trumpets were prophetic of (1) the burning up of a third of earth’s vegetation, (2) destruction of a third of sea life, (3) poisoning of a third of earth’s fresh water, (4) darkening of a third of the heavenly bodies, (5) a pain-inflicting demonic locust plague, and (6) death to a third of earth’s inhabitants through another demonic visitation.

The blowing of the seventh trumpet (11:15) eventuated in another series predicting God’s future visitations against rebellious mankind, the seven bowls of God’s wrath (15:7).  The seven bowls represented to John what will be the seven last plagues that will complete God’s wrath (15:1) against creatures who have rebelled against Him.  The first six of those  plagues will produce (1) the afflicting of false-christ worshipers with incurable sores, (2) death to all sea life, (3) transformation of all fresh water into blood, (4) scorching of all rebels because of superheat from the sun, (5) darkening of the false-christ’s kingdom, and (6) battle preparation for the doom of earth’s kings (16:1-16).

The prophetic message of the seventh bowl of God’s wrath carries forward into the eternal state (16:17–22:5).  It will include eight main events: the second coming of Christ to conquer His enemies, a summons of birds to feast on conquered humans, the slaughter of Christ’s human opponents, Satan’s imprisonment, Satan’s release and final defeat, the setting of the Great White Throne, sentencing of lost people to the lake of fire, and a sketch of the New Jerusalem and those excluded from it (19:11–21:8).

Along with his description of the seals, trumpets, and bowls John’s visions also furnished supplemental data (7:1-17: 10:1–14:20; 17:1–18:24; 21:9–22:5) to clarify for readers details of the future judgments that will occupy seven years, one thousand years, and eternity future as this present creation of God runs its course and steps aside to be replaced by His new creation.

Revelation’s picture of the future is more than sufficient to strike terror in the thoughts of any person who has not made his/her peace with God through a personal invitation to Christ for salvation from sin and its punishment.  But that picture is also more than sufficient to offer incentive to the faithful believer in Christ to persevere through present trials, awaiting His imminent coming to deliver from those trials to a future of unparalleled joy.

Note: For more information on the details of Revelation, you may obtain a somewhat fuller discussion of the book in my portion of Four Views on Revelation (Zondervan, 1998), pp. 179-229.  For a full discussion of Revelation, please consult my Revelation 1–7 (Moody Press, 1992) and Revelation 8–22 (Moody Press, 1995).  To order online, please visit www.gbibooks.com.

(By Rich Gregory)

Lessons from Amos

Nearly every preacher has secretly wondered the dreadful question, “Are they getting it?” The tendency after having proclaimed God’s message on a Sunday morning or any other time can often be to look for results in the lives of the hearers. When that preacher comes up dry, and no “results” are readily apparent, discouragement can easily set in. In times like this, where does the preacher get the motivation to get up and proclaim the message the very next week? 

Enter the prophet Amos. It was a time that seemed to hold great hope for the future. The Assyrian empire was on the decline, the borders of the kingdom of Israel were rapidly expanding, and wealth began to pour into the kingdom once more. They had never been more secure since the time of the great king Solomon over 170 years previous. Society was content with who and where they were as a people. Power, prestige, prosperity, and peace were within the nation’s grasp. 

This seeming solid reality however, was only the sheerest of facades. The truth of the matter was that the religious observance of the people was nothing more than hypocritical observance, and the vast bulk of the population of the land was oppressed and burdened down at the expense of the wealthy and powerful nobles within the governmental structure.   According to 1 Kings 14:27, the only reason that God did not immediately judge the nation was because He had not let them know that He was on the verge of blotting their name out from under heaven. What the people didn’t know was that final judgment was a mere 38 years away.  

Amos enters his pulpit and delivers God’s case against the self-righteous, contented people of his day. In Amos 3, Amos states God’s case against the people and reveals to them the rock solid nature of God’s verdict.  Essentially, their election as God’s chosen people formed the foundation for their condemnation. God’s verdict against their sin was clear and it was compelling. The people would be judged for their iniquity. When Amos first proclaimed his message, he must have been hoping for some kind of repentance from the hard-hearted people. After all, he had probably heard about the amazing results of Jonah’s proclamation far north in Ninevah only a couple of years previously. If the Assyrians could repent, then surely Israel, God’s own people would do the same. 

Amos proclaims his message, and yet the people don’t get it.  From the text, it seems apparent that they questioned Amos, and failed to believe him, because Amos is forced to launch into a rhetorical progression that proves their guilt. They wanted proof. Their response proves God’s point. Amos gives them their evidence and concludes by stating, “The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken; who can but prophesy?” The reason that the people could know that the judgment of God was coming, was because the prophet of God was standing before them, and the blaring roar of the all-powerful Lion was still ringing in that prophet’s ears. Because Amos had heard that roar, he had a responsibility before God to proclaim the message that he had received.   

The situation is not much changed in our day. We live in a world and society where people are content to live out their lives unaware of the fact that they are bound to the harsh and toxic reality of their sinfulness. All of the persuasion in the world seems to be incapable of moving them. They are dead in their trespasses and sins, and therefore do not hear the roar of the lion in their condition. Those people – our neighbors, co-workers, friends, and oftentimes congregants – need a messenger. We, as the people of God, who have come to a saving knowledge of the Life-giver, are to be that messenger. We are the ones in Amos’s place, and we are called to proclaim the good news of God’s gospel.  

The Lion of Judah has come, and He has roared with a voice that continues to echo through the corridors of time even 2,000 years later!   Have you heard that roar, and do your ears ring from it’s blast? If you’ve heard it, then you have a responsibility to proclaim the message of life to a dying world that is under the irrepressible judgment of God, regardless of their reaction to it. Much like Amos’ day, God’s judgment is rushing down upon mankind for “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). 

Our world is lost, dying, and in bondage. God’s case against their sin is irrefutable, and His sentence is overwhelming.   Because we have heard the roar of God’s voice in the person of Christ, we have been entrusted with the message of reconciliation.  As Paul explained in 2 Corinthians 5:20, “We are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us.  We are to implore our world on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God!” We are to be the mouthpiece for the roaring message of God. There is no greater honor, duty, or joy! This is why we preach, even if the people listening don’t seem to “get it.” If you’ve heard that roar, then you, as the messenger of God are called to joyfully listen, bow, and proclaim!  

(By Austin Duncan)

* Austin serves as the high school pastor at Grace Community Church.

Paul was in it for the money. His motives were less than pure, in fact, he and his missionary team caused a riot, and then left you to clean up their mess. "Preach and Run" – that’s his motto. He was not sincere – you and everyone who listened to him were fooled, duped. And now look at you, can you honestly say that Paul’s coming improved your life? You lost your possessions, your favor in the community. He doesn’t care about you – he abandoned you as soon as times got tough. Paul’s character is questionable; did you know he was fresh out of jail when he got here? He’s a criminal at least – a traitor and a villain at worse. He was a troublemaker and an authoritarian who didn't care about you and your family. He tricked you. He offered “free salvation” in exchange for international celebrity and monetary gain. You were charmed and you were cheated by a coward and a thief.
 
The accusations were awful. The outsiders who hated Paul were assailing his character and motives in an effort to destroy his credibility and his message. Paul, along with Silus and Timothy, was under attack by his critics. But he wasn't being attacked directly. It was the church in Thessalonica that heard every slanderous word hurled at their beloved apostle. At first they could dismiss it. They remembered Paul, they knew the transforming power of the gospel…but after time went on and there was no word from Paul, and increasing hostility toward these new Christians and the lies and rumors and accusations about hiim piled up they may have begun to doubt the sincerity of their faith, and the motives of their leaders. Timothy came to visit and he saw that they were being shaken by these false accusations and lies, so he told Paul that the reputation of the missionaries who first brought the gospel to Thessalonica were under attack. He defends himself for the sake of the truth. He tackles every accusation head on – his defense – is the truth – his absolute integrity – he doesn’t have to make anything up.
 
All true gospel ministers will face opposition and accusation. In 1 Thessalonians chapter 2, Paul provides his best defense and gives to a legacy of ministers an example that the strongest testimony to the validity and trustworthiness of our ministries is our own pure motives and integrity. Let’s read 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12 today and compare Paul’s motives and mission to our own ministries.
 
1 Thessalonians 2:1-12

For you yourselves know, brethren, that our coming to you was not in vain, 2 but after we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel of God amid much opposition. 3 For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; 4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who examines our hearts. 5 For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed-- God is witness-- 6 nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority.7 But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children. 8 Having so fond an affection for you, we were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us. 9 For you recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, how working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. 10 You are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers; 11 just as you know how we were exhorting and encouraging and imploring each one of you as a father would his own children, 12 so that you would walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory.

(By Rich Gregory)

When the average person hears the word history, it may take several seconds to stop yawning. Understandably, the image that pops into their mind is of the droning professor from bygone years who seemed to enjoy the medieval torture of essay tests and arduous projects. Thus, when it comes time for the Bible interpreter to think about recreationally studying history, the thought can be revolting and is rapidly dismissed as being an extraneous exercise rising from the dark corners of academia. 

This perception however, could not be more damaging to the exegete.  It is important for the expositor to realize that the text of Scripture was first experienced in, recorded around, and must be interpreted through the original context and culture in which it was penned. To divorce exegesis from historical understanding is to strip away a great degree of practical understanding and can also greatly inhibit interpretational accuracy. Either one of these errors leads to an exposition that is found wanting in it’s drive towards accurate interpretation and proclamation. 

The application of historical study within sermon preparation is not a dry and dusty enterprise, but rather is tantamount to reaching through the veil of time and touching the original characters. It is an exercise that lends color, detail, and vitality not only to the text, but also to the expositor’s explanation of that text as well. As Walter Liefeld states in his book, New Testament Exposition, “When I begin to ask how people felt, what their needs were, why they needed a word from God or the particular ministry that was given them, and whether there is anything here that corresponds to our contemporary situation, I am beginning to bridge the chasm of the centuries” (p. 97). Historical study is the method by which we are able to progress beyond simply viewing the ruins of ancient societies and are actually able to “touch” the past, and insert ourselves into the world of the original text. When it comes to exposition, the text gives only the skeleton, while the background data serves to give the picture detail.  

We, as students of the book, are called to gain a proper practical understanding of God’s Word. That book, to which we have devoted our lives, is a book that was written by real men in real life situations, with real cultural concerns and pressures. Those cultural factors, albeit controlled by a sovereign God, dictated to them the way by which the narrative of the text would unfold and be recorded. We, as interpreters however, are bound by the problem of historical distance. We live in a different culture with its own customs, a country with its own history, and a millennium with a myriad of developments stemming from modern life. To have a grasp upon the practical understanding of the text, we must divest ourselves of our own modern mindset, and travel back to their way of life in order to fully understand the commands and events as they would have been perceived by the original recipients and actors.   

A good understanding of hermeneutics reveals that the interpretation of any text hinges upon understanding of the details of that text. The importance of historical detail is just as real a factor to the proper interpretation of the text as the syntactical, lexical, and contextual data. When you, through your mind’s eye, are finally able to breathe the air of the Promised Land as the people of God come up out of the desert, and are able to hear the march of Roman troops beating through the streets of Jerusalem, then you are close to being able to comprehend the world of the ancients. When, using your imaginative abilities, you are able to smell the salt off the Dead Sea as the walls of Jericho crumble, and when you are able to touch, through the veil of time, the judgment chair of Pontius Pilate, and know the pressures of his job as he pronounces guilt upon the innocent Son of God, then the contexts of the Scripture suddenly spring to life from their seemingly dusty pages and become a real, living account. Suddenly, you have been thrust into the redemptive drama authored by the hand and will of God alone. 

It is largely through a proper understanding of the ancient culture that modern application and interpretation flow. Once the history behind a text has been mined, the interpreter is able to place himself in the position of the original recipient or writer, and is subsequently able to have a better grasp of the timeless truth that God is communicating. After this timeless truth, augmented by the understanding of historical context, has been apprehended, the translation and application into modernity comes smoothly and seamlessly. As individuals who make homiletics and the study of God’s Word their livelihood, it is critical to merge a proper understanding of history with homiletical skill. To a certain degree, the health of our congregation, the accuracy of our interpretation, and the pointedness of our application rests partly upon our ability and willingness to engage the ancient world as it once existed.  Be willing to insert yourself into the world of the text in your quest to better understand and proclaim it’s glorious truths.   

(By Charles Spurgeon) 

Today’s post comes from an 1884 sermon by Spurgeon. Though over a century old, its point is as relevant today as when it was first preached.

You [as preachers] have nothing else to employ as the means of good, except the salvation of Jesus, and there is nothing else worth telling.

I heard of a congregation the other day that was so very small that hardly any one came to listen to the preacher. Instead of blaming himself, and preaching better, the minister said he thought he was not doing much good by sermons and prayer-meetings, and therefore he would found a club, and if the fellows came in, and played draughts, that might do them good. What a lot of that sort of thing is now being tried! We are going to convert souls on a new system,—are we? Are we also to have a substitute for bread?—and healthier drink than pure water?  . . . 

[T]o hope ever to bring sinners to holiness and heaven by any teaching but that which begins and ends in Jesus Christ is a sheer delusion. None other name is given among men whereby they can be saved. If you have to deal with highly learned and educated people, nothing is so good for them as preaching Jesus Christ; and if the people be ignorant and degraded, nothing is better for them than the preaching of Jesus.

A young man said to another the other day, “I am going down to preach at So-and-so, what sort of people are they there? What kind of doctrine will suit them?” Having heard of the question, I gave this advice,—”You preach Jesus Christ, and that will suit them, I am sure, if they are learned people it will suit them; if they are ignorant it will suit them—God blessing it.”

When the great Biblical critic, Bengel, was dying, he sent for a young theological student, to whom he said, “I am low in spirit; say something good to cheer me.” “My dear Sir,” said the student, “I am so insignificant a person, what can I say to a great man like yourself?” “But if you are a student of theology,” said Bengel, “you ought to have a good word to say to a dying man; pray say it without fear.” “Well, Sir,” said he, “What can I say to you, but that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin?” Bengel said, “Give me your hand, young man; that is the very word I wanted.”

A simple gospel text is the word which every man needs who is in fear of divine wrath, and he may be sitting next to you at this moment, or he is in the same house of business with you, and needs that you should tell him about Christ. Do that, and bless his soul. May you all understand the Scriptures in this way, and may God make you a great blessing to those around you.

(By John MacArthur)

If we judged success by worldly standards, some might be inclined to assess Paul’s leadership career as an abject failure and a bitter disappointment.

In the closing days of his life, when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, Luke was virtually his only contact with the outside world (4:11). Paul was confined in a Roman dungeon, dreading the savage cold of coming winter (vv. 13, 21), and without any hope of deliverance from the death sentence that had been imposed on him. He suffered because of the sadistic contempt of his enemies. He was even abandoned or disavowed by some of his closest friends. He wrote, “This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me” (2 Timothy 1:15). “Asia” refers to Asia Minor, where Paul had focused his missionary work. Ephesus, where Timothy pastored, was the capital of that region. So Paul wasn’t telling Timothy anything Timothy didn’t already know firsthand. In that time of fierce persecution, association with Paul had become so costly that all but a few of the apostle’s own spiritual children had in effect disowned and abandoned him.

That’s why people who see things superficially might think the end of Paul’s life was tragic. At first glance, it might even seem as if his enemies had finally defeated him.

A failure? Actually, the apostle Paul was not a failure as a leader by any measure. His influence continues worldwide even today. By contrast, Nero, the corrupt but powerful Roman emperor who ordered Paul’s death, is one of history’s most despised figures. This is yet another reminder that influence is the true test of a person’s leadership, not power or position per se. In fact, a careful look at how Paul’s life and ministry came to an end can teach us a lot about how to gauge the success or failure of a leader.

Paul’s first long imprisonment and trial before Nero apparently ended in the apostle’s release sometime before AD 64, because he wrote the epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus as a free man (1 Timothy 3:14-15; 4:13; Titus 3:12). But that liberty was short-lived. In July of the year 64, seven of Rome’s fourteen districts burned. When the original fire was nearly extinguished, another fire, fanned by fierce winds, broke out in another district. Rumors circulated that Nero himself had ordered the burning of the city to make room for some ambitious building projects, including a golden palace for himself.

Trying desperately to deflect suspicion, Nero blamed Christians for starting the fires. That began the first of several major, aggressive campaigns by the Roman government to destroy the church. Christians in Rome were rounded up and executed in unspeakably cruel ways. Some were sewn into animal skins and ripped to death by dogs. Others were impaled on stakes, covered with pitch, and burned as human torches to light Nero’s garden parties. Many were beheaded, fed to lions, or otherwise disposed of at Nero’s command in equally ruthless ways.

During that persecution, Paul was again taken prisoner by the Roman authorities, brought to Rome, subjected to persecution and torment (2 Timothy 4:17), and finally executed as a traitor because of his relentless devotion to the lordship of Christ.

Throughout his first imprisonment at Rome, Paul had been kept under house arrest (Acts 28:16, 30). He was allowed freedom to preach and teach those who visited him (v. 23). He was under the constant guard of a Roman soldier but was treated with respect. The influence of his ministry had therefore reached right into the household of Caesar (Philippians 4:22).

Paul’s second imprisonment, however, was markedly different. He was virtually cut off from all outside contact and kept chained in a dungeon (2 Timothy 1:16). He was probably held underground in the Mamertine Prison, adjacent to the Roman forum, in a small, dark, bare stone dungeon whose only entrance was a hole in the ceiling scarcely large enough for one person to pass through. The dungeon itself is not large; about half the size of a small one-car garage. Yet it was sometimes used to hold as many as forty prisoners. The discomfort, the dark, the stench, and the misery were almost unbearable.

That dungeon still exists, and I have been in it. The stifling, claustrophobic confines of that dark hole are eerie and depressing even today. It was there (or in a dungeon just like it) that Paul spent the final days of his life.

There is no reliable record of Paul’s execution, but he obviously knew the end of his life was imminent when he wrote his second epistle to Timothy. Evidently he had already been tried, convicted, and condemned for preaching Christ, and perhaps the day of his execution was already scheduled. He wrote to Timothy, “I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand” (2 Timothy 4:6).

Naturally, there are notes of profound sadness in Paul’s final epistle. But its dominant theme is triumph, not defeat. Paul wrote that last letter to Timothy to encourage the young pastor to be bold and courageous and to continue following the example he had learned from his apostolic mentor. Far from writing a concession of failure, Paul sounds a clarion note of victory: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing” (2 Timothy 4:7-8).

Facing his own imminent martyrdom, Paul had no fear, no despondency, and no desire to stay in this world. He longed to be with Christ and eagerly anticipated the reward He would receive in the next world. Therefore, as he reviewed the course of his life, he expressed no regret, no sense of unfulfillment, and no feeling of incompleteness. There was not the smallest duty left undone. He had finished the work the Lord gave him to do, just as in Acts 20:24 he had hoped and prayed he would do: “so that I may finish my race with joy.”

Paul measured his own success as a leader, as an apostle, and as a Christian by a single criterion: He had “kept the faith”—meaning both that he had remained faithful to Christ and that he had kept the message of Christ’s gospel intact, just as he had received it. He had proclaimed the Word of God faithfully and fearlessly. And now he was passing the baton to Timothy and to others, who would be “able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2).

Therefore, Paul faced his own death with a triumphant spirit and with a deep sense of joy. He had seen the grace of God accomplish all that God designed in him and through him, and now he was ready to meet Christ face-to-face.

Six weeks ago, Greg Laurie posted a helpful article on the growing trend among pastors to use worldly speech from the pulpit. We have excerpted part of that article below, with a link to his blog where you can read the rest.

It seems to me that for some we have lost the “fear of the Lord,” even in the Church.

There was a time when things were perhaps too uptight, and one spoke in whispers in the Church, and laughter was rarely heard. But today, many churches, in their attempt to be thought of as “cool” or “contemporary,” they have lost their focus.

I am not suggesting we attempt to be irrelevant and uncool, but my question is “Have we traded reverence for relevance?”

For instance, you have preachers talking in great detail about sexual issues, ranging from programs to have “sex every day for seven days” to more extreme versions in which they speak very graphically about specific sexual acts from the pulpit.

Then you have the “Cussing Preacher” syndrome. The pastor thinks it’s cool to use profanity in the pulpit so people will see him as one of them.

Is this all really necessary? I don’t think so.

Look, I have been a pastor for 35 years, and we have never had a problem reaching our culture and seeing people come to Christ. I am all for being real and authentic, but I also stand up on the platform to speak God’s Word.

. . .  I am all for relevance. We need to make sense to the people we are reaching. But let’s not lower our standard in order to extend our reach.

Read the rest here

(By John MacArthur)

Before we close this brief series, I promised to answer as many questions as possible from people who have commented here, via e-mail, through Twitter, and at Challies.com.

I first want to thank Tim Challies for his courage in hosting a discussion about this topic. The very mention of propriety and language obviously stirs contemporary evangelical passions—and not necessarily in a way that is helpful. It's not easy to find forums on the Internet where such a volatile matter can be openly discussed with profit. And because of some of the very problems this series has addressed, even Christian forums aren't always safe havens from profanity and grossly carnal behavior. I'm grateful to Tim for sponsoring a more dignified level of dialogue.

I resounded with the utter shock Tim expressed when he was exposed to some of the material from Driscoll’s Scotland sermon (the message that sparked this blog series). After reading some of Driscoll’s outrageous statements, Tim reacted the way any pure-minded Christian would react:

I have a real problem with anyone interpreting Song of Solomon like that . . . .  To be honest, words fail me when I even try to explain myself—when I try to explain how I just cannot even conceive of Song of Solomon like that. The poetic nature of the Song is entirely eroded when we assign such meaning to it: such specific meaning. And I think as well of what it may do to a couple to be able to say “Look, this specific sex act is mandated in Scripture. So let’s do it.” That may be said to a spouse who has no desire to do that act or who even finds it distasteful. And yet with our interpretation of Song of Solomon, which we really have no way of proving (at least beyond a reasonable doubt) we are potentially bludgeoning an unwilling partner into doing something. I just … again, words really fail me here.

Tim, you were right to be shocked. The most shocking thing to me is that some people do not seem to be shocked at all. What would easily receive an NC-17 rating by the world is being heralded and defended by some in the church.

I should explain that I don't use the Internet directly; I don't even own a computer or have an Internet connection in my home. I'm totally dependent on staff and pastoral interns who print material that I need to read and make sure I get it.

So for those who perhaps expected that I would interact with their comments in real time on the blog, I simply have no easy means of doing that. I scan comments when I receive them—which usually isn't until the next day—but I cannot answer blog-comments directly, nor would I be able to devote my time to Internet forums even if I were connected.

But I do want to take this opportunity to reply to the most frequently asked questions from the past few days. Virtually all the questions and criticisms that have been raised can be grouped in two categories. A few are questions and observations about the proper interpretation of Song of Solomon. Virtually all the rest have to do with my criticism of Mark Driscoll.

I'll answer several questions from the first category, and summarize my answers to the second category in two final answers.

* * * * *

1. Can we "give the sense," when we preach poetry without doing, verse-by-verse, precept-by-precept exposition? Or is it better to just leave it "carefully veiled," as MacArthur writes?

The question misconstrues what I said. I have never suggested that the clear meaning of any text ought to be "carefully veiled." I pointed out that some things in Scripture are carefully veiled, and we should not impose our own speculative interpretations on them.

In other words, I'm urging pastors to deal with what the text says, and steer clear of imposing gnostic-style secret meanings on ideas that are deliberately left obscure or totally hidden by the Holy Spirit.

I'm saying nothing more than I would say about speculative interpretations of any part of Scripture: it's unwise. No, it’s seriously dangerous. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us . . . " (Deut. 29:29).

I'm also saying that the way the Spirit discussed the holy intimacy and privacy of marital love is antithetical to the sort of crass, graphic pseudo-interpretations some contemporary evangelicals seem to crave.

* * * * *

2.  Song of Solomon is a very explicit erotic book. How can you possibly argue that this book of the Bible, which is God's Holy Word, is anything but "fully explicit"? Isn't it a denial of the obvious to claim that the Song of Solomon is not a pretty graphic description of sex?

explicit -- ek ● SPLIS ● it  -- Distinctly expressing all that is meant; leaving nothing merely implied or suggested; unambiguous

Since there is not one explicit mention of a reproductive body part or sexual act in Song of Solomon, no credible commentator on the Song would ever make such a claim about that book. Furthermore (and this is the key point of the whole discussion) Song of Solomon is not "erotic" literature in any sense—i.e., it is not intended to arouse readers sexually. Clearly it should never be preached in a way that has that effect. That is so obvious a point that only an exploiter of the book would ignore it for prurient interests.

* * * * *

3. Do you not see a distinction between metaphor and euphemism?

Of course. But sometimes a metaphor is also a euphemism, and that is clearly the case with some of the disputed imagery in Song of Solomon. There is no exegetical way to decide what the various jewels, flowers, scents, oils, and other sensual pleasures named in the poem represented in the author’s mind. He purposely leaves them vague. The symbols are therefore not necessarily meant to have any one-to-one relationship with corresponding realities; rather they are general emblems of beauty and desire. Solomon uses the symbolism instead of saying anything explicit—which (by definition) makes these metaphors euphemistic, too.

Along these lines, Richard Hess, on pp. 34-35 of his Baker Old Testament Commentary, notes the danger of reading too much into the Song’s beautiful metaphors:

The metaphor of the Song is the richest of any book in the Bible. It is, however, not intended to provide a simple one-to-one correspondence. In fact, interpreters are most likely to go astray into absurdities when they attempt to match things up where they are not explicit. . . .  The best interpretation is to remain sensitive to the language of imagery and attempt to follow its contours without imposing too much demand on specifics of interpretation. . . . The Song does not entertain its readers with prurient expositions nor educate them as a sex manual.

* * * * *

4. Could it be that your scruples about graphic descriptions of sexual acts are cultural and generational? Perhaps the culture in which you minister isn't as uninhibited as the subcultures other preachers are trying to reach.

Sex is not something new in the postmodern era. Every culture and every generation has dealt with the same obsessions and perversions as today—though not always with the same unbridled self-indulgence our culture encourages. Every Christian has always faced the same lusts and temptations that assault us: "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man" (1 Corinthians 10:13). Those who think pornography and unrestrained debauchery weren't commonplace in the pre-Internet era ought to visit the ruins of Pompeii and see what life was like in the culture of Rome during the apostle Paul's generation.

Paul ministered in cultures that were far less “inhibited” than ours. Yet when he found it necessary to deal with sexual topics—whether giving positive instruction about the marriage relationship or a negative exhortation about sexual sins—he never spoke in sexually graphic terms.

Moreover, what was sinful in Paul's era is still sinful in our porn-saturated culture. And Paul's strategy for reaching Corinth (one of the most sexually perverted subcultures ever known) is the same strategy we ought to be using today. That includes some careful, dignified, authentically biblical teaching on sexual issues (cf. 1 Corinthians 7). But holiness, not how-to advice on sex, is the heart of what pastors ought to be teaching about sex (especially in a sex-addicted culture). And our teaching on the subject must be done with grace, dignity, and sanctification, not in the manner of blue comedy.

The truth is that God’s Word never gives specific instruction about the details of a married couple’s personal preferences in their sex life. Sermons that pretend to find such instruction, like the sexual preoccupation demonstrated in these assaults on the Song of Solomon, are more damaging than helpful—because they elevate the imagination of the preacher to a higher position of prominence and authority than the true revelation of God.

Neither Paul nor any other legitimate church leader in 2000 years has ever found it necessary (or even helpful) to use streetwise sex education—not as an evangelistic strategy, and certainly not as a means to sanctification for people already overwhelmed with sex-talk from a corrupt culture. Adopting the world’s obsession with sex and filthy talk cannot possibly have a sanctifying effect, because the strategy itself is unholy.

The notion that degenerate subcultures and sexually-addicted people cannot be reached without “learning to speak their language” is an absolute fallacy. Grace Church is seven miles from Hollywood, in the heart of Southern California, in a carnal, pleasure-mad culture well-known worldwide for everything but healthy spiritual values. No city in America is more “unchurched” than our valley, which houses more than three million people. The people of Grace church are reaching friends and neighbors in every imaginable subculture—from ex-cons to ex-Catholics to people in the entertainment industry. We baptize new believers virtually every Sunday night. It is neither necessary nor helpful to inject explicit sexual references into the conversation in order to reach people from such a culture. God draws them to Christ through the gospel.

* * * * *

5. You titled your articles "The rape of Song of Solomon." If you object so much to strong language and sexual themes, doesn't that seem over the top?

One of the fundamental problems with this whole discussion is a refusal by many to acknowledge the crucial (and elementary) distinction between strong language and obscene language. Mark Driscoll himself contributed to this confusion by blending and blurring the two issues in his message last fall at the Desiring God Conference.

Scripture condemns heretics in powerful, sometimes indelicate, terms (e.g., Galatians 5:12). But the Bible is never smutty, and the strong language in Scripture certainly doesn't make profane language or filthy joking acceptable (Ephesians 5:4).

In the first article of the series, I explained why the title is fitting. If  someone thinks it is an example of what I have decried, that person hasn’t understood what I am saying at all. Rape is an act of forced violation; and this treatment of Solomon’s Song is a molestation of the book, tearing off its God-designed veil, publicly defiling its purity, and holding it up for leering and laughter.

* * * * *

6. Was Driscoll’s sermon really as bad as you say? Aren’t you overreacting to what is ultimately just a difference in style?

During the Downgrade Controversy, Charles Spurgeon was essentially accused of the same thing—a misrepresentation of the facts and an overreaction to the issues. Here is what Spurgeon said in response to his critics:

The controversy which has arisen out of our previous articles is very wide in its range. Different minds will have their own opinions as to the manner in which the combatants have behaved themselves; for our own part we are content to let a thousand personal matters pass by unheeded. What does it matter what sarcasms or pleasantries may have been uttered at our expense? The dust of battle will blow away in due time; for the present the chief concern is to keep the standard in its place, and bear up against the rush of the foe.

Our warning was intended to call attention to an evil which we thought was apparent to all: we never dreamed that "the previous question" would be raised, and that a company of esteemed friends would rush in between the combatants, and declare that there was no cause for war, but that our motto might continue to be "Peace, peace!" Yet such has been the case, and in many quarters the main question has been, not "How can we remove the evil?" but, "Is there any evil to remove?" No end of letters have been written with this as their theme—"Are the charges made by Mr. Spurgeon at all true?" Setting aside the question of our own veracity, we could have no objection to the most searching discussion of the matter. By all means let the truth be known.

In the spirit of Charles Spurgeon, then, I feel there is no other course of action than to let the truth be known. This link (which someone emailed to me yesterday) will take you to some of the things Mark Driscoll has said about Song of Solomon. My preference would be not to link to these things at all (there is, in fact, much more that I could link to), and I would warn that the content is highly offensive (especially since it was preached in a Sunday worship service where children, teenagers, and young singles were present). But, as Paul told the Corinthians, sometimes it is necessary to bear with a little foolishness in order that the truth might be known.

The New Testament could not be more clear. The mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart (Matthew 12:34). And those who teach publicly are held to a higher level of accountability (James 3:1). Pastors, in particular, are to be models of purity (1 Tim. 4:12), above reproach both within the church and without (1 Tim. 3:2–7). Purity in doctrine, purity in life, and purity in speech are all part of the biblical qualifications for those who would be God’s spokesmen. 

Ephesians 4:29  Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
 
Ephesians 5:4–5  There must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

1 Thessalonians 4:7  For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.

Titus 2:6–8  Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.

That’s why I am making such an issue of this. Because the New Testament makes an issue of it. It is not simply a difference of opinion, generation, preference, style, or methodology. It is an issue that arises from clear New Testament mandates related to the character of an elder. If anything, I don’t think I have reacted strongly enough.

* * * * *

7. Why did you single out Driscoll and connect him with the "sex challenges"? Why call him out publicly? He has already repented of his unguarded speech, and he is being privately discipled by men like John Piper and C. J. Mahaney, who keep him accountable. Did you consult them before calling Driscoll out by name? If the problem is as serious as you claim, why haven't they said something publicly about it?

In the sermon that prompted this series, Mark Driscoll (speaking specifically to wives in the congregation) made several comments that were far, far worse than the seamiest sex challenges. Furthermore, Driscoll's edicts to married women were not mere "challenges" but directives buttressed with the claim that "Jesus Christ commands you to do [this]." That material has been online and freely circulated for more than a year. But you’ll be hard pressed to find even a single Web forum where anyone has demanded that Driscoll explain why he feels free to say such things publicly.

I am pointing out something that should not be the least bit controversial: pastors are not free to talk like that. In response, a flood of angry young men, including several pastors and seminary students—not one of whom has ever attempted a private conversation with me about this topic—have felt free to post insults and public rebukes in a public forum, declaring emphatically (with no obvious awareness of the irony) that they don’t believe such things should be handled in public forums.

(To be clear: I’m not suggesting that anyone needs to contact me privately about public remarks I have made. Quite the contrary. But those who insist such disagreements should be handled privately reveal the hypocrisy of that claim when they use a public forum to berate and accuse a pastor whom they disagree with.)

When 1 Timothy 5:20 says, “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all,” it is talking about elders in particular. Those in public ministry must be rebuked publicly when their sin is repeated, and public, and confirmed by multiple witnesses.

Nevertheless, I have written Mark privately with my concerns. He rejected my counsel. As a matter of fact, he preached the sermon I have been quoting from seven weeks after receiving my private letter encouraging him to take seriously the standard of holiness Scripture holds pastors to. Here is a small selection from the six-page letter I sent him:

[Y]ou can[not] make a biblical case for Christians to embrace worldly fads—especially when those fads are diametrically at odds with the wholesome speech, pure mind, and chaste behavior that God calls us to display. At its core, this is about ideology. No matter how culture changes, the truth never does. But the more the church accommodates the baser elements of the culture, the more she will inevitably compromise her message. We must not betray our words through our actions; we must be in the world but not of it. . . . .  It's vital that you not send one message about the importance of sound doctrine and a totally different message about the importance of sound speech and irreproachable pure-mindedness. 

Mark Driscoll’s response to that admonition and the things he has said since have only magnified my concern.

Mark did indeed express regret a few years ago over the reputation his tongue has earned him. Yet no substantive change is observable. Just a few weeks ago, in an angry diatribe leveled at men in his congregation, Driscoll once again threw in a totally unnecessary expletive. A few weeks before that, he made a public mockery of Ecclesiastes 9:10 (something he has done repeatedly), by making a joke of it on national television. So here are two more inappropriate Driscoll videos being passed around by young people and college students for whom I bear some pastoral responsibility. In their immaturity, they typically think it’s wonderfully cool and transparent for a pastor to talk like that. And they feel free to curse and joke in a similar manner in more casual settings.

It is past time for the issue to be dealt with publicly.

Finally, it seriously overstates the involvement of John Piper and C. J. Mahaney to say they are “discipling” Mark Driscoll. In the first place, the idea that a grown man already in public ministry and constantly in the national spotlight needs space to be “mentored” before it’s fair to subject his public actions to biblical scrutiny seems to put the whole process backward. These problems have been talked about in both public and private contexts for at least three or four years. At some point the plea that this is a maturity issue and Mark Driscoll just needs time to mature wears thin. In the meantime, the media is having a field day writing stories that suggest trashy talk is one of the hallmarks of the “New Calvinism;” and countless students whom I love and am personally acquainted with are being led into similar carnal behavior by imitating Mark Driscoll’s speech and lifestyle. Enough is enough.

Yes, I did inform John Piper and C. J. Mahaney of my concerns about this material several weeks ago. I itemized all of these issues in much more thorough detail than I have written about them here, and I expressly told them I was preparing this series of articles for the blog.

To those asking why pastors Piper and Mahaney (and others in positions of key leadership) haven't publicly expressed similar concerns of their own, that is not a question for me. I hope you will write and ask them.

(By John MacArthur)

[Editor's Note: Readers should be warned that this article contains offensive material. Nonetheless, it is included here for the sake of substantiating the thesis of this article.]

I emphatically agree with those who say the Song of Solomon is not mere allegory. It is best understood when we take it at face value, like any other text of Scripture. Many interpreters whom I otherwise hold in high esteem (including Spurgeon and most of the Puritans) have unfortunately done more to confuse than clarify the Song's message by treating it in a purely allegorical fashion that eliminates its primary meaning.

Solomon's Song is, as I've said from the outset, a love poem between Solomon and his bride, celebrating their mutual love for one another, including the delights of the marriage bed. To interpret this—or any other portion of Scripture—in a purely allegorical fashion is to treat the interpreter's own imagination as more authoritative than the plain meaning of the text.

However, those who pretend to know the meanings of poetic symbols that are not clearly identifiable from the text itself commit the very same error. Their speculation is likewise a way of exalting their own imaginations to a higher level of authority than the plain sense of the text.

That's a particular problem when the interpreter sees a mandate for oral sex in the simple metaphor of a fruit tree or imagines that the best way to contextualize and illustrate portions of the text is by verbally undressing his own wife in order to make the point as vivid as possible. In such a case, not only has the speaker given far too much weight to his own speculative imagination; he has given a fairly clear signal that his imagination is not altogether pure (Luke 6:45).

And that is a far more serious problem than merely allegorizing the text.

By no means do I want to minimize the dangers of allegorizing the text. That approach to hermeneutics is full of mischief, even in the hands of pure-minded men who are generally sound in their doctrine. I don't approve of allegorical flights of fancy, especially with a text like Song of Solomon, which poses enough difficulties with the obvious built-in metaphors and poetic language it features.

Allegorizers of the Song of Solomon generally see it as an expression of tender mutual love between Christ and His church. Most of them would say that Christ is represented by the voice of Solomon; the church is represented by the voice of the Shulamite. Some interpreters go further yet and imagine they hear three or more voices speaking out of the text. (Invariably those who multiply the voices try to make the verses fit some complex libretto that arises more out of their own personal agenda than from the text itself.)

Still, regardless of how many voices are heard and who is supposedly speaking, nearly all who allegorize this poem see it as a canticle of love between Christ and the church. It's probably fair to say that this allegorical view focusing on Christ and the church has been the dominant interpretation of the poem throughout church history.

That, of course, doesn't make it right. I happen to think it is not the correct approach to interpreting this text. But it's not a view that ought to be dismissed with vulgar contempt—especially with a coarse joke attributing homosexual behavior to Christ.

If you have heard any of Mark Driscoll's teaching on the Song of Solomon, you have surely heard his joke in that vein. For example, in the sermon that prompted me to write these articles, Driscoll says, "Some have allegorized this book, and in so doing, they have destroyed it. They have destroyed it. They will say that it is an allegory between Jesus and his bride the church. Which if true, is weird. Because Jesus is having sex with me and puts his hand up my shirt. And that feels weird. I love Jesus, but not in that way."

Driscoll has said almost the exact same thing in at least three other sermons. For example: “Jesus keeps making out with me and touching me in inappropriate places.” “Now I’m gay, or highly troubled, or both.” “As a guy, I do not feel comfortable with Jesus, like you know, kissing me and touching me and taking me to bed. Okay? I feel sort of very homo-erotic about that kind of view of Song of Solomon.”

Even in his most recent Peasant Princess series, he repeats a version of that very same joke:

Now what happens is some say "Well, we do believe in the book [of Song of Solomon], and we will teach it, but we're gonna teach it allegorically." And there's a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They'll say, "Well the allegorical interpretation, it's not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it's about us and Jesus." Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I mean it's gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I'm talking about. You're like, "No, I'm not doing that. You know I'm not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that." [Laughter from crowd]

Driscoll blew off criticism about that kind of joking by claiming it's not blasphemy because it has nothing to do with the "real" Jesus. He says he is simply making fun of a false notion about Jesus. And he continues making the joke.Here's the problem with that: Scripture clearly teaches that the love between a husband and wife in all its aspects is a metaphor for Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32).

Thus even a non-allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon, (simply taking the love-song between Solomon and the Shulamite at face value) ultimately points us to Christ and his love for the church. The text ought to be handled by the preacher accordingly, not as an excuse to bathe in the gutter of our culture's easygoing obsession with crude sex-talk and graphic sexual imagery.

Some who have commented on these articles have suggested that I ought to give a full exposition of Solomon's Song rather than merely critiquing the bad interpreters and decrying the contemporary church's fixation with sex.

That would require a long series, and I'd prefer not to devote weeks of time on this blog to a topic that I have raised only in order to make a simple, single-pointed admonition. But those wondering what my exposition of Solomon's Song would be like will find full notes on the text in The MacArthur Study Bible.

Those notes should be a sufficient answer to the commenter who pretended to wonder if I am saying it would be better not to comment on Song of Solomon at all.

Of course that is not what I am saying, nor can anyone claim that I have even implied anything of the sort—without twisting my words or putting their words in my mouth. (That literally happened in a string of comments at another blog where this issue was under discussion. An early commenter accused me of opposing line-by-line exposition of the Song. Halfway down the comments, people were putting that claim in quotation marks, attributing it to me.)

What I am saying is that the bounds of propriety—especially when dealing with subjects like sex—should be set by whatever text we are dealing with. To interpret beautiful poetry by translating it into scurrilous soft-porn is to corrupt the most fundamental intent of the text.

This is nowhere near as difficult to grasp as some are pretending, but perhaps a simple parallel will suffice: There are other private body functions and "less honorable" or "unpresentable" body parts (1 Corinthians 12:23). We find these mentioned or alluded to at times in Scripture without ever being too specific. We all would be rightly offended if the preacher gave a long, descriptive discourse or how-to instructions in the Sunday worship service, outlining these "unpresentable" things.

For stronger reasons than simple modesty, certain acts involving fornication, autoeroticism, and other things people commonly "do in secret" are shameful to talk about in any public context (Ephesians 5:12), much less a church service. They may be suitable subjects for a private counseling session, or the doctor's office, or a college biology lecture, but they are not fitting topics for a worship service where God should be glorified, Christ should be uplifted, women should be shown respect, children's innocence should be guarded, and single people's prurient curiosities should not unnecessarily be enflamed.

When a speaker deliberately arouses lusts that cannot possibly be righteously fulfilled in unmarried college students, or when his personal illustrations fail to guard the privacy and honor of his own wife, that is far worse than merely inappropriate. When done repeatedly and with the demeanor of an immature bad-boy, such a practice reflects a major character defect that is spiritually disqualifying. Any man who makes such things the main trademark of his style is quite simply not above reproach.

As recently as a decade ago, that point of view would not have raised a peep of controversy.

The fact that it is so controversial now is simply more proof that evangelicals have become too much like the world, and too comfortable with the evil characteristics of our culture.

Tomorrow, Lord willing, I'll post the final installment in this series. Several questions have come up repeatedly from people who have commented on these articles, and in tomorrow's final installment, I want to answer as many of them as possible.

(By John MacArthur)

It's frankly hard to think of a more appalling misuse of Scripture than turning the Song of Solomon into soft porn. When people can no longer read that portion of Scripture without pornographic imagery entering their minds, the beauty of the book has been corrupted, its description of righteous love perverted, and its role in sanctifying and elevating the marriage relationship deflected. That preachers would do this in public worship services is unconscionable.

Song of Solomon is deliberately veiled in poetic euphemisms that are beautiful by any measure. Some of the imagery is fairly obvious, some highly debatable. In many places the meaning is indistinct enough to permit a great deal of hermeneutical imagination, and wisdom would seem to teach that here—especially here—it is best for the preacher not to be a lot more explicit than the Holy Spirit was.

And let's face it: overall, the Song is about as far from explicit as the writer can get.

Moreover, since the symbolism is obviously about passion, romance, love, desire, and tenderness, its ambiguity serves a deliberate purpose: it speaks in secret terms about that which should be kept secret. The language is clearly designed to communicate intimate affection privately through veiled, confidential, almost clandestine terms.

This is a vital point: The style of communication between these two lovers beautifully conceals all but the most essential meaning of their love songs in a way that guards the deeply personal (and divinely intended) privacy of the marriage bed.

Song of Solomon is incredibly beautiful precisely because it is so carefully veiled. It is a perfect description of the wonderful, tender, intimate discovery that God designed to take place between a young man and his bride in a place of secrecy. We are not told in vivid terms what all the metaphors mean, because the beauty of marital passion is in the eye of the beholder—where it should stay.

Tom Gledhill wisely sums up this point in his IVP commentary on Song of Solomon (pp. 29-31):

To unpack metaphors and unwrap euphemisms [in Song of Solomon] may mean that our thoughts spiral out of control, and we end up by committing adultery in our imaginations. So if the interpretation of Scripture proves to be a stumbling block, and a cause of offence to some who believe, what then? . . . Once a particular line of interpretation has been suggested, it is difficult to avoid seeing explicit sexual allusions everywhere, until the whole work becomes saturated in references to genitalia, intercourse and explicit sex.

      . . . The New Testament answer is very clear and straightforward. Jesus said, 'If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out . . . It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." In other words, we are not to walk into temptation open eyed when we know our particular areas of weakness . 

      . . . The language we use to describe various parts of the human anatomy (what the Apostle Paul describes as our 'unpresentable parts') is a matter for delicate sensitivity . . . . When [inappropriately explicit] words are used in verbal discourse, a profound disorientation takes place in the hearer, which has a tendency to block off to a large degree any further capacity for rational discussion. They act, so to speak, as verbal hand grenades. Their use is a terrorist activity, causing wanton destruction.

Tremper Longman III says this about preachers and commentators who interpret the Song's poetic imagery in overtly explicit ways: "[Their] free association with the images of the Song is so prevalent that we learn far more about the interpreters than we do about the text" (NICOT, p. 14).

Consider, for instance, the following passage from Song of Solomon 4:12-16. Here Solomon depicts his bride with a complex metaphor employing flowery symbols, and she responds by echoing the imagery:

 A garden locked is my sister, my bride,
 A rock garden locked, a spring sealed up.
 Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates
 With choice fruits, henna with nard plants,
 Nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon,
 With all the trees of frankincense,
 Myrrh and aloes, along with all the finest spices.
 You are a garden spring,
 A well of fresh water,
 And streams flowing from Lebanon."
 Awake, O north wind,
 And come, wind of the south;
 Make my garden breathe out fragrance,
 Let its spices be wafted abroad.
 May my beloved come into his garden
 And eat its choice fruits!"

Solomon thus describes his bride as a locked, gated garden. To him, she is a pleasant place full of charming fragrances and soothing substances. The word-picture he paints is beautiful on every level. The details ("choice fruits, henna with nard plants, nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon . . . trees of frankincense, myrrh," etc.) may or may not have specific meanings that would have been known to the bride. 

All a careful interpreter can say with certainty is that Solomon finds his bride pleasurable to all his sensory perceptions. He therefore likens her to the most pleasant and beautiful imagery he can think of—ointments and fragrances and visual delights—all concentrated together in one well-cultivated spot. A garden. The garden is "locked," which, again, underscores the intimate privacy of pure marital love. Nothing requires the exegete to take it any further than that. Scripture itself doesn't go further than that.

"It's frank but not crass," Mark Driscoll told a Sunday congregation in Scotland just less than 18 months ago. But then he continued by paraphrasing Solomon in a way that was totally crass and not even remotely close to what the Holy Spirit intended. (A CD copy of that shocking message, entitled Sex: A Study of the Good Bits of Song of Solomon was recently sent to me by some deeply offended and concerned Christians in the UK. It is primarily the reason I'm doing this series.)

In Driscoll's mind, it's not the bride herself who is a garden, but a specific part of her anatomy. As he re-imagines the passage, it is not a poem about the delightful privacy the marriage partners enjoy; it's a sneaky way of openly exposing that intimacy for all to see.

In essence, he treats Song of Solomon like the old urban legend about the lyrics to "Louie, Louie." Only those with the secret knowledge can really understand it; and therefore its true meaning must be something dirty.

That approach caters to prurient ears. It is hard to see it as anything other than sheer exhibitionism. Worst of all, it turns the whole purpose of Song of Solomon on its head.

Tremper Longman was right: eisegesis like that reveals nothing about the book but everything about the interpreter. 

(By John MacArthur)

Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service. If he can shock parishioners with crude words and sophomoric humor, so much the better. The defenders of this trend solemnly inform us that without such a strategy it is well-nigh impossible to connect with today's "culture." (In contemporary evangelicalism that term has become a convenient label for just about everything that is uncultured and uncouth.)

Sermons about sex have suddenly become a bigger fad in the evangelical world than the prayer of Jabez ever was. Everywhere, it seems, churches are featuring special series on the subject. Some of them advertise with suggestive billboards purposely designed to offend their communities' conservative sensibilities.

Quite a few pastors have earned widespread media coverage by issuing "sex challenges" to church members. These are schemes that make daily sex obligatory for married couples over a specified time—usually between seven and forty days. (How people are made accountable for this is a question I'm afraid to raise.)

I would be the last to suggest that preachers should totally avoid the topic of sex. Scripture has quite a lot to say about the subject, starting with God's first words to Adam and Eve ("Be fruitful and multiply"—Genesis 1:22). God's law has numerous commands that govern sexual behavior, and the New Testament repeatedly reaffirms the Old Testament standard of sexual purity. Finally, in the closing chapters of Scripture we are told that sexually immoral people will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). So there's simply no way to preach the whole counsel of God without mentioning sex.

But the language Scripture employs when dealing with the physical relationship between husband and wife is always careful—often plain, sometimes poetic, usually delicate, frequently muted by euphemisms, and never fully explicit. There is no hint of sophomoric lewdness in the Bible, even when the prophet's clear purpose is to shock (such as when Ezekiel 23:20 likens Israel's apostasy to an act of gross fornication motivated by the lust of bestiality). When an act of adultery is part of the narrative (such as David's sin with Bathsheba), it is never described in way that would gratify a lascivious imagination or arouse lustful thoughts.

The message of Scripture regarding sex is simple and consistent throughout: total physical intimacy within marriage is pure and ought to be enjoyed (Hebrews 13:4); but remove the marriage covenant from the equation and all sexual activity (including that which occurs only in the imagination) is nothing but fornication, a serious sin that is especially defiling and shameful—so much so that merely talking about it inappropriately is a disgrace (Ephesians 5:12).

Above all, Scripture never stoops to the lurid level of contemporary sex education. The Bible has no counterpart to the Hindu Kama Sutra (an ancient Sanskrit sex manual supposedly transmitted by Hindu deities.) Nothing in Scripture gives any vivid how-to instructions regarding the physical relationship within marriage.

That includes the Song of Solomon.

In fact, Solomon's love-poem epitomizes the exact opposite approach. It is, of course, a lengthy poem about courtship and marital love. It is filled with euphemisms and word pictures. Its whole point is gently, subtly, and elegantly to express the emotional and physical intimacy of marital love—in language suitable for any audience.

But it has become popular in certain circles to employ extremely graphic descriptions of physical intimacy as a way of expounding on the euphemisms in Solomon's poem. As this trend develops, each new speaker seems to find something more shocking in the metaphors than any of his predecessors ever imagined.

Thus we are told that the Shulammite's poetic language invoking the delights of an apple tree (Song 2:3) is a metaphor for oral sex. The comfort and delight of a simple embrace (2:6) is not what it seems to be at all. Apparently it's impossible to describe what that verse really means without mentioning certain unmentionable body parts.

We're assured moreover that the shocking hidden meanings of these texts aren't merely descriptive; they are prescriptive. The secret gnosis of Solomon's Song portray obligatory acts wives must do if this is what satisfies their husbands, regardless of the wife's own desire or conscience. I was recently given a recording of one of these messages, where the speaker said, "Ladies, let me assure you of this: if you think you're being dirty, he's pretty happy."

Such pronouncements are usually made amid raucous laughter, but evidently we are expected to take them seriously. When the laughter died away, that speaker added, “Jesus Christ commands you to do this.”

That approach is not exegesis; it is exploitation. It is contrary to the literary style of the book itself. It is spiritually tantamount to an act of rape. It tears the beautiful poetic dress off Song of Solomon, strips that portion of Scripture of its dignity, and holds it up to be laughed at and leered at in a carnal way.

Mark Driscoll has boldly led the parade down this carnal path. He is by far the best-known and most prolific popular proponent of handling the Song of Solomon that way. He has said repeatedly that this is his favorite passage of Scripture, and he has come back to it again and again in recent years, culminating in a highly publicized series released on video via the Internet last year.

I keep encountering young pastors who are now following that same example, and I'm rather surprised that the trend has been so well received in the church with practically no significant critics raising any serious objections. So we're going to analyze and critique this approach to Song of Solomon over the next couple of days, including a look at some specific examples where the line of propriety has clearly been breached.

(By John MacArthur)

What does it mean "to me"?

That’s a fashionable concern, judging from the trends in devotional booklets, home Bible study discussions, Sunday-school literature, and most popular preaching.

The question of what Scripture means has taken a back seat to the issue of what it means “to me.”

The difference may seem insignificant at first. Nevertheless, our obsession with the Scripture’s applicability reflects a fundamental weakness. We have adopted practicality as the ultimate judge of the worth of God’s Word. We bury ourselves in passages that overtly relate to daily living, and ignore those that don’t.

Early in my ministry, I made a conscious commitment to biblical preaching. My first priority has always been to answer the question, “What does this passage mean?” After I’ve explained as clearly and accurately as possible the meaning of God’s Word, then I exhort people to obey and apply it to their own lives.

The Bible speaks for itself to the human heart; it is not my role as a preacher to try to tailor the message. That’s why I preach my way through entire books of the Bible, dealing carefully with each verse and phrase–even though that occasionally means spending time in passages that don’t readily lend themselves to anecdotal or motivational messages.

I am grateful to the Lord for the way He has used this expository approach in our church and in the lives of our radio listeners.

But now and then someone tells me frankly that my preaching needs to be less doctrinal and more practical.

Practical application is vital. I don’t want to minimize its importance. But the distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is artificial; doctrine is practical! In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine.

Too many Christians view doctrine as heady and theoretical. They have dismissed doctrinal passages as unimportant, divisive, threatening, or simply impractical. A best-selling Christian book I just read warns readers to be on guard against preachers whose emphasis is on interpreting Scripture rather than applying it.

Wait a minute. Is that wise counsel? No it is not.

There is no danger of irrelevant doctrine; the real threat is an undoctrinal attempt at relevance. Application not based on solid interpretation has led Christians into all kinds of confusion.

No discipline is more sorely needed in the contemporary church than expositional biblical teaching. Too many have bought the lie that doctrine is something abstract and threatening, unrelated to daily life.

It is in vogue to substitute psychology and spoon-fed application for doctrinal substance, while demeaning theological and expositional ministry.

But the pastor who turns away from preaching sound doctrine abdicates the primary responsibility of an elder: “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).

Practical insights, gimmicks, and illustrations mean little if they’re not attached to divine principles. There’s no basis for godly behavior apart from the truth of God’s Word.

There are only three options: We teach truth, error, or nothing at all.

Before the preacher asks anyone to perform a certain duty, he must first deal with doctrine. He must develop his message around theological themes and draw out the principles of the texts. Then the truth can be applied.

Romans provides the clearest biblical example. Paul didn’t give any exhortation until he had given eleven chapters of theology.

He scaled incredible heights of truth, culminating in 11:33-36: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.”

Then in chapter 12, he turned immediately to the practical consequences of the doctrine of the first 11 chapters. No passage in Scripture captures the Christian’s responsibility to the truth more clearly than Romans 12:1-2. There, building on eleven chapters of profound doctrine, Paul calls each believer to a supreme act of spiritual worship–giving oneself as a living sacrifice. Doctrine gives rise to dedication to Christ, the greatest practical act. And the remainder of the book of Romans goes on to explain the many practical outworkings of one’s dedication to Christ.

Paul followed the same pattern in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. The doctrinal message came first. Upon that foundation he built the practical application, making the logical connection with the word therefore (Rom. 12:1; Gal. 5:1; Eph. 4:1; Phil. 2:1) or then (Col. 3:1; 1 Thess. 4:1).

True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.

No believer can apply truth he doesn’t know. Those who don’t understand what the Bible really says about marriage, divorce, family, child-rearing, discipline, money, debt, work, service to Christ, eternal rewards, helping the poor, caring for widows, respecting government, and other teachings won’t be able to apply it.

Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about salvation cannot be saved. Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about holiness are incapable of dealing with sin. Thus they are unable to live fully to their own blessedness and God’s glory.

The nucleus of all that is truly practical is sown up in the teaching of Scripture. We don’t make the Bible relevant; it is inherently so, simply because it is God’s Word. And after all, how can anything God says be irrelevant?

Steve Lawson gave a rousing message on the need for pastors to protect the purity of the Gospel. His text was Galatians 1:6-10, where Paul rebuked the Galatians for their willingness to quickly abandon the truth for another gospel. So many in evangelicalism today are promoting another gospel; but faithful pastors must know the truth and proclaim it boldly. Dr. Lawson's passion was infectuous, and the session ended in heartfelt applause. For a more-detailed outline of Dr. Lawson's message, please click here. 

Last night, Dr. Mohler led us in a wonderful examination of the authority of preaching from the Sermon on the Mount, focusing specifically on Matthew 7:28–29, where the crowds were amazed by Jesus’ preaching because it had authority (and therefore was a huge contrast to the teaching of the rabbis). He exhorted us to teach the Word of God with authority, and to avoid the liberal tendencies of our postmodern age. Though we do not have a full liveblog here, please see this site or this site for a full discussion of the session.

Update: For Phil Johnson's response to this message, see here.

(By Nathan Williams)

Yesterday was cloudy and overcast and a little cold and we were forced to move some of the outdoor stuff inside, but today is quite a bit different. It’s a beautiful day, warm and sunny and hardly a cloud in the sky. We’re anticipating a great day and looking forward to Rick Holland getting it started this morning.

Rick will be speaking from 2 Corinthians 11 this morning. He begins by talking about a trip to Scotland he made a couple of years ago and the opportunities he had to see some of the places where John Knox served several hundred years ago. He says Knox left the legacy of being a fearless and courageous preacher. He feared no one. Queen Mary said she feared the prayer of John Knox more than an entire army. At Knox’s funeral one man said, “there lies a man who never feared the face of any man.” Rick said he visited Knox’s grave and it’s only marked by a gold tile with no inscription. But his bravery is a distant echo of the courage of the Apostle Paul. Paul was the most courageous preacher who ever lived. He preached before all types of people and leaders. Paul’s fearlessness cost him dearly, 2 Cor. 11:23-29 tells us of his trials because of his courage. Paul’s bravery cost him his life at the hand of Nero. Paul’s life changed the world through the preaching of Jesus Christ.

What is remarkable about Paul is that he trembled in 2 Cor 11:3. What would make him afraid? He was afraid that his flock would have their minds bewitched by false teachers away from Christ. It is encouraging that Paul was not a hyper-Calvinist. He wept over people and begged them to remain faithful. His Calvinism never got in the way of his care for people.

The false teachers in Corinth were attacking Paul and his credibility while he was traveling. Chapter 11 tells us these false teachers were trying to accumulate a following after themselves. Scholars call this chapter the fool’s speech. Even though he doesn’t want to, Paul lays out his credentials and his pastoral concern for their souls. There is quite a bit for us to be afraid of when it comes to the souls of our flock. By this point in the book of 2 Corinthians Paul has to address these false teachers. This passage is devoid of any concern for their behavior. Paul only cares about the focus of the people. In Verse 4 the people were being led astray by those who were teaching another gospel. It is likely this false gospel downplayed the blood of Jesus and the importance of His death. We see Paul’s theology on full display in 2 Cor. 11:3. His theology was pastoral.

Today we will see three applications of pastoral theology.

1. A Fearful Ecclesiology

Verse 2 helps us understand this. The imagery is that of a father betrothing his daughter to a suitor. Paul’s spiritual fatherhood was to betroth them to Christ. His goal was to bring them to Jesus Christ. Paul wanted no part of competing with Christ for the affection of the Corinthians. Paul says he is jealous with a godly jealousy. Paul was not jealous like a husband. He was jealous like someone protecting treasure for someone else. He did not want to see the people flirting with a worldview which was antithetical to Christ. Paul’s eschatology had an impact on his ecclesiology. Paul was afraid for the flock.

The word afraid used here is very interesting. It doesn’t just mean fear, it means to put to flight by terrifying. It’s used of walking into a flock of birds and seeing them fly off. It’s an intense fear which is sustained. Christian leadership must in some measure reflect God’s jealousy for us. Do we really have a fearful ecclesiology? Do we look at our people with fatherly protection?

2. A Functional Bibliology

Paul now goes back to the illustration of the serpent and instructs us in how to use biblical illustration. Paul fully believed in the creation narrative and even in a talking serpent. Paul took the OT to be absolute historical fact.

The focus here is on Eve who was deceived. When Eve fell it was not because she was battered into sinful submission, instead she was taken by cunning. She was tricked. Satan is always trying to trick believers into following him. He always uses our language and his dictionary. He replaces biblical content with social feel good ideology.

It’s the same method used by the emerging church. Rick says the emerging church is simply liberalism with new clothes on, and he’s not even sure the clothes have been washed. The emerging church is critical of trying to give people answers. They want us to give people questions and let them walk away wondering. They are giving another gospel. Satan always wraps his coils around people with subtlety. Craftiness means that his ways are never obvious to the unsuspecting.

In Gen. 3 we have to catch the full impact of the story. Ever wonder where Adam was during the story? Right beside Eve. Eve was deceived and Adam chose willfully. Here are some distinguishing characteristics of Satan. He disguises himself. He came as a normal part of God’s creation. Satan does not intend to be fearful. He doesn’t want you to be afraid of him. He wants to be embraced and loved by someone inside the perceived boundaries of Christianity. Hollywood has completely given us the wrong picture. Satan also deceives. He always tells half truths. Full lies are too recognizable. Satan also distracts. He puts our attention on everything except Jesus. He uses God’s Word in a distorted, out of context way. We should never say, “ I know the Bible says that, but...” or “ I know the Bible says that, and...”. Satan’s greatest ambition is to prevent Jesus from having supremacy in the human heart. He does this by dividing the Trinity. The OT God is Jesus. We cannot think of a mean God in the OT and a loving God in the NT. Jesus is God and if it’s not then according to 1 Cor. 15 we are all damned.

We have to have a functional bibliology. We have to be the resident expert of Scripture. It must work itself out in all aspects of our ministry.

3. A Jealous Christology

Paul now goes back and finishes his sentence. He doesn’t want our minds to be led astray from their pure devotion to Jesus Christ. Pauls’ point is simple in the end of 2 Cor. 11:3, Christ is the integrating centrality of all our faith.

The focus here is on the mind. Christianity is fundamentally a rational religion. The mind is the primary target of Satan. He wants us to think wrong thoughts about God. Don’t be deceived, Satan loves the name of Jesus because he can counterfeit it. Satan doesn’t sleep, he has thousands of years watching people and how they respond to temptations. He is an expert on you and me. He gets our attention off Christ and gets us to focus on other things.

These were first generation believers. Who would have thought that under the eyes of Christ’s disciples, there was any danger of Christians departing from the faith? Paul gives us insight into the drift away from the faith. It’s a drift away from a person. We should be like John the Baptist, we must decrease and He must increase. (Gal. 2:20; Phil 1:20; John 3:30; Col. 1:18) In Col. 1:18, Christ is not to be first place above everything. He must be first place in everything. All we do must have Christ as first place. He’s not number 1 on the priority list, he’s all the numbers. We can’t have a little quiet time and set Him aside for the rest of the day.

 Christ gave us communion so we would remember. Why did He give us this ordinance unless He knew we would forget? We should be pointing our sheep to the person of Jesus Christ. Our hearts aren’t wrenched over the cross because we forget Jesus as a person. John 17:3 is a vital verse for a proper understanding. Eternal life is not living forever after we die. It’s a relationship with a living, resurrected savior. Let’s not replace Christ with Christology.

In Revelation 2, Christ had something against the Ephesians, they had left their first love. How did that happen? In 30 years they left their first love. Acts 20:28 tells us. Paul told them to be on guard because savage wolves would come in and would not spare the flock. These men would come from outside the church, but some of these men would come from within. It’s so easy to lob grenades at the Benny Hinn’s of the world. But Paul said the problem was within the church. Men would begin to want a following. Unless we are devoted to Christ, we are in danger of becoming thieves of God’s glory.

(By Nathan Busenitz)

Despite a bit of rain, the Shepherds’ Conference opened with its usual anticipation and excitement. Our church is always so blessed to have hundreds of like-minded pastors and church leaders who come. And this year is no different. The enthusiasm is palpable.

The opening session begins with a choir of men from The Master’s Seminary singing two hymns, followed by the entire congregation of conference attendees lifting their voices in praise to God. The sound is loud. It is so loud that, even when singing at the top of your lungs, you can hardly hear yourself. Only those who have experienced the Shepherds’ Conference before can really appreciate what the singing is like—when three thousand pastors join together as one great choir. It is particularly moving and, in the most real sense, heavenly.

10:28 AM John MacArthur begins by noting that he wants to read to us the beginning of the Bible, and asks us to turn to Genesis 1. He continues by reading the entirety of chapter 1 and the first three verses of chapter 2.

10:33 Dr. MacArthur notes that two years ago, he opened the conference by talking about how self-respecting Calvinists should be premillennialists; and last year regarding how they should reject church-growth strategies. This year he will focus on how self-respecting evangelicals should affirm literal six-day creationism.

10:35 “The Bible does not take a back seat when it comes to getting things right scientifically.” Theology is the queen of the sciences and takes precedence over any other scientific theory. The One who created the universe knows how it was created; and He has revealed that perfect knowledge in the Bible.

10:37 If God is intelligent enough to create the universe, He is certainly capable of doing the comparatively simple task of revealing the truth about how He created the universe in a way that is straightforward and understandable.

10:39 Dr. MacArthur spends several moments talking about false creation views, noting that the true Creator would never reveal something false about His creation. When we come to the true record of creation in Scripture, it is a reliable account of the creation given to us by the Creator Himself.

10:41 Genesis 1 is clear and straightforward; it is simple and yet profound. Herbert Spencer was a non-Christian scientist who died a century ago. His greatest achievement was that he determined that everything that exists fits into one of five categories—time, force, action, space, matter. Genesis 1:1 revealed those categories millennia ago, “In the beginning,” that’s time, “God,” that’s force, “created,” that’s action, “the heavens,” that’s space, “the earth,” that’s matter. 

10:44 There is no such thing as a science of creation. Why?  Because there is no scientific way to explain creation. It was not a natural event or a series of natural events. It was a brief series of monumental supernatural events that cannot be explained by science. All true science is based on observation and no one observed creation. All true science necessitates verification by repetition and creation cannot be repeated, and thus it cannot be verified. Creation had no observers (except God) and cannot be repeated. 

10:48 Creation has no connection at all to science anymore than the behavior of Lazarus could in any way reveal how he was raised from the dead. Creation was a massive supernatural miracle to be equaled by the future uncreation (2 Peter 3) when in a lot less than six days God destroys everything He created. Neither event, creation or uncreation, can be explained by any natural fixed laws. All that is left to the reader is the opportunity to believe.

10:50 Did God use evolution? The question is irrelevant and intrusive. But the answer is no. He couldn’t have used evolution because evolution requires death and the Bible reveals that there was no death before the Fall. God does not equivocate with Himself, He determined to create miraculously which is the only way that it could have happened because it is the way it did happen. And He did it all in six days. This is either true, or it’s not.  If it is true, then Scripture is true. If it is not, then Scripture become suspect from the opening chapters. So from the very outset of the Bible, those who claim to believe the Bible face a formidable test.

10:52 Job 38–40 – Who are we to question God about creation, when He Himself has told us what He has done?

10:55 Evolution is a rejection of biblical revelation, and demonstrates a lack of fidelity to what Scripture has revealed about origins.

10:57 Ask any Christian organization in the world what their view is of Genesis 1 and 2 and you will get a sense for their level of fidelity to the Word of God.

10:58 The Genesis account is by all honest consideration simple, plain, clear, perspicuous, uncomplicated, unmistakable, unambiguous. Note John 1:1; Col. 1:16; Deut. 4:32; Psalm 104; 148; Isaiah 40:28; Eph. 3:9; Rev. 3:14.

11:03 Genesis 1 and 2 is not poetry; it does not have the characteristic of poetry.

11:04 The writers of the New Testament affirm the Genesis record. There are 165 passages in Genesis directly quoted or referred to in the New Testament. They are all straightforward affirmations of the book of Genesis and the simple account of creation that is contained there. Every New Testament writer refers to Genesis, and they universally affirm its truthfulness.

11:05 God created with a clear end in mind. God didn’t create and hope some meaningful plan evolved. He created with a very defined ultimate purpose that would be brought to its fulfillment. 

11:07 Jonathan Edwards said, “Providence subordinates all successive changes in the affairs of mankind.” Everything from creation to consummation is part of one great divine plan being worked by God’s powerful providence.  Note Isaiah 46:9; Eph. 3:8.

11:12 In creation we see the very beginning of the purposes of God in redemption. Note Rom. 5:18 – 19; 1 Cor. 15:21, 47–49; Rev. 2, 22.
 
11:14  One of the richest analogies between redemption and creation is in 2 Corinthians 4: “For God who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness.’” That is referring to creation. God said, “Let there be light.”  Paul sees in the original creation of light an analogy of the light of salvation. 

11:15 It is that same God who spoke light into the primeval darkness who is the One who has shown in our hearts to give the light of salvation. God creating light in the midst of the darkness is a picture of what He does in the darkness of the sinner’s heart.  If some convoluted concept of evolution is introduced into the book of Genesis, the instantaneous miracle of God in redemption also becomes convoluted.

11:16 Jonathan Edwards pursued this idea, and noted that it was a magnificent picture of the life of a believer. This is the glory of redemption tucked in to the testimony of creation.

11:18 In closing his session, Dr. MacArthur switched from discussing Creation to discussing the great “uncreation” of the world described in 2 Peter 3. In so doing, he specifically focused on how silly and unnecessary it is for evangelicals to jump on the environmentalism bandwagon. 

11:20 Evangelicalism’s eagerness to embrace global warming and other environmentalist agenda items is a lost cause.

11:26 The environmental movement is the bandwagon of the evolutionists, and Christians have no business jumping on the bandwagon. [Dr. MacArthur included a number of statistics and articles which we are not able to include here.]

Note: The audio from this session will soon be available for download on the Shepherds’ Conference website.
 

(By John MacArthur)

Faithfully preaching and teaching the Word must be the very heart of our ministry philosophy. Any other approach replaces the voice of God with human wisdom. Philosophy, politics, humor, psychology, homespun advice, and personal opinion can never accomplish what the Word of God does. Those things may be interesting, informative, entertaining, and sometimes even helpful—but they are not the business of the church. The preacher's task is not to be a conduit for human wisdom; he is God's voice to speak to the congregation. No human message comes with the stamp of divine authority—only the Word of God. How dare any preacher substitute another message?

I frankly do not understand preachers who are willing to abdicate this solemn privilege. Why should we proclaim the wisdom of men when we have the privilege of preaching the Word of God?

With that in mind, here are ten reasons why I delight in preaching the Word of God, week after week and year after year. This is not an exhaustive list, but I trust it will encourage those ministers who read it to faithfully proclaim the Word of God to the people of God through the power of the Spirit of God. (I have expanded on each of these reasons in the book Preaching the Cross, which can be read here.)

1. Because Its Message Is Timeless and Truly Powerful

2. Because It Is the Good News of Salvation

3. Because It Sets Forth Divine Truth with Clarity and Certainty

4. Because It Stands as the Authoritative Self-Revelation of God

5. Because It Exalts Christ as the Head of His Church

6. Because It Is the Means God Uses to Sanctify His People

7. Because It Rightly Informs Our Worship and Our Walk

8. Because It Brings Depth and Balance to My Ministry

9. Because It Honors the Necessity of Personal Bible Study

10. Because It Makes My Ministry Dependent on God

(To read this article in its entirety, click here.)