Let me say right at
the outset: I agree with Dr. Sprinkle a lot more than I disagree with him. He
obviously takes God’s word very seriously. He and I both see it as inspired.
From what I can tell from his book and his website, he and I agree on probably
around 85% to 90% of our theology. Near as I can tell, he and I part ways on
our interpretation of Revelation, but that’s not a big deal to me. When it comes
to such vital issues as salvation, eternity, the nature of God, the nature and
work of Christ, etc., we stand shoulder to shoulder. When it comes to most moral/ethical questions, we seem to
be in unison. From what I’ve gathered from his website, he and I are in full
agreement re: homosexuality, divorce, and other issues in which the Bible
stands opposed to the current zeitgeist.
The only important
area in which we part ways—as best as I can tell—is in the area of violence.
I’ll go more into my own biblical interpretation of this issue shortly, but to
put it succinctly: On my own
initiative, on my own authority, I
cannot avenge myself. The commands Jesus gave during what’s commonly called “The
Sermon on the Mount” (e.g. “Don’t
resist an evil person,” “Love
your enemies,”) absolutely apply. But God has established the State to maintain
order and rule of law (as opposed to the rule of the jungle), and if a believer
is called into this institution (as a police officer, a judge, a soldier, an
FBI agent, etc.), then of course he’s not under the
obligations of that Sermon. How could a judge function as a judge if he doesn’t
“resist an evil person”? Or a police officer? Was a Christian wearing a U.S.
soldier uniform in World War Two sinning when he “resisted” an evil Nazi
soldier by shooting at him?
Dr. Preston Sprinkle
believes very differently. To him, all
violence—at least lethal violence—is sinful.
This really colors his
understanding of Scripture, and to me it skews and distorts it somewhat. Today
we’re going to look at his understanding of the Old Testament.
In reading his
chapters on the Old Testament, I feel similar to how I responded to a class my
wife and I took early in our relationship (I don’t remember if it was before
our wedding or right after). The class was “Missions Perspectives,” and the
stated purpose was to get Christians involved in international missions. Part
of the process was to see all of the Scriptures (the O.T. as well as the N.T.)
through the lens of God’s purpose of reclaiming the nations as his own. For
about 90% of the time, I agreed with them. The O.T. does have more than a few
extra-strong hints that the Lord’s ultimate purpose was not just to redeem
and have a relationship with Israel but to bring people from all nations into
his redeemed family. But this book went much further than that. It tried to
make the case that O.T. Israel was commanded
to bring knowledge of Yahweh to the Gentile world, that the Great
Commission given by Jesus wasn’t that big of a change in the Lord’s
paradigm. I recall thinking to myself “The absolutely last thing I want to ever
do is pour cold water on anyone’s fervor in reaching the world with the Good
News. But to be perfectly honest, I think you’re letting your very
well-intentioned focus on international missions skew and distort your
interpretation of Scripture, and quite frankly you’re reading stuff into the
O.T. that’s not there.” I didn’t say anything, because I didn’t believe it was
worth it to pick that battle when we were all there for the same purpose: Learn
how to be more involved in spreading the Message to those unreached.
The reason I bring
this up is because I honestly think Dr. Sprinkle is guilty of basically the
same thing. The idea of shalom (“peace”) is so important to him that—quite
frankly—he keeps pounding this square peg into the round hole of what the
Scripture actually says. I understand and even admire his dedication to this
task of restoring Christians to obedience to Jesus’ commands, but I can’t get
on board his interpretation.
Examples?
Examples?
He recounts the story
of Jacob’s reunion
with his brother Esau, and here’s Sprinkle’s interpretation of the event: “For
instance, to prevent the potential clash with his brother, Esau, Jacob assumes
the posture of a servant to his lord. Instead of meeting force with force,
Jacob humbles himself as a servant in order to preserve peace.” Really?! That’s
how you interpret that passage? With all due respect, the reason Jacob took the posture he did was because he was terrified
of his brother. The last time Jacob had heard Esau’s voice, the latter was openly
planning the murder of the former. Jacob was told that his brother was
coming out with 400 men, not a good
sign. But Sprinkle’s so hung up on this “God’s people are peacemakers” that
he’s completely reading into this story this motif. See what I’m getting at?
Or how’s about his
interpretation of the Lord’s view of the kingship? He and I are in agreement
(contra one of my favorite teachers from ETBU) that God actually intended to eventually give Israel a king. To both
of us, the pivotal passage is Deut.
17:14-20. You’re welcome to look it up, but here’s my summary of it. In
that passage, the Lord thru Moses expressed his expectations of the king he’d
eventually give them: 1) He must be a fellow Israelite, not a foreigner, 2) He
must not acquire for himself a “great” number of horses or go back to Egypt to
get them, 3) He must not take for himself “many” wives, 4) He must not
accumulate “large amounts” of silver and gold, and (to me this is the most
important one), 5) he’s supposed to hand-copy
the entire Torah (the Pentateuch) for
himself and read from it every day so that he won’t consider himself above the
Law or his fellow Israelites.
