Introduction to Daniel Part 2

The Historical Setting of Daniel and the Babylonian Deportations

Welcome to Adult Sunday School Kootenai Community Church. Many of you may not remember me since I've been gone since last year, but I'm the old guy. Let's open in prayer. Father, we are grateful for this opportunity to look into your word.

This morning as we continue this introduction, help us to get a feel and an understanding for what Daniel was living through at the time and reminding us, Lord, that when you inspired your word, you inspired it to be understood in the normal understanding of the words and what they meant when authors wrote to the people of their time.

Lord, you have finished your work in the word of God and closed it, and we have that work and it is sufficient. And as we study it, let us always be in awe and thankful that you chose to do so. As we look into Daniel this morning, we look to you for wisdom, for elimination, and for guidance.

And we'll thank you for what you're going to do in Jesus' name, amen. So when we finished off, we were looking at some of the historical issues or the historical dates that occurred in the Neo-Babylonian Empire, reminding ourselves that this empire was at the time, in 500, 600 BC, the most powerful empire on the planet.

It was about the size of the state of Texas or the equivalent, not quite. It was 70, 80 the state of Texas, excuse me. And it was about equivalent to the size of the states of Idaho and Nevada combined.

But remember, what would it take to get from Las Vegas to Bonner's Ferry on foot with marauding bands in between in the winter? That's what you have to remember. They didn't have subways or cars or anything else.

They didn't have camels. They did have camels. They did have camels. So we finished off with this little paragraph, which I'll read again. Daniel opens, we're not gonna get into the book again. Let me back up a bit.

We're not gonna get into it. The text today, we're gonna continue the introduction. We should finish the introduction today, if I hurry. And then we will begin to look at the text proper. Daniel opens with a description of the after effects of the defeat of the Egyptian army at Carchemish by Nebuchadnezzar.

You will also, by the way, see the word Nebuchadrezzar.

Same guy.

They just substituted consonants. By Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BC, the defeat of the Egyptian army. In August of that year, King Nebuchadnezzar's father died in Babylon. As Nebuchadnezzar traveled home to receive the crown and claim the throne, he took with him the very best of the young men who lived in Israel and some of the sacred vessels of the temple in Jerusalem.

Among those young men were Daniel and his friends. Nebuchadnezzar ascended to the throne September 6, 605 BC. Of course, the victorious Nebuchadnezzar took those vessels that he'd confiscated from the temple in Jerusalem and placed them in the temple of Marduk, who was the main god of the Babylonians at the time.

This would have been the first of three deportations Nebuchadnezzar accomplished in Judah. In 597, Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah again, this time taking captive young Ezekiel as well as many others. And then in 586 BC, the third invasion occurred when Mataniah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had renamed Zedekiah, rebelled by making a treaty with the pharaoh of Egypt.

An 18-month siege occurred and Jerusalem fell. Nebuchadnezzar put Zedekiah's eyes out and killed his sons and took Zedekiah and many others captive to Babylon in that third invasion.

And so that's, yes, yes, yes.

So he could see what happened, yes. He killed his sons first and then put his eyes out. Yeah, they were not very friendly people. They were very vicious, difficult, harsh, a harsh time and a harsh people.

The Authorship, Canonical Status, and Message of Daniel

So now moving on, when Daniel arrived in Babylon, he would have probably most likely been a teenager, maybe a young teenager. His life spanned at least 85 years. And late in his life, he penned the Book of Daniel.

The Book of Daniel is the most quoted book in the New Testament and has more fulfilled prophecies than any other book. Since Daniel was a government official first and a prophet second, his book, and we will go over this, some of the things I will restate multiple times because they are some of the things that the experts, the textual critics use as indications that the Book of Daniel is not scripture.

And in fact, it is. So I will be revisiting many of these things again and again. Since he was a government official first and a prophet second, this book is placed in the Hebrew writings rather than the prophet section.

As mentioned earlier, liberal scholars consider the Book of Daniel to simply be a history while conservative scholars who simply take scripture at face value acknowledge that it is a prophetic book, apocalyptic in nature, but truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and truly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

It is ironic to note that if liberal scholars are correct, the Book of Daniel will have to be considered a forgery, completely unworthy of inclusion in the scripture. The fact is that it is a product of the sixth century before Christ and is genuine scripture, prophetic in nature.

One commentator put it this way, and this is where I got that. One who claims that the Book of Daniel is a product of the Maccabean age thereby denies that it is a work of true predictive prophecy, as it purports to be.

Furthermore, if the Book of Daniel comes from the age of the Maccabees, I do not see how it is possible to escape the conclusion that the book is also a forgery, for it claims to be a revelation from God to the Daniel who lived in Babylon during the exile, unquote.

The book is quoted by the Lord Jesus Christ as authentic, and Jewish history records it as an actual writing of Daniel. Suffice it to say, that is the work of the prophet Daniel of the period of the Babylonian exile, just as it purports to be.

It is one of the few books in the Old Testament that was written in two languages. Daniel comes to us in both Aramaic and Greek, excuse me, Aramaic and Hebrew. I really mix things up. Aramaic and Hebrew.

The Aramaic is used to convey Gentile concerns, and the Hebrew, Jewish concerns and issues. Daniel wrote during the time of the Jewish captivity, the Israeli captivity, it was a difficult era for Hebrews, for the Jews, and his message of God's sovereignty would have been very welcome, a reminder to them that God is sovereign over all.

He encouraged his readers to stay faithful to God, for God would stay faithful to them, and they would be vindicated. The clear message of the book is God's sovereignty over angels, principalities, powers, nations, and human rulers.

Nothing escaped God's hand in this writing. There are miracles in chapters one through six, and significant prophecies in chapters seven through 12. Daniel specifies that God will reign supreme over the nations of men, and over the actions of men.

The book of Daniel also reveals much about the plan of redemption that began in Genesis chapter three, which culminates with the return and reign of the Lord Jesus Christ. We will see significant responses to prayer in this book, because God answers prayer, and Daniel reveals that in a unique and compelling way.

We will also see the grace of God revealed marvelously to a people who had forsaken him, but whom he had never left. They had forsaken him, but he had never left them. Another objection to the book of Daniel is that the author is not the Daniel we find in the book itself.

The detailed objections to Daniel's canonicity and authenticity will be dealt with throughout this entire study, as we encounter them in the text. But the objections can be summarized by, they were summarized by a fellow named Thomas S. Kepler in his commentary, his study of Daniel.

There are, and here's what he says. Now, be aware, I'm not saying these are my objections. This is Mr. Kepler summarizing the objections. So just, this is kind of a list of the objections. He says, there are, however, a number of factors which make it difficult for this Daniel living at the time of Nebuchadrezzar, or Nebuchadnezzar, to be the author of Daniel.

These are the things that the liberal scholars object to. Number one, about 200 BC, the prophets were added to the law to compose the Jewish Bible, yet Daniel is not among the prophets being added to the sacred writings about AD 90 when the Jewish Bible was completed.

The critics also say the book of Daniel is not mentioned in any Jewish literature until about 140 BC, when the Sibylline Oracles, and there is the address where it is referring to it, when those Sibylline Oracles refer to it.

In Baruch, which was written about 150 BC, there is a prayer similar to that in Daniel 9 .4. The book of Daniel is also alluded to in 1 Maccabees 2 .59, which was written about 125 BC. Daniel is referred to 164 times in 1 Maccabees, the Sibylline Oracles, and Enoch, written about 95 BC.

That's objection number two. Number three, Jesus ben Sirach, about 190 BC, lists the great men of Jewish history. In Ecclesiasticus, 44 through 50. But among these names, that of Daniel is missing. By the way, that's a apocryphal writing, the book of Ecclesiasticus.

It is included in the Romish Bible, but it's not included in Scripture. Number four, words borrowed from the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek languages appear in Daniel. Have you ever read a book that had French words in it?

It wasn't written here. Wasn't written in this time. It was probably written by Napoleon on a Tuesday. In the afternoon, yes. Number five, Jeremiah is mentioned as a prophet in 9 .2, and his writings are referred to.

Number six, in Jeremiah's time, also the period of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadrezzar, the Chaldeans are spoken of as a nation of people, referring to the Babylonians, which is referring to the Babylonians.

But in the book of Daniel, they are known as astrologers, magicians, diviners of truth. That is another objection. Okay, so Jeremiah is number five, and in number six, Jeremiah's time, the Chaldeans are referred to as a nation of people, referring to the Babylonians.

But in the book of Daniel, they're known as astrologers, magicians, and diviners of truth. Magicians and diviners of truth. Number seven, number seven objection by the liberal critics. The book of Daniel is written partly in Aramaic, a language popular among the Jews in the second century BC, but not at the time of Nebuchadnezzar.

Objection number eight, the author has an excellent view of history after the time of Alexander the Great, especially during the Maccabean struggles, but his history shows many inaccuracies during Babylonian and Persian periods.

Number nine, the theology regarding the resurrection of the dead and ideas about angels show that the author lived at a later time than that of Nebuchadnezzar. The same may be said in regard to his concern for diet, fasting, and ritualistic prayers.

And objection number 10, this is the synthesis of the objections that most liberal critics have, and we will address them as we go through the text. The pattern and purpose of the book of Daniel as an apocalypse, which reinterprets history from the time of Nebuchadnezzar until the time of Judas Maccabeus and Antiochus IV, and written in 165 BC, fits better into the scheme and purpose of Daniel than if the book were written in the period of Nebuchadnezzar, predicting history for the next 450 years.

Those are the 10 summarized objections, and most of them, if not all of them, are based on significant presuppositions, which we will see. It must be understood that liberal critics who reject the authenticity of the book of Daniel start with many presuppositions.

The first and most glaring that they start with is that predictive prophecy is impossible.

Why?

Because we said so, say they. Each of these objections will be treated in the text as we come to them, but they have been grouped by John Wolvert under six headings that will be useful. Number one, rejection of Daniel's canonicity.

Number two, rejection of detailed prophecy. Number three, rejection of miracles. Number four, textual problems. Number five, problems of language. And number six, alleged historical inaccuracies. Much more detail will be added to the treatment of these issues as we study the text, but for the purposes of summary during this introduction, we can say several things about these alleged issues.

Regarding canonicity, that's the first rejection, rejection of canonicity. Critics postulate that Daniel was not included in the prophets because when the Old Testament canon closed between 300 and 200 BC, the book of Daniel was not in existence.

The actual reason is much simpler. Daniel was a government official primarily, and he was not sent by God to preach a message to the people in the same way as Isaiah or Ezekiel. Thus, he was included in the section of the Hebrew writing Bible called the writings.

It was the character of his writing, not its authenticity, that was used for placement. Remember, he was writing, much of it has got government legalese in it. There are three citations in Ezekiel, as well as internal evidence that we will look at that clearly indicate that the book of Daniel was in existence during the Persian era that it treated.

Most importantly, the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament in Matthew chapter 24, 15 refers to Daniel as a prophet. He says, therefore, when you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel, the prophet, standing in the holy place, let the reader understand.

If Jesus called him a prophet, then prophet he was. Further, discoveries at Qumran of manuscript copies of the book of Daniel demonstrate for this book, now get this, for this book, in the very same way they demonstrate for Psalms and Job, that for the scribes at Qumran to have access to copies, the originals had to have been created much earlier.

No one debates that about the book of Psalms and Job.

No one.

This has been among the reasons for the earlier dating of the book of Psalms and Job. When this came to light, it became easy to understand that there must be an earlier dating than they had at the time for both Psalms and Job, because in order for the people, the scribes at Qumran, to have had access to copies, they would have had to have access to copies that were made much earlier.

To ignore the same application to the book of Daniel is to rely on presupposition alone and not fact. Does everyone get that? Did I make it perfectly clear?

Okay.

Regarding the rejection of detailed prophecy, this attack is the same attack that is leveled against the Bible as a whole, that it cannot be a revelation from the triune God, because nothing like that can exist, because there is no God.

Now, would you call that a presupposition? Okay, and you've been everywhere and verified that, even in Brooklyn.

Okay.

The great problem that occurs in Daniel is not that his prophecies and predictions are obscure and difficult to understand, as are those in the Apocrypha and related writings of the Old and Early New Testament time.

There are thousands of predictions in the Apocrypha, in all of the books that were written. Some of them, there are books that accompany this, the Song of Susanna and Bell and the Dragon, and those are two books that are included in the Catholic Bible, but they are clearly not Scripture.

They are maybe a play. One of them might have been a play written to show how tough and how cool Daniel was, but that's another story for another time. The problem isn't that the prophecies are obscure.

The problem is that the prophecies are very detailed, specific, and very accurate, and have been fulfilled in a remarkable way. Critics simply reject this. It has to be history. He couldn't have been this accurate.

It has also been alleged that apocalyptic writings had not commenced in the time of Daniel. This is refuted simply by reading the Book of Ezekiel, which was written in the same period, which has apocalyptic sections in it.

Further, this is simply an argument from silence to say that apocalyptic writings hadn't commenced. If the rejection of miracles, the mindset that permeates the liberal critic's works is to be considered, then much of Scripture must go.

For God worked miracles in the times of Moses and Joshua, Elisha and Elijah, and the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles. So we need to reject all of that for the very same reasons, if we're to be true to our own presuppositions.

This is simply a naturalistic point of view of liberal critics and is a major, or are major presuppositions. Textual problems will be dealt with, as mentioned, as we come to them. The main concern liberal critics have is with the Aramaic sections of the book.

One of the great, great authorities of ancient languages, Robert Dick Wilson, addressed these concerns in his study of the Book of Daniel thus. He said, we claim, however, that the composite Aramaic of Daniel agrees in almost every particular of orthography, etymology, and syntax with the Aramaic of the North Semitic inscriptions of the 9th, 8th, and 7th centuries B .C., and of the Egyptian papyri of the 5th century B .C.

All of the components of the language agree completely with that time period that Daniel wrote. So it is not a 200 B .C. writing alone, or could only be, is what they say. And that the vocabulary of Daniel has an admixture of Hebrew, Babylonian, and Persian words similar to that of the papyri of the 5th century B .C.

When was Daniel written? 5th century B .C. Whereas it differs in composition from the Aramaic of the Nabateans, which is devoid of Persian, Hebrew, and Babylonian words, and it is full of Arabisms, and also from that of the Palmyrenes, which is full of Greek words, while having but one or two Persian words and no Hebrew or Babylonian.

And then as John Walvard commented in his commentary on Daniel, an unusual feature of the book of Daniel is the fact that the central portion, chapter 2, verse 4, through chapter 7, verse 28, is written in Biblical Aramaic rather than Hebrew.

A similar use of Aramaic is found in Ezra, chapter 4, 8 through 6, and 18, and 7, 12 through 26, in Jeremiah, chapter 10, and the two words of the compound name, and I'm gonna try and butcher this name,.

It's a Aramaic word,.

Jegar-Sahadutha in Genesis 31 and 47 .8. The use of the Aramaic, which was the lingua franca of Daniel's period, was related to the fact that the material concerned the Gentile world rather than Israel directly.

The fact that there are similar portions elsewhere in the Bible should make clear that there is nothing unusual or questionable about the Aramaic section in Daniel. As pointed out by Brownlee, the shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic and back again in Daniel are found in the scrolls of Daniel at Qumran, supporting the legitimacy of this feature of the Masoretic text completely, and commonly used in the English translation.

The argument that the Aramaic of Daniel was Western and not used in Babylon as popularized by S .R. Driver has now been clearly shown to be erroneous by later archeological evidence. As Martin observes related to this driver's conclusion, contention, when he, Driver, wrote, the only material available was too late to be relevant.

Subsequently, R .D. Wilson, making use of earlier materials that had come to light, was able to show that the distinction between Eastern and Western Aramaic did not exist in pre-Christian times. That was one of their objections, that there are distinctions that were not extant and showing.

Archer says, concerning the Aramaic problem, here's what he said, the Jews apparently took no exception to the Aramaic sections in the book of Ezra, most of which consist in copies of correspondence carried on in Aramaic between local governments.

That's what they did when they were working between local governments. They wrote in government legalese. Do they, have you ever read a bill, a text of a bill online, and remarked to yourself that, I don't know what I just read.

And then you read it again, and then you said to yourself, now I'm more confused. And then for your own sanity, you didn't read it again. Now I lost my place. Most of which consists of correspondence carried on in Aramaic between local governments of Palestine and the Persian imperial court from approximately 520 to 460 BC.

If Ezra can be accepted as an authentic document from the middle of the fifth century BC, when so many of its chapters were largely composed in Aramaic, it is hard to see why the six Aramaic chapters of Daniel must be dated two centuries later than that.

It should be carefully observed that in the Babylon of the late sixth century in which Daniel purportedly lived, the predominant language spoken by the heterogeneous population of this metropolis was Aramaic.

It is therefore not surprising that an inhabitant of that city should have resorted to Aramaic in composing a portion of his memoirs. And frankly, and I don't mean this unkindly to Daniel, or Ezra, or any of those other pieces, but when people are so erudite and educated that they are fluent in many languages,.

They like to show that.

And it's very useful. You may have a section of government legalese that's difficult to translate into this particular language, but it's perfectly understandable in the language of the country in which it originated.

Why not use that? Well, because if you were a real government official, you'd want to make it unable to be understood. I'm just kidding. In other words, the Book of Daniel comports to what is found in many other works of this period, and the use of both Aramaic and Hebrew finds companion writings in other biblical works.

There's nothing unusual about this. This is a nothing hamburger, if you will. Regarding problems of language, critics assume a late date because of the presence of certain Greek and Persian words. Archeologists prove that over 100 years before Daniel, Greek mercenaries served in the Assyrian armies under the command of Esarhaddon.

That was 683 BC, as well as in the Babylonian army of Nebuchadnezzar. Further, were Daniel written in the second century BC, far more Greek words would have been used. The use of Persian is simply explained by the fact that Daniel was a government official, again, and that when writing in his official capacity, he would have used the language of the empire, which was, in fact, Persian.

There are no language issues with the Book of Daniel, but only presuppositions, again. Finally, concerning alleged historical inaccuracies. These, again, will be dealt with as we go through the text. There have, however, been no manuscript discoveries that can be used to question any of the historical accuracy.

Of the Book of Daniel.

Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics

Now, we got 15 minutes.

We'll try to get through this. Our study of the Book of Daniel must be governed by proper and sound biblical hermeneutics. As such, I thought it would be wise to begin with a simple discussion of proper hermeneutics.

There are four generally acknowledged methods of biblical interpretation, or hermeneutics. They are commonly referred to as these four. Now, I understand there are people in this audience better suited to teach hermeneutics than me, so I'm going to give a cursory overview.

I studied hermeneutics back when, I think, Thesans was the main text used. This would have been about 40 years ago. And I've boned up on it over the years, but not as much as I should have, but I am now, you can be sure.

So we're gonna just look at some basic principles involving biblical hermeneutics. There are commonly, there are four methods, and they are common, yes, Jim? We're going to. Yeah, yeah, but thank you.

That's something I often overlook, but I didn't for once. It's just, the thunder is farther down. The four methods are commonly referred to as, number one, the historical, grammatical, or literal method, number two, the tropological or moral method, number three, the allegorical method, and number four, the anagogical method.

According to, addressing them in reverse order, we're gonna address them in reverse order, and you'll see the method to my madness in a minute. The anagogical method seeks to understand scripture purely from a mystical basis.

It seeks to detect everywhere allusions to the afterlife. Would you guess that that's a good method? Well, whatever scripture you really, I guess I should have had some examples prepared. Let me think if I can come up with one quick.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. The Word is actually floating in the ether, and you can hear that Word. That Word will speak to you about your coming demise. That's the anagog.

It's just purely, it's ridiculous. It's like, it's good stuff for science fiction. No, it's not even good stuff for science fiction. Retract that, retract that. It's looking for the afterlife or allusions to it in everything.

You don't take anything literally. Can you imagine if somebody did that when you're talking with them? Did you really mean they'd be doing that every time you said something? The allegorical method presumptively assumes that the Bible has various levels of meaning and intends to focus on the spiritual meaning of every verse and you will find that everybody has a different spiritual meaning for every verse.

This method also engages the anagogical and the tropological methods as well. Number three, or I guess it would be number two in the list. Number two is the tropological method understands the Bible is characterized by moral metaphor.

It is similar to the allegorical method and then looks for a deeper meaning, preferring that to the obvious meaning of the text. Understand that there's, we're gonna get to the proper method, but these other three ignore the proper method.

If they even incorporate it at all, is left to the imagination. The final or the first method, which is the correct method, the historical, grammatical, or literal method seeks to understand the Bible as indicated from its historical basis, from its historical basis using a literal interpretation.

The words are assumed to mean what the author intended them to mean from a normal understanding of the words employed at the author's time in history. So, for example, when I read in the King James that John the Baptist was brought, his head was brought to Herod on a charger, I didn't know dodge was around in first century Palestine.

That was 15th, 16th century translation of the word for platter. So, if you were to go all the way back to the time that it was written, it would have been a Greek word, and it would have had a pool of meanings from which the translators chose something.

And we're gonna talk about context as well. But at any rate, the literal method is understanding the Bible, knowing that the words are assumed to mean what the author intended them to mean from a normal understanding of the words employed at the author's time in history.

So, in 1611, a charger was understood to be a platter, but that's not the author's words, that's a translation, but that gives you an idea. So, now, there are some other words that were involved in proper Bible study.

Hermeneutics is the systematic study of the principles and methods of Bible interpretation. Next word, exegesis is explaining the meaning of the text and incorporates the concept of explaining what the author meant when he wrote to the people of his day.

No spiritualization. Eisegesis, isn't the stuff coming off the roof over above the doors over there, is a reading into the text which was not in the original and is generally done because of the bias of the reader, confirmation bias of the reader.

And then last, homiletics is a practical application.

Of the text.

So, as we look at this, there are a number of principles that are involved, and this, it's, I mean, the study I did in Hermeneutics back then was, I don't know how many pages, but the book was about that thick.

We're not gonna take that much time this morning, but it's a good, it might be an opportunity for someone to teach that later on. I'm sure you've taught it here before, Hermeneutics. Okay, okay, you go ahead and study.

Yeah, okay, good window dressing.

So, there are a number of principles that are involved when using this correct method of Bible study, the historical, grammatical, or the literal method. Number one, the Bible must be interpreted based on the intention of the author and not on the suppositions of the reader.

The historical, grammatical, cultural basis for the text must be understood in order to get the proper interpretation. Number two, interpretation must be based on the context of the passage in question.

There is the near context of the passage, the paragraph context, the section context, and even the context understanding the author themselves. As Walter Martin said, a text without a context is a pretext.

For example, what does this sentence mean? Don't read the rest of it. The draft was excessive. What would you think? Too much air in the room.

What else?

Okay, good.

Those don't even mean the same thing, do they? I mean, they kinda do. I mean, a draft is air moving, and when you grab people who don't wanna go somewhere and you move them into something, you've, but, that's about it.

But they mean something completely different. Let's look at this. Without knowing the context, it could mean one of several things. For example, if I said the lack of insulation in the house resulted in a terrible influx of air from the outside, the draft was excessive.

You'd know what I was saying with that context. Somebody built a house and didn't properly build it. Or, even though the publisher asked for just a synopsis of the proposed book, the draft was excessive.

What does that mean?

Too many words, which is my motto. Never use a sentence when a paragraph will do. Or, although the legislature had promised not to go to war, they began to put funds away in the budget just in case. Even so, everyone agreed that instituting the draft was excessive.

If you didn't have the context, those are three entirely different concepts, are they not? And that is why context is so important. One of the reasons, that's just one of the reasons. In each of these cases, context dictated that the content of the information supplied was completely different.

That is true in Scripture as well. Number three, the Bible must be interpreted literally, allowing for the normal use of words in figurative language. For example, a normal method of explaining that the word of God is perfect is found in Psalm 19, 7.

The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul. The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. A figurative way of saying the same thing would be like comparing God's words to illumination.

This we see in Proverbs 6, 23. For the commandment is a lamp, and the teaching is light, and reproofs for discipline are the way of life. So those are two, a literal and a figurative way of saying the same thing.

But notice that we take the words literally, yet the context indicates to us that they are talking about the same thing.

You see that?

This is like cool beans.

Often there are obvious figures of speech, such as Isaiah 55, 12. For you will go out with joy and be led forth with peace. The mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.

Do not be tempted to make this type of delightful, poetical discourse mean anything other than the obvious. The creation is a testimony to the goodness of God. Now the anagogical, the tropological, and even the, and especially the, what was the other one?

I've already forgotten them. It was more than 10 seconds ago. The allegorical. They'll find all kinds of things in there. It is a testimony to the goodness of God demonstrated in creation. That's easy to see.

Number four, use the Bible to interpret itself. When in the Old Testament, interpret the verse in question in context, only after this is accomplished should one go to the New Testament for further insight.

Some verses are very hard to understand and must be understood both in the local context and in the greater context of Scripture. For example, Jim just took us through one of the most difficult to interpret passages of Scripture in Hebrews chapter six, where it appears that one can lose their salvation.

There are many clear verses teaching that one cannot lose their salvation, and those must be employed in understanding such difficult other texts, such difficult texts. So we have to look at all of Scripture.

Scripture does not contradict itself, it enriches itself. And each verse is enriched by those that appear earlier or later, if they have bearing on that verse, and we need to be taking those into account when we study Scripture.

Number five, interpretation is not application. And so in Matthew chapter nine, for example, an historical event occurred in which Jesus was seen eating with a tax collector. He was taken to task by the Pharisees.

His response to the Pharisees was a historical statement that occurred in real time. His statement rebuked them. An application for us today might be that when we hear someone or see someone doing something contrary to Scripture, we lovingly and compassionately approach them, reproach them, seeking either their salvation or restoration.

It is not an opportunity for one-upmanship and lording it over others. In Matthew chapter nine, Jesus in chapter nine, verses 11 through 13, when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, why is your teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?

But when Jesus heard this, he said, it is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means. I desire compassion and not sacrifice, for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

And who would that be?

Everybody. Everybody.

Number six, be careful not to misunderstand the distinctions between Israel and the church, between the Old Testament and New Testament era and requirements. For example, the promises to inherit the land, the promises, there you get to see one of my errors, that's promises, not promises.

To inherit the land in Palestine, we're given to Israel, not the church. That's just one example. Number seven, finally, be aware of the type of literature, be aware of the type of literature you are in when reading the Scriptures.