The Problem
Sometimes to my shame I wish the text of Scripture was a systematic theology textbook. I wished there were clear and lengthy explanations in vivid detail about the more complicated matters of the text, such as the nature of Gods existence, the hashing out of the minutest details of salvation, and even a diatribe of the complicated matter of God’s Sovereign reign and mans responsibility. However, again this wish is to my shame and my inadequacy as a Bible student this is no intimation or accusation of God’s word as inadequate. I could begin to delve into a discussion bringing up various points as to why this is a fault of mine and even why it is wrong of me to wish thus and maybe someday I will by Gods grace begin such a task. But now I would like to focus on my estimation on why the Scripture does not need to be a textbook as such, but is perfectly adequate for the task God desires it to fulfill.
Imagining the Landscape
Try to imagine the following scene, pretend you are looking down from a great height and you see a landscape. You see a great body of water, green luscious vegetation, thick forests and even vast deserts. Now imagine a group of people attempting to survive in this landscape, they wish they can see what you do but they are limited by their “two dimensional sight” whereas you have the advantage of “three dimensional sight.” In order to survive these people must stay away from the dangerous forest, the inhospitable desert and the deep body of unforgiving water. How will this be achieved? How about a network of boundary markers? This will enable the people to forage and thrive all the while knowing their limitations. “Don’t dwell over the boundary or you will be at deaths door.”
Suppose you from your advantageous view work hard and diligently to erect the boundary markers for the people. However someone ungratefully begins to accuse you of censoring their freedom and suppressing their happiness by these boundary markers. They begin by taking the rigid markers and bowing them over slightly, before long the markers are moved, or even ignored. The people begin to transgress the threshold of the limits you set in your wisdom.
No Imagination Required
Now simply substitute the “markers” for the truth statements of Scripture. It takes absolutely no imagination to see this transgression of the intent of Scripture by people today. This tactic goes on in a multitude of various subject matters today. From homosexuality to abortion and so on and so forth we see this go on in our society, people take the plain meaning of the text and by tweaking it slightly can even force the text to endorse the very sins it previously indicted.
However this does not merely happen in the above stated categories, it happens with very important doctrines such as, who is God?
Is God’s Word really a Boundary?
If this concept of God’s word as a boundary marker seems odd to you perhaps this verse will establish at least the concept of a boundary establishing God. Job 38:8-11 ESV “Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, (9) when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, (10) and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, (11) and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?
Now that we have established God as a “boundary establisher” is it too far of a leap to understand Him to use His Word as boundaries. How about Paul’s statement… 1Co 4:6 ESV I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. Or how about John’s warning… 2Jn 1:9 ESV Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. Listen to Adam Clarke’s description of this particular text… Whosoever transgresseth – Παραβαινων· He who passes over the sacred enclosure, or goes beyond the prescribed limits; and abideth not in the doctrine – does not remain within these holy limits, but indulges himself either in excesses of action or passion; hath not God for his Father, nor the love of God in his heart.
My conclusion is that yes God’s word is indeed a boundary1…in fact it is a boundary that can be transgressed… Mat 15:3 ESV He answered them, “And why do you break (transgress) the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? Or… 2Pe 3:15-16 ESV And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, (16) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
How To Behave Around Boundaries
Deu 19:14 ESV “You shall not move your neighbor’s landmark, which the men of old have set, in the inheritance that you will hold in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess.
Pro 22:28 ESV Do not move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set.
Boundaries, like rules, promises, and vows are made to be kept. They are solemn and serious they are indicative of the stark reality of authority and the imposition of said authority to determine who if any should be granted special access. Boundaries, it turns out are not for those who stumble upon them to determine if they should allow the boundaries to stand. Now my question is, if boundaries which merely marked the borders of land were not to be trifled with, how much less God’s word? Notice Scripture’s own testimony concerning its nature… Jer 23:29 ESV Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?
Note well that God does not declare His word to be putty in the hands of man to fashion howsoever they desire. How should we behave around God’s Word? Should we manipulate it according to our desires and ambitions? Should we slander it and disrespect it so that we will lose all reverence for its declarations? A thousand times no! We allow the boundary to stand where it stands, despite any misgivings on our part. We allow the boundary to stand for what it stands for without attempting to soften the hard edges.
An Example Of Boundary Behavior
Here is an example of behaving around a particular boundary topic of Scripture.
Boundary 1: There is only One God
Deu 6:4 ESV “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Boundary 2: The Father is God
Eph 1:3 ESV Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual
blessing in the heavenly places,
Boundary 3: The Son is God
Heb 1:8 ESV But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Boundary 4: The Holy Spirit is God
Act 5:3-4 ESV But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? (4) While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
Boundary 5: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Exist Simultaneously Alongside one another.
Act 2:33 ESV Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
Conclusion in regards to the boundaries: We are forced to believe that God is Three Who’s (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) And One What (God). We do not have the prerogative to blur the identities into one Persona nor do we have the prerogative to conclude that there is any more than One God. Frankly I can imagine God standing on the shores of the doctrine of His perfect existence and saying to the sinfully proud mind of man and saying, “‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud thoughts be stayed”
Teachers Behaving Badly
Finally, who do you listen to when it comes to God’s Word? There are basically two types of teachers Eisegetes and Exegetes. I am normally not a big fan of Wikipedia, but the definition they offer here is really to good to pass up, “Eisegesis (from the Greek root εις, meaning into, in, among) is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one’s own ideas, reading into the text. This is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.”-Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis)
Here is what you should do next time you go to church, or listen to anyone no matter where or when attempt to explain Scripture…evaluate by checking the text they are referencing first of all in its proper context and secondly equally as important ensuring that what they are teaching does not contradict plain teaching found elsewhere in the Scripture. Sadly most people, if they think critically at all concerning a teacher and his teaching is not about whether or not the teacher is teaching in such a way as to uphold and present the rigidity and boundary marking perfections of the text. Rather they will latch onto the perceived kindness and sincerity of the teacher or the teacher’s flamboyance and charisma or even the teachers self aggrandizing proclamations. Most anything except the establishment of the Scriptures boundary marking power will be the reason for dining at the meal of any teacher who speaks. This is unfortunate and predicted by the text of Scripture itself…1Ti 6:3-5 ESV If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, (4) he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, (5) and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. And…2Ti 4:3-4 ESV For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, (4) and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
1 Is it eisegesis to liken the word to boundary markers? No, if I said the “real meaning” of the texts in Deuteronomy and Proverbs was about the Word of God and not about boundary markers for land than yes of course that would be eisegesis. However to simply see the truth of boundary markers and apply that truth to the text of Scripture is to honor God and His word by carefully applying the Spirit of the law to the correct recipients.
I have a book recommendation for those of you with any kind of Oneness interaction. Edward Dalcour in his book, “A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology” carefully examines the strongest arguments made by Oneness advocates and weighs the Biblical data in a sound exegetical fashion. Recently I had an interaction with an Oneness Pastor and the Oneness Pastor’s arguments concerning baptism were specifically addressed in this book in a careful sound way better than any other resource I have found on the subject. Here are the chapter headings:
I love a good mystery anything from Sherlock Holmes to the police procedural, from books to movies. One thing I have noticed is the central trait that all the investigators typically have is an unswerving commitment to the truth. In the sign of the four a Sherlock Holmes mystery he is quoted as saying, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” This is something we admire in our heroes, be they fiction or actual…an unswerving commitment to truth, no matter who turns up guilty or exposed. I think we wish to see this trait in ourselves, we fantasize our lives to be such ignobled expressions of virtue that we desire to imbibe the pinnacle of honesty. However is this really true? Do we really pursue truth at all costs? How much of our commitment to our theological convictions is based on this weighty devotion to truth and how much is based on our true love…tradition. Scripture actually makes a division seen very poignantly in the example of the Pharisees and their commitment to tradition over truth in their relationship to the Son of God. It also blatantly points this out in factual statements, one of which is the very clear text: 2Th 2:7-12 ESV For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. (8) And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. (9) The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, (10) and with all wicked deception 
This may sound familiar, but in a recent conversation I had with a Oneness Pentecostal Pastor I emphasized the importance of the context of the Scripture, “context is King.” Later on in the conversation as I went to Paul’s words in Colossians chapter 1, “The Son…created all things…” his reply was, “talk about keeping it in context, what did that mean to a first century Jew? There were two people? I don’t think so!1″ My reply was to ask in astonishment, and obtain a positive affirmation from him to the following question, “So you interpret Paul’s words through whatever you suppose his first century Judaism to be?” Again he responded to that question by saying yes, and my follow up response was this, “Paul nor John says this is what my “Judaism” is and this is what it means in light of this passage. Do you not feel like that is interpolating things into the text?” To which I got the response of simply, “No.” Obviously the word context to him meant whatever he determines the first century Jew believes, without appealing to Scripture and not bothering to share or reveal his source. And to me context meant whatever the preceding and succeeding texts say and mean in their original intention, despite however it rocks our theological presuppositions.
Recently in conversation with an Oneness Pentecostal Pastor he said, “I don’t want some God who didn’t have the guts to come die for me, but had to send someone else.” As I ended our discussion about the topic of the Son I said, “The Scriptures warn us, ‘Noone who denies the Son has the Father…” and I don’t want you or your family to have the wrong Son of God.” In a moment that will surely echo throughout eternity for one of us we agreed that one of us did not have the right Son of God. My question is will it be the one who develops the concept of a gutless Father? In response to the Oneness Pastor’s comments a Pastor at my Church had this very balanced and Christ centered comment…
Christ My Only Hope Feed
