Teach Them To Know The Lord?
"And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." (Hebrews 8:11)
On this passage Elder Potter, late 19th century Hardshell debater and apologist, stated:
"Another thought: How did his missionary brother understand it when he said, “Thou shall teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, until all shall know the Lord?” Did he understand that the thing spoken of in the quotation in Hebrews was not to take place until after the gospel had conquered the world? No, sir; he does not believe that was true at all. That was the way he understood it, and I am afraid that is the way brother Yates understood it, from his conduct. Let me tell him there is not a single syllable of authority in the gospel to any minister, from Jesus Christ, to tell him to teach men to know the Lord. If any man claims to be teaching men to know the Lord, I want him to show me his authority for it. The commission does not say any thing about teaching men to know the Lord. Aquila and Priscilla taught the way of the Lord more perfectly to Apollos, but they did not teach him to know the Lord. The New Testament says, “Thou shalt not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, to know the Lord for all shall know him, from the least unto the greatest,” and it has never contradicted it, and as it says that, and not one syllable of authority to any man to go about teaching sinners to know the Lord, I want to know why that does not look like it belongs to the new dispensation—the new covenant. I would as soon a brother would say he could impart eternal life as to say he could teach men to know the Lord." (Debate on Foreign Missions-Chapter 14 - MR. POTTER’S SEVENTH SPEECH) Potter - Yates Debate
Potter, in these words, gives the Hardshell reasoning on the Hebrew passage. He believed that the passage upheld his Hardshell notions about being saved, born again, or regenerated. In looking at this argumentation, let us first begin by noticing the language of Jeremiah, who's words are being cited by Paul.
"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jer. 31: 24)
The "no more" is destructive to the Hardshell interpretation of the prophecy. "No more" shows that what had been the practice would no more be the practice when the new covenant is realized. Thus, if we grant the reasoning of Potter and the Hardshells about teaching men to know the Lord, we would have to affirm that this practice was done prior to the new covenant. But, this Hardshells will not want to affirm, for they believe that there never has been a time when the Lord used means to bring people into a knowledge of the Lord. This alone ought to be enough to demonstrate, even to the Hardshells themselves, that their interpretation and inferences on the passage, are not correct.
Secondly, the Hardshell interpretation affirms that coming to "know" the Lord is the same as being "regenerated." But, this is not what is taught by the Hardshells, who affirm that being "regenerated" imparts no knowledge, and involves no teaching, but is rather what is "non-cognitive" and "on the sub-conscious level." Hardshells generally connect coming to divine knowledge with "conversion," not with "regeneration." However, they believe that God uses means in conversion, in teaching the regenerated about who is the Lord. This is an example of how they speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. They will cite the Hebrews passage in such a way as to indicate that "knowing the Lord" is integral to the experience of "regeneration," but will at other times affirm that nothing is taught and learned in it. If sinners are "taught" to "know the Lord," in regeneration, then how can they affirm that regeneration is non-cognitive? Also, is not the "Lord" the God of the Bible? The Lord Jesus Christ? But, how can one "know" the Lord apart from being "taught" something about him? How can Hardshells affirm that myriads of pagans, who "know" other gods and lords other than the Christian God and Lord, "know" the "Lord" of the Hebrew passage? It is not a knowledge that there is a lord or god, but a knowledge of a specific God and Lord, even the God and Lord of the Bible.
God's working of miracles, in the old testament, was often said to be for the purpose of bringing people to "know the Lord."
"Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire." (Deut. 4: 34-36)
Also, David said - "Know ye that the LORD he is God." (Psa. 100: 3) That is an exhortation, not a question. It is a command, an imperative. And, it is a command that is either obeyed or disobeyed.
"Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD." (Jer. 9: 6)
So may it be said of all the lost. They have "refused to know" the Lord.
Those who have come to know the Lord continue to increase in their knowledge of the Lord. It involves a choice and willingness.
"Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD..." (Hosea 6: 3)
Further, those who know the Lord are they who behave in a certain way.
"He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the LORD." (Jer. 22: 16)
"Is this not what it means to know me?" - and the same may be said of other qualities, such as believing in the Lord. Concerning faith and repentance also the Lord may well say - "Is this not what it means to know me?"