The question is what
does the Lord mean by a “great” number of horses, “many” wives, or “large
amounts” of gold and silver? Well, it appears
the writer of 1 Kings specifically indicts
Solomon on these counts. That’s the way biblical interpreters, both Christian
and Jewish, have typically interpreted it. But Sprinkle goes way beyond this.
He’s somehow come to the conclusion that this forbids ancient Israel to have an
actual standing army. He thinks that the only way for a king to keep a
standing army is for him to horde a lot of money into his treasury, so
therefore the Lord never intended for Israel to have a standing army at all. So
apparently the Lord planned for Israel to have a king with no standing army at all. I’m not misrepresenting his view
at all: He makes it clear multiple times that he believes this. To me, a king
without an army to back him up is not a king; he’s a guy with opinions on how
things ought to be run.
Another part of the
Deuteronomy passages he latches onto is that the Lord forbade the future king
from collecting a “great” number of horses. The point—on which he and I agree—was
not a king’s particular interest in horses in themselves. Horses (and chariots)
were the ultimate weapons of that day. If you had horses and chariots, and your
enemy didn’t, then that pretty well settled the battle before it started. There was
almost no defense against horse-drawn chariots unless you had them also. So
the king was warned against putting his trust in military might instead of the
Lord.
It’s actually the same
principle with collecting a lot of wives (for which Solomon was famous). The
main motive behind that wouldn’t be the sex (although that was an alleged side-benefit),
but more wives meant more children. Marriages were also typically a method of
forming political alliances between countries. Again, the issue was putting your
trust in human methods of security rather than trusting the Lord.
I actually agree with
Sprinkle around 90% of the way here. Where he and I part ways is . . .he seems
to believe that it’s impossible to use human means of security and to trust in
the Lord at the same time, and I don’t. It’s tough and tricky, but it’s
not impossible.
Let me explain my
position on this, and let me do it by asking some clarifying questions. If
anyone out there thinks my stance is unbiblical (i.e., that it’s intrinsically sinful to use human means
of security), let me ask you this: Do you lock your doors at night? Do you lock
your car in a rough neighborhood? If someone invaded your house, would you call
the police? But isn’t that using a human means of security?
It sounds all
spiritual to say “I trust the Lord to protect me and my family,” but most of
the people saying that will lock their
doors at night. Why? Don’t they trust the Lord to protect them?
You see, using human
means to secure yourself and your family is not
innately sinful. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with it. The
only problem is when we display a lack of trust in the Lord by disobeying a
direct command from him. When Joshua and the army of Israel approached
the city of Jericho, they were instructed by the Lord to do nothing but march
around it for six days. Don’t fire one arrow. Don’t even say a word. But on the
seventh day they marched around it and shouted, and the Lord miraculously
caused the walls to fall, and the Israelites took the city. He gave them
counterintuitive instructions, they followed them, and it all turned out great.
When the Israelites were trapped between the Egyptian army and the Red Sea,
Moses (under God’s inspiration) told them “The Lord will fight for you; you
need only to be still.” They didn’t fight, and they watched the entire Egyptian
army--the 900-pound gorilla of the Middle East--all die in front of them
without one Hebrew having to raise one weapon.
But was that the norm in
their history? No. Of course not. The norm throughout their history was that
they conquered their enemies with an army. An army with weapons, like
swords and bows and arrows and slingshots. They were supposed to trust in the
Lord, and they were to display this trust by following his instructions. Part
of these instructions were that the king was not supposed to accumulate a
“great” number of horses (which is never numerated), and they were to never to go back to Egypt to get any horses at all. But was it wrong to
use any horses in battle? Was that sinful? In and of itself, no. But any king
had to be careful not to put his ultimate trust in anything except the Lord
himself. He might put his trust in his own wisdom, or in his political
alliances, or in his well-trained army, or in a host of other resources he
might have available. The problem was not the resources
themselves. The problem was putting ultimate trust in any of them.
For most of us, it’s
not really an issue of putting trust in armies or weapons. It might influence
how we vote, but it doesn’t touch how we live day by day. But how about money? Do we put our ultimate trust in
how much we’ve saved up? Is that our security?
But it’s not
intrinsically wrong to be wealthy. The problem is not how much you have in your
bank account; the problem is how important it is to you. If I got clear
direction from the Lord to give it all away, like he told
one prospective follower, what would be my reaction? Anything other than “Yes
Lord, I’ll go do that right now” with a smile on my face would be sin.
I’m running a bit long
with this, so we’ll get into his position towards David in the next posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment