Who said that?

Question Mark

Who said the following?

If you would please, turn with me to the Song of Solomon. One of the great books of the Bible. 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.

A). Paul Crouch

B). Marilyn Manson

C). Rob Bell

D). Joel Osteen

E). Rick Warren

F). John MacArthur

G). Robert Schuller

H). Benjamin Dunn

I). John Piper

J). Mark Driscoll

K). Tammy Faye Bakker

L). Jay Bakker

M). Doug Pagitt

N). Richard Dawkins

For the answer, click below:

The answer:  Mark Driscoll.

This quote (among many others I can’t in good conscience reprint here) was obtained from Driscoll’s sermon Sex, A Study of the Good Bits From A Song of Solomon delivered at the noon service of Destiny Church in Edinburgh, Scotland on November 18, 2007.

HT: Covenant Theology

29 thoughts on “Who said that?

  1. What is sad is the number of people who actually defend this nonsense. They use irrelevant arguments such as “you just don’t like Driscoll’s style”, or “you want to ignore the sexual nature of the book”.

  2. puritan, you are so right

    my favorite justifying mark driscoll and his antics excuse is

    he (driscoll) is friends with john piper,

    so therefore,

    we should give mark driscoll a free pass with anything he says or does

  3. Daniel says:

    You don’t think by allegorizing Song of Songs is weird? There is no other way to tell it how Driscoll did. And you know what? It made an impact, didn’t it.

    The way Driscoll told it made an impact to make you look at it the way it was meant to. But to refuse to see it this way only leads you to a foundation with 1000’s of gallons of water added to a cement mix, that would give your foundation full of cracks and made weak.

    One imagines what you people would have blogged about how Elijah ridiculed the false prophets of Baal (same as false preachers in our day), had he lived in our time.

  4. Daniel:

    Oh. it made an impact all right. Never again can one read the Song of Solomon and not imagine oral sex mandated by Jesus to wives as per the exposition of one Mark Driscoll.

    Did you go to the link and read all of the awful utterances that came from MD’s mouth? The one used in this post was utterly blasphemous. The others were highly offensive as well . . . so much so that I refuse to reprint them here.

    And to attempt to use Elijah’s mocking of the Baal prophets as you have is not really becoming either. Please don’t misuse Scripture

    Sincerely,
    – The Pilgrim

  5. Daniel says:

    You hardly know me and I already misquote scripture? Becareful, your self-righteousness is showing.

  6. Daniel:

    First, I never said you “misquoted Scripture,” because you have yet to quote any. However, I did warn you to be careful not to misuse it. I think that’s a fair request, is it not?

    Secondly, I would not need to know someone personally to know if they’re “misquoting Scripture” anyway. The barometer is the Scripture’s context itself, not the relationship between the sender and receiver.

    Thirdly, the tone of your comments have been a little condescending and this one (in which you accuse me of being self-righteous, while hardly knowing me I might add) is no different.

    Sincerely,
    – The Pilgrim

  7. DavidW says:

    theconfessors:

    Are you serious? For starters, it displays terrible hermeneutics.

    “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.”

    First Driscoll says if the book is an allegory between Christ and his bride the church, then, Jesus is “having sex with me”. Utterly faulty reasoning. Plural allegory does not equal a one-on-one literal application.

    He further implies that those who allegorize the book are making Jesus a homosexual.

    Mr. Driscoll goes so far left field in distortion to what this is even talking about, that he totally perverts the meaning of the whole book (which this quote is just the beginning of).

  8. Well, we could not read your mind and thus were not quite sure what issues you were having with his approach, as that was not clear.

    Mark Driscoll would not necessarily be alone on a rejection of the allegorical position. While it is true Christians have believed this throughout the ages (and Jews as well), it isn’t true to say all Christian’s have accepted this exegesis. There are those who believe it to be literal, those who believe it to be God and his people, those who believe it to be more specifically, Jesus and his followers, and those who accept all three, and we’re sure all positions could provide good arguments for their position.

  9. DavidW says:

    A good debater can certainly argue any position using debating skills. Such, however, does not necessarily lead to the truth. Rightly dividing God’s word must be in harmony with the rest of His word. Interpretation of His word must not conflict with God’s revealed character, person, or attributes.

    To go beyond this quote into where Mr. Driscoll leads us would get quite off the subject of this thread, which is this quote. The problem with this quote is the inherent immoral inferences, falsely applied to those who take a contrary view to Mr. Driscoll’s, as well as his horrendous hermeneutics from this supposed pastor who claims to “rightly divide the word of truth”.

  10. “Interpretation of His word must not conflict with God’s revealed character, person, or attributes. ”

    Three things sort of jump out at me with this statement, first, depending on what you’re actually trying to say with this statement, it could be a problematic basis for interpretation. Second, this principle is based upon circular reasoning: 1) Where does one learn of God’s nature? Through the Scripture. 2) How does one interpret the Scripture. Through God’s revealed nature, which comes from the Scripture. So the very principle of interpretation you’ve establish, comes from the very text you’re trying to interpret. Also, I don’t remember this being a principle of hermeneutics. Now if I’ve misunderstood what you were getting at, please clarify.

    I would agree that Mark Driscoll sort of went overboard with his wording, as he probably does with much of his stuff. I don’t really listen to him.What can be taken out of his, drabble is, how does one create allegory from the very vivid passionate physical love shown between husband and wife? Especially when we do not see this level of imagery with any parable/allegory found else where of the bridegroom’s love for his church?

  11. Jeff H says:

    theconfessors,

    Seriously, haven’t you guys ever heard of the term HERMENEUTICS before?

    Do you really think it’s impossible to read and understand God’s Word in a methodical fashion?

    Wow!

  12. Jeff H says:

    Three things sort of jump out at me with this statement, first, depending on what you’re actually trying to say with this statement, it could be a problematic basis for interpretation. Second, this principle is based upon circular reasoning: 1) Where does one learn of God’s nature? Through the Scripture. 2) How does one interpret the Scripture. Through God’s revealed nature, which comes from the Scripture. So the very principle of interpretation you’ve establish, comes from the very text you’re trying to interpret.

  13. Jeff H says:

    DavidW explained it to you already… and quite well.

    Your attempts at obfuscating God’s Word have failed.

    Quoting DavidW:

    Rightly dividing God’s word must be in harmony with the rest of His word. Interpretation of His word must not conflict with God’s revealed character, person, or attributes.

  14. First off, do you even know what hermeneutics is? Secondly, we have not really discussed hermeneutics with DavidW. Thirdly, the quote of ours you’re repeating back to us, is merely an issue we have with something he’s said that we’d like more clarification on because of its implications.

  15. Jeff H says:

    First off, do you even know what hermeneutics is?

    I do indeed!

    hermeneutic: adjective
    concerning interpretation, esp. of the Bible or literary texts.
    noun

    a method or theory of interpretation.
    :-)

    Secondly, we have not really discussed hermeneutics with DavidW.

    You questioned his statement:

    Rightly dividing God’s word must be in harmony with the rest of His word. Interpretation of His word must not conflict with God’s revealed character, person, or attributes.

    That describes a CORRECT application of hermeneutics to Scripture…

    Thirdly, the quote of ours you’re repeating back to us, is merely an issue we have with something he’s said that we’d like more clarification on because of its implications.

    See previous comment.

    Do you need me to get the Mummenschanz Mime Troop in here to act it out for you?

    I don’t know how to make it any more plain than I have.

  16. Jeff H says:

    Also, please be truthful in our exchanges:

    Secondly, we have not really discussed hermeneutics with DavidW.

    Really?

    Also, I don’t remember this being a principle of hermeneutics.

  17. To further expound on hermeneutics, it revolves around vocabulary, grammatical expressions, historical setting, literary genre, sociocultural context, and a theological scope.

    We questioned only part of his statement: “Interpretation of His word must not conflict with God’s revealed character, person, or attributes.” And as we noted above after quoting that section:”depending on what you’re actually trying to say with this statement…Now if I’ve misunderstood what you were getting at, please clarify.” The reason we have issues with this last bit is simple, its circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. Unless we’re completely misunderstanding what he’s saying, it appears to say: we interpret Scripture in such a way that it does not contradict what God has revealed of himself in Scripture. If this is the case, what techniques were used to interpret what God has revealed of himself?

  18. Jeff H says:

    I will quote Pilgrim from another post:

    if you cannot distinguish between figurative and literal in any writing, then I don’t know what to tell you Those are elementary principles of English.

    When Jesus says that He’s the door, or the bread of life, we know he is not made of wood or flour by the context of what is being said. Just like (by context) we know that unless a man is born again he will not see the Kingdom of God. This is why reading the entire Bible is so important (yet sadly so lacking in churches today) instead of just pieces here and there. And additionally the carnal mind cannot understand the things of God anyway, so those who stand on the outside of the Body of Christ and mock the Scriptures because they do not understand them (e.g. Atheists), are mocking and rejecting the Scriptures because they have not been born of the Spirit.

    God’s Word is an integrated message… a revelation about Himself that can easily be read and understood and consistent.

    It is CONSISTENT.
    ______________________________________________________________

    I dropped a word in my last post:

    “God’s Word is an integrated message… a revelation about Himself that can easily be read and understood and is consistent.

  19. We at the Confessors believe God’s word to be consistent. However, we recognize that in order to find truth in the Bible, one must not read it from one’s dogmatic presuppositions, or they will only find the truth they create; and then you get thousands of denominations….

  20. Jeff H says:

    However, we recognize that in order to find truth in the Bible, one must not read it from one’s dogmatic presuppositions, or they will only find the truth they create;

    First of all, the Bible IS Truth… Truth is NOT just something found by mining the Bible.

    Second, as I have said repeatedly, you MUST use sound hermeneutic principles when you read Scripture, or you will fall into error.

    Remember?

    hermeneutic: adjective
    concerning interpretation, esp. of the Bible or literary texts.

    noun
    a method or theory of interpretation.

    and then you get thousands of denominations….

    You’re sounding like a Catholic here.
    :-)

    it appears to say: we interpret Scripture in such a way that it does not contradict what God has revealed of himself in Scripture. If this is the case, what techniques were used to interpret what God has revealed of himself?

    I think where you are misunderstanding DavidW is revealed in this quote. Let me attempt an explanation:

    1. God has given us His Word.

    2. In His Word, we can see and understand clearly what His message is by applying sound hermeneutic principles.

    3. We observe that the Bible is an integrated message, that is completely self-consistent.

    4. From rightly dividing His Word, we can see that the Bible contains much revelation from God about Himself: His Nature, His Attributes, His Character…

    5. We also see clearly that the Nature of God is ALSO completely consistent throughout Scripture.

    Therefore, any assumption about the Nature of God or any part of His Word must be consistent with ALL of His Word (generally) and ALL of His revelation in His Word about Himself (specifically).

    I hope this helps.

    In Christ,
    – Jeff H

  21. DavidW says:

    Thank you, Jeff, for rightly attempting to clarify what I was saying.

    theconfessors:

    Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you sooner. We must live in different time zones.

    I see you take issue with how I phrased something, and desire clarification. You said above:

    We questioned only part of his statement: “Interpretation of His word must not conflict with God’s revealed character, person, or attributes.”

    I meant rather simply that as we interpret God’s word, it stands to reason that such interpretation must comform to the character, person and attributes of He Who has spoken. Or to put it another way, God, being Who He has said He is, cannot lie, contradict Himself, approve of sin, etc., since that would run contrary to Who He is, and what He has revealed about Himself elsewhere in His word, and what He has commanded of His followers. And would, in effect, run contrary also to the fact that He is truth. Thus any interpretation of His word must proceed with that basic understanding. This is not circular reasoning, nor reasoning which supports my personal presuppositions, but reasoning based on and in support of God’s truth. People err when they fail to remember this most basic of principles. For example, Jesus told the religious leaders: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? (Jn. 10:34). From that, people could go off into believing that there are many gods, or even that one can be a god himself. Yet that runs contrary to 1Tim. 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”. So which statement is true? As we look through the rest of God’s word, we find there is only one God. All others are false gods of man’s invention. I hope by now, you’re seeing my point. If not, I really don’t have the time to endlessly debate the mechanics of hermeneutics.

    I’d like to return to the focus of this thread: Mr. Driscoll’s statement itself. My focus is not to debate whether the Song of Songs is literal or allegorical. Mr. Driscoll makes a blanket statement that it’s not allegorical, and attempts to support that by saying IF it is allegorical, THEN Jesus is, well, basically engaging in homosexual behavior with Driscoll personally. Such is totally absurd for obvious reasons. For the sake of argument, IF it were allegorical, that does not follow that Jesus is personally making love to me as a man. IF it were an allegory of God and his people, or Christ and His church, it would very much be in line with the symbolism of Christ the bridegroom and the church being His bride (as described in the New Testament). Mr. Driscoll attempts to destroy an interpretation which runs contrary to his interpretation of the book, by attaching a hideous caricature of Jesus to the contrary, thus strengthening his interpretation. Thus he does not appeal to internal evidences, but by making the opposite interpretation so unsavory as to appeal to the audience’s emotional repulsion. Such is not rightly dividing the word of truth.

    Hope that clarifies.
    _______________________________________________

    Jeff H:

    Thanks again dear brother for standing in defense of God’s word. Thanks also for the excellent points you made. As usual, you have a way of phrasing things much better than I.

    May the Lord bless you,
    DavidW

  22. Jeff H says:

    As usual, you have a way of phrasing things much better than I.

    Not so, my brother!

    To God be the glory,
    – Jeff H

  23. Jeff H:

    “First of all, the Bible IS Truth… Truth is NOT just something found by mining the Bible.”

    You’ve completely missed our point. What we’re saying is that if one approaches Biblical exegesis starting with a particular dogmatic presupposition, they will read that into the text, instead of actually interpreting what the text is really saying. This is why there are methodological principles in regards to hermeneutics, to mind for the truth of the Bible…

    “Remember?”

    1) This is an example of bad hermeneutics and exegesis of our words, since we’re not questioning hermeneutics.

    2) We’re unsure of why you keep defining hermeneutics for us, since we know what it is and being able to explain what hermeneutics is, does not equal being able to actually do it.

    “You’re sounding like a Catholic here.”

    Many denominations have been created based upon peoples presuppositions and reading them into the Scripture. Are we the only one who sees the danger of this? While we believe all believers in Christ are one, it’s clear denominations have hurt Christianity. How many times has the question, “if Christianity is right, why are there so many differing beliefs,” come up while evangelizing? Or how about the position many Christians take, “if your not apart of my denomination your not a Christian,” you can’t interpret the Bible correctly, etc etc. Stuff like this hurts Christianity more than it helps.

    “I think where you are misunderstanding DavidW is revealed in this quote. Let me attempt an explanation”

    This explanation helps a bit; however, it’s overlooking one point, what are the sound hermeneutic principles? Here’s the issue, if the principles are based solely upon, “God’s revealed nature,” (the impression we’re getting) which is revealed from the Scripture, what principles are being applied first to interpret what God’s revealed nature actually is? It begins to look like this: (i) We interpret God’s revealed nature through the Scripture (ii) We interpret the Scripture based upon God’s revealed nature (iii) Therefore we interpret God’s revealed nature from the Scripture based upon God’s revealed nature which comes from the Scripture we’re trying to first interpret. Basically what we’re getting at is that the logical flow of your points 1-5 all hinge upon point 2 and how you define hermeneutic principles. If it’s defined off of what we keep pointing out, then it leads to circular reasoning and looks like our points 1-3 above; unless you have new methods to first interpret the hermeneutic principle. If you first presuppose what God’s revealed nature is before going to Scripture, there’s a danger of getting it wrong and force feeding an interpretation into the text that isn’t there, like Mormons do.

  24. Jeff H says:

    You’ve completely missed our point. What we’re saying is that if one approaches Biblical exegesis starting with a particular dogmatic presupposition, they will read that into the text, instead of actually interpreting what the text is really saying.

    Yup. It’s called eisegesis. So what? You think you are the only one who has ever encountered it? Hardly. History is littered with such error. What of it?

    You make it sound as if you’ve had some kind of fresh, new epiphany… sorry to burst your bubble. It’s been around and that’s part of ‘defending and contending’.

    This is an example of bad hermeneutics and exegesis of our words

    Hardly. Nice try though!

    since we’re not questioning hermeneutics.

    O.K. That’s a lie, since you are the one who BROUGHT UP hermeneutics to begin with.

    That’s twice you’ve lied, and I’ve called you on it both times.

    I admonished you:

    Me: Also, please be truthful in our exchanges:

    You: Secondly, we have not really discussed hermeneutics with DavidW.

    Me:Really?

    You (to DavidW): Also, I don’t remember this being a principle of hermeneutics.

    I’m not sure you should sully Christ’s Name here by lying. Also, I’m sure the host here does not appreciate it.

    Many denominations have been created based upon peoples presuppositions and reading them into the Scripture. Are we the only one who sees the danger of this? While we believe all believers in Christ are one, it’s clear denominations have hurt Christianity. How many times has the question, “if Christianity is right, why are there so many differing beliefs,” come up while evangelizing? Or how about the position many Christians take, “if your not apart of my denomination your not a Christian,” you can’t interpret the Bible correctly, etc etc. Stuff like this hurts Christianity more than it helps.

    Nope. With solid hermeneutics, rightly dividing the Word of God is straight forward. God said what He means, and He means what He said.

    Period.

    You’ve got NOTHING.

    He has given us His Holy Spirit to give us discernment so that we wield His Sword appropriately.

    Stuff like this hurts Christianity more than it helps.

    No. SIN ‘hurts’ Christianity.

    Here’s the issue, if the principles are based solely upon, “God’s revealed nature,” (the impression we’re getting) which is revealed from the Scripture, what principles are being applied first to interpret what God’s revealed nature actually is? It begins to look like this: (i) We interpret God’s revealed nature through the Scripture (ii) We interpret the Scripture based upon God’s revealed nature (iii) Therefore we interpret God’s revealed nature from the Scripture based upon God’s revealed nature which comes from the Scripture we’re trying to first interpret. Basically what we’re getting at is that the logical flow of your points 1-5 all hinge upon point 2 and how you define hermeneutic principles. If it’s defined off of what we keep pointing out, then it leads to circular reasoning and looks like our points 1-3 above; unless you have new methods to first interpret the hermeneutic principle. If you first presuppose what God’s revealed nature is before going to Scripture, there’s a danger of getting it wrong and force feeding an interpretation into the text that isn’t there, like Mormons do.

    So, basically, no one can understand God or His Word…

    Yeah. I’ve heard this before…

    “Hath God said…?”

    Now, I think you’ve hijacked this thread long enough.

    Get back on topic.

    In Christ,
    – Jeff H
    __________________________________________________________________

    One correction to my post.

    It reads:

    Stuff like this hurts Christianity more than it helps.

    It should read:

    Stuff like this hurts Christianity more than it helps.

    … since I’m quoting ‘theconfessors’

  25. DavidW says:

    theconfessors:

    The subject of this thread is Mr. Driscoll’s quote. Yet you have consistently kept the focus off the subject. Jeff and I have attempted in good faith to explain to you what we mean, in the simplest of language, without going into exhaustive detail for the sake of brevity. And I’ve tried to bring it back to the subject (Driscoll’s quote). You refuse to accept what we have explained and have instead insisted on proceeding with your own agenda (in which you have inferred that we are proceeding with reasoning which we are not). You appear to only wish to argue the finer details of hermeneutics, rather than applying it to the quote of Mr. Driscoll. I don’t see the fruitfulness in following your rabbit trail, playing your word games, or riding this merry-go-round any longer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s