On this passage Dr. Gill wrote:
"...this is not to be understood, so as to set aside the external and public ministry of the word, which is a standing ordinance of God under the Gospel dispensation; or even the, private instructions of saints one to another, in Christian conversation, whereby they may build up one another in their most holy faith..."
On the passage in Jeremiah, Gill wrote:
"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,.... Which is not to be understood of the outward ministry of the word; in heaven indeed there will be no need of it, nor in the New Jerusalem state; but in every period of time before it. In the first times of the Gospel, persons were appointed and qualified by Christ to be pastors and teachers; and in the latter day men shall run to and fro, and increase knowledge; besides, the saints in the present state stand in need of teaching; since they know but in part, and there is room for a growth in grace, and in the knowledge of Christ: nor does this contradict brotherly teaching, or the private instructions of saints in religious conversation and Christian conference, which are very useful; but is rather opposed to pretended revelations of private men; or to the magisterial dictates of persons in public office; the word of God being the only rule of instruction in righteousness: or this may be not absolutely, but comparatively said; setting forth the abundance of knowledge under the Gospel dispensation, that, in comparison of former times, there would be no need of the means of further knowledge..."
Thus, it is clear that Gill did not entertain the Hardshell idea that the prophecy taught against the use of means, that sinners are saved by the preaching of the gospel.
Gill offers two possible senses in which the prophecy may be interpreted, both which are true to scripture in general. The first sense deals with the fact that the gospel, under the new covenant, was not to be limited to the Israelites, but would now include the Gentiles, the whole world, or all men. We know that the word of the Lord was confined to Israel under the old covenant.
"He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." (Psa. 147: 19, 20)
Even Jesus, during his earthly ministry, confined the preaching of the gospel to the nation of Israel, saying to his disciples - "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt. 10: 5, 6)
But, after the death of Christ and the inauguration of the new covenant, Jesus said:
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16: 15)
So, when the prophet said that "no more" would Israelites say "know the Lord" to their fellow Israelites, he indicates that it would now be said to the whole world. The passage does not say "they shall not say to anyone 'know the Lord,'" but would not say this only to their brethren or fellow citizens. Thus the passage may be read in this manner - "And they shall not teach any more every man his neighbour (only), and every man his brother (only), saying, Know the Lord: for all (not only Israelites) shall know me (through the exhortation - 'know the Lord'), from the least to the greatest."
The other sense in which the prophecy may relate is to the completion of the new covenant, when all have come to know the Lord, a time known in scripture as the time when Christ reigns on the earth, and when "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." (Isa. 11: 9; Hab. 2: 14) This was the sense in which it was interpreted by Yates in his debate with Potter. This seems to be included in the interpretation by the apostle who gives as the reason for now not teaching men to "know the Lord," for he says "FOR all shall know me." If Paul were a Hardshell and was giving the Hardshell reason for not saying to men "know the Lord," then he would have said - "for men are not means in bringing others to a knowledge of the Lord," or some other similar words, but this he does not do. Paul's intention is not to deny means, but to show that means will one day be unnecessary when the whole world has come to know the Lord.
There is, therefore, nothing in this passage to support hardshellism. The very idea that Paul is denying that the preaching of the gospel is for the purpose of bringing men to a knowledge of the Lord, is ludicrous.
Paul said that he was a "teacher of the Gentiles." (I Tim. 2: 7) But, teach them what? Who were the Gentiles? Were they not pagan polytheists? People who did not know the Lord? Wrote Paul:
"As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (I Cor. 8: 4-6)
Saved people are here contrasted with unsaved people. Saved people know the Lord. Unsaved people do not know the Lord. Unsaved people believe in "gods many" and "lords many." How did these saved people come to know the Lord? To know that there was only one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ? Surely it was by the preaching of the gospel.
Wrote Paul:
"Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place." (II Cor. 2: 14)
Here Paul plainly states that one's knowledge of God is made known by the preaching of the apostle, contrary to hardshellism.
He also wrote:
"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" (Gal. 4: 9)
Surely the context of the epistle shows that the Galatians coming to know God was through the gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment