Jack Schaap's view of communion

Yeah, I know what you mean... The reactions I have seen left me with the impression it was about communion.

 

Ok, my mistake then.

I guess I did not realize you could only read parts of things and have a proper view on context.

Its pretty much a non-issue to me I think, so I will leave the topic alone.

 

False teaching

Baptmom, I think you may know somewhat of me from my other posts on this board. I am a Fundamentalist of your stripe and kind. Also, I know that all one has to do is mention the name Jack Hyles or anyone associated with him and there is an immediate reaction of sound and fury. Although I do have some reservations and objections to the personal self-aggrandizement of the Hyles-Anderson circles, I am not their enemy. I have friends and fellowship within this group. So, please allow me to tell my story as one without prejudice.

This book was highly recommended to my son who is planning to be married soon. He purchased it directly from the Hyles-Anderson bookstore by mail order for the outrageous sum of $18.00 for a two hundred-page paperback book. When I read the criticisms on the Internet, I immediately went to the book and read for myself. As I write, the book is lying beside me on my desk. I did my homework and researched the Scriptures even searching the Hebrew for possible misunderstandings and misinterpretations. As far as I have been able to ascertain, this is no matter of differing interpretations but it is pure eisegesis, imagination and fabrication. As a mature believer of some understanding, competence and knowledge in marriage counseling and the Scriptures, I am scandalized and disgusted by Mr. Schaap’s teaching on this matter. There is only one word to describe his particular teaching on this matter as written in his book Marriage: The Divine Intimacy—it is false teaching. I will not mince words—it is heretical and blasphemous.

My objections are briefly as follows:

• Mr. Schaap’s teaching that human sexual intercourse is a picture of salvation is heretical and without any Scriptural support whatsoever. This shows a faulty and dangerous understanding of salvation.
• He is mistaken that sexual intercourse is what constitutes the marriage relationship and intimacy. Note that Mary was Joseph’s wife at least nine months before they experienced sexual intimacy. I contend that she was fully and completely his wife without sex.
• Mr. Schaap is wrong in emphasizing the sexual aspect over the covenantal and companionship aspects of marriage. He obviously doesn’t understand or teach the Biblical definition of marriage.
• I think he believes that the “one flesh” relationship, as inferred by his writing, is the sexual function. According to Genesis 2:21-24, the term “one flesh” comes from the fact that woman was formed from man. It does not refer to their sexual relations. This mistaken notion is simply man’s eisegesis and fantasy fostered by a false understanding of what the “one flesh” relation really is.
• Mr. Schaap’s handling of Scripture is deplorable. He forces the Scripture, without warrant, to say what he wants. He alludes to Ephesians 5, yet he misses the obvious teaching in verse 30 of the “one flesh” imagery. Compare Ephesians 5:30 with the wording of Genesis 2:23 and one will not come up with the idea that spousal sexual intercourse is a picture of Christ’s relation to His church. Flesh and bone do not connotate intercourse.
• Mr. Schaap is simply wrong in many of his statements. The Hebrew words shavah in Psalm 119:30 and dabaq in Psalm 119:31 do not carry the sexual implications that Mr. Schaap claims. He is just wrong—that’s all. What more can be said when there’s not the slightest evidence except in Mr. Schaap’s imagination? Even as used in Genesis 2:24, there is obviously no sexual connotation attached to dabaq because of the parallelism of leaving father and mother to the cleaving unto one’s wife. Furthermore, the same word is used in Ruth 1:14 between Ruth and Naomi as well as throughout OT Scripture where no sexual connotation exists.
• Mr. Schaap borders on blasphemy by comparing our relationship to God and Christ with His church as human sexual intercourse. To imagine the receiving of Christ and the entering of the Word of God into us as sexual penetration is blasphemous. Furthermore, there is absolutely no Scriptural warrant for his doing so.
• There are numerous other objections, inadequate theology and bad advice, especially with regards to marriage, throughout the book but I don’t have the time and patience to elaborate here. However, suffice it to say that Mr. Schaap’s view of the marriage relationship is more of the popular view and at variance with the Scriptures. He seems to intimate by illustration that when a couple has sinned in pre-martial sex that the best course is immediate marriage. This is not true. Marriage does not erase and fix the sin. Sin demands repentance and forgiveness. Marriage following fornication is not mandated, or even recommended, by Scripture. Marriage forged under such conditions most often results in bitter conflict and ends in divorce. None of this can be pleasing or glorifying to God.

I am, without apology, a Fundamentalist Baptist of the soul-winning, separatist, sin-blasting variety. However, I believe that we must confront and expose error even when it appears by those who are professedly within our ranks. To tolerate false teaching in the ranks just because individuals are verbally aligned with us does a disserve to our cause and position. I cannot recommend Jack Schaap’s book Marriage: The Divine Intimacy.

 

Sounds wonderful but is it true?

I do not intend to offend you but this is not a well thought-out, although often repeated, position. Is there anything wrong with comparing a physical and spiritual relationship? Is not the spiritual always higher? Is it a good idea to illustrate or compare the higher and better with the inferior and sometimes sordid?

Now, let’s do some thinking. You say, “Intimacy in a marriage is not dirty, it is not shameful.” I assume you are referring to a physical intimacy when you use the word. Is not intimacy in marriage more than a simple animal act?

No, a physical relation between husband and wife is not sinful. It is not shameful but Adam and Eve did cover their own nakedness even when no others were there to observe. We can convincingly argue, I think, that there is certain decorum and respect between husband and wife even in intimacy. Scripture is clear that the marriage bed is undefiled. However, can we elevate the mere physical act to portray our relation with Christ?

The point that I am driving toward is that even in the physical intimacy between husband and wife there can be sin. From counseling couples, we know that one partner can be engaged in lustful, sinful thoughts about others while in physical intimacy with his or her spouse. Sometimes, one or both spouses engage in physical intimacy for selfish physical pleasure alone. Is this representative of the Christ relationship?

Furthermore, I will argue that the conjugal relationship between husband and wife should be more than mere physical intimacy. There is, I believe, both a physical and spiritual intimacy here. The physical is the less of the two because spiritual intimacy can be achieved only within the bonds of matrimony. An extra-marital physical intimacy cannot achieve this. To put the emphasis on the physical and portray it was a picture of our Christ relationship is to cheapen and downgrade this divine relation. We have allowed the world and Hollywood to mold our thinking—we have overlooked what is really important. The world emphasizes only being good in bed. We allowed the world’s philosophy and marriage philosophy to taint our Biblical view of marriage and intimacy.

Let’s look at this way. If the physical intimacy is the ultimate key to marriage, then the intimacy is decreased if some physical condition lessens this aspect. Yet, some of the most intimate relationships have been between couples where one was invalided or incapacitated. Their spiritual intimacy transcended anything we can imagine in a physical relationship. After all, it is incontestable that physical prowess decreases with age but good marriages mature and draw closer in intimacy as the physical aspect declines.

I can go on with many more implications but there are other things that demand my attention. In sum, IMHO, any preacher, regardless of whom he may be, is wrong in emphasizing physical intimacy and comparing it to our relationship with Christ. There is no Scriptural basis. Also, it promotes the wrong worldly view that a marriage can’t be good without super physical intimacy. Furthermore, it destroys the proper understanding of Ephesians 5 and Christ’s relation to His church.

 

paidagogos,
Thanks for reading the book and giving your evaluation.

I once heard of tape of Jack Hyles preaching a message entitled "Woman, the Holy Spirit of the Family". In it, he drew parallels between the Holy Spirit's ministry and what a woman's role should be in the home.

This kind of preaching is unnecesary at best and harmful at worst. Comparing a woman to the Holy Spirit is not a comparison found in the Bible. So, Hyles was not helping the listener understand what the bible says, he was communicating his own concepts and notions and "sanctifying" them with biblical terms. I suppose his admirers only increased in their admiration for him because his ability to "come up with" this analogy showed his spiritual insight and creativity.

Shapp seems to be using the same techique as his mentor, hero, and father-in-law. Wouldn't it be better if he studied the Bible and preached what it says rather than making stuff up?

 

Exactly, well said. :thumbsup:

 

paidagogos,

I appreciate your thoughtful review, and your willingness to deal in such a straightforward manner. You have taught me some things, made some very valid points, and I will be doing some more thinking on this because of what you've written.

The only thing I wanted to clarify is that when I use the word "intimacy" I also am referring to the entire close bond there should be between husband and wife, as you have pointed it out as well. I guess I have assumed that that was also what Pastor Schaap is referring to.

Oh, and Im not offended. If I make a poor argument Id rather be corrected and taught the right argument!

 

That's just the way it is in this fallen world. The unbelieving world hears some well known personality in its many spheres has written a book and gives his unstudied, or researched, opinion on something and the book becomes a best seller.

The believing world, in parallel, hears that this well-known preacher of this kind of church writes a book about something that he thinks the Scriptures say and there are ooh's and aaahh's and the writer immediately gains followers and critics and the book sells like hotcakes. But it's worse in the believing world, because in the unbelieving world not all of the books written can cause arguments in homes and families which children can witness and make them conclude that his/her parents are hypocrites and religion, per se, is hypocrisy, the same way that that "One Punk for Christ" guy did.

Everyday I listen to people call on the phone and describe their technical problems. Most of these callers do not know their eyebrow from their forehead when it comes to computers, and so I have to work blind and analyze what I am hearing and resolve the problem.

I fail to see how the Lord's Supper can even be remotely compared to sexual intimacy of husband and wife.

I see it more as the intimacy of friends and kin, or like Royalty (Christ) granting rights and privileges to commoners (us) to sit and drink with Him at His (not ours) table in His kingdom.

 

After going through several paragraphs in the book, I see that Schaap is not speaking of symbolism as bapmom inferred. Here is an excerpt from page 44 paragraph 3:

Jack Schaap The Divine Intimacy 2005

Schaap clearly says it refers to the sex act, not that it is symbolic of the sex act

 

this thread is over 3 months old...............

if you have a problem with Brother Schaap's book I suggest you email the church or call them and ask him to clarify it for you. Perhaps you will find that you were wrong in your impression, or perhaps you will find that you are completely correct and you will go on your way agreeing to disagree with Jack Schaap. But discussing it here further without benefit of the author's input and defense of his own work does no one any good.

 

I will never agree to disagree with anyone. That is a unbiblical stance.

Nowhere does the Word of God say we are to agree to disagree.

 

No, what about Romans 14 where every man is to be fully convinced in his own mind. Everyone does not have to agree with me unless it is a clear Bible mandate.

Outside of that I can easily agree to disagree.

 

1 Chronicles 1:18 'Come, let us reason together...'

Matthew 5:25 'Agree with thine adversary quickly...'.

Doesn't sound like Jesus taught agree to disagree. He just said to agree.

 

I disagree

 

The Bible doesn't say, "Always agree with His Blood Spoke My Name."

 

If you don't agree to disagree, then are you going to hound the other person until they agree with you? OR are you going to be the leopard that changes it's spots? I'm not comfortable agreeing with everything I've read here on this thread or on the BB. I am comfortable telling others that I don't agree with them - firmly (but hopefully lovingly) - if need be. I don't have the time to come to terms with every body. Jesus in his earthly body did NOT have the time to come to agreement with everybody. What about the young ruler who was told to give away all he owned and follow Jesus? Our precious Lord watched him walk away - certainly agreement was not reached in that case. Or do I remember that Scripture wrong and they came to agreement?

On the verses - Matt 5:25 deals with coming to terms quickly so that you aren't left to a judge, jury and perhaps prison.

the 1 Chronicles verse ???? It starts out with Arpachshad fathered Shelah?

 

HBSMN,

so does that mean you are going to be agreeable with everyone now? or are you going to just argue? So far all you seem to do is argue.....not agree.........
As if you did not know, "agree to disagree" means being kind to each other even when we do not see things the same way. It means not to rail on a person to the point where they feel humiliated and angry and hurt. That defeats the purpose.


Oh! and I lost track of this thread (3 months ago) and did not get the chance to reply to the whole "Woman, Holy Spirit of the Home" issue! How fortunate that you brought this back up! :laugh: Yes, it has been eating at me......

In actuality Hyles was most probably not the first one to put forth this idea. Ive seen it preached many places, by many different people. Obviously the idea is that the woman's role in the home corresponds to many of the roles which the Holy Spirit has in our personal life. Obviously this would not extend to EVERY role of the Holy Spirit - but the woman IS to be the comforter of her home, the one who kisses the wounds and mends the hurts, the one who speaks the rebuke in love when it is needed. This is an illustration used by many people, and is not some sort of "new doctrine". It is just an illustration to help us understand and apply the Bible to our actual life a little better.

So, anyone reading this can agree or not agree......obviously that's ok. Unless HBSMN has some sort of problem with that..........

 

where are we to disagree with other saints? Scripture please?

 

So, you agree with everything I say and believe? I like that! Wish everyone was as smart as you!

 

And you'll both be agreeing with everything I say by the end of the evening, right?