How to Interpret Scripture

Hermeneutics: Observation, Interpretation, and Application

Well, good evening everyone we are back for round five of This course on the fundamentals of Bible study the art and science of hermeneutics and We have broken down this course The way that our textbook breaks down this particular course into three main headings.

The first is the heading of observation Seeking to know what the text says. The second part is interpretation Seeking to know what the text means and then finally application which is How does the text work?

And so we have Further broken that down. We had our first week was an introduction. Then we had two weeks where we studied the art of observation How to look at a text. How to look into the text how do we use the word?

Excavate the text dive in and root around and look and find all the constituent parts and pull them out and look at them together and We did that for a couple of weeks and then last week we began looking at the subject of Interpretation and you may remember that I said.

And again, I was quoting dr. Hendricks from our textbook that Interpretation often is where people start and where people end. They failed to do a good job at observing the text before they try to realize what it means.

And then they fail to do a good job of applying the text once they think they've come to a conclusion About what it means so oftentimes people just focus on Interpretation which is not good. We need to spend time as we said the more we spend time observing the Better will be our interpretation and then more accurate will be our application.

So if you are Looking at your syllabus, or if you have looked at your syllabus this week, you'll note that you were supposed to have read over Exercises 49 to 57 in your workbook later on tonight after we take our first break I'm going to go around and Ask you if you did your workbook assignment and ask you what part of the workbook you chose you were able to choose any Lesson from lesson 49 to 57 and you were supposed to do the whole thing.

It should have been about a 30 to 30 minutes to an hour's worth of work on your part doing that. So hopefully you all did that. And we'll be doing that after we take our break right around the 8 or 7 30 mark.

Does anyone have any questions from previous classes before we move into tonight's lesson? Fantastic. I am a wonderful teacher. I will mark myself down as being great since there are no No questions either that or you're so confused.

You don't know what to ask either way. We're going to have to move on. Well again, we are moving to our second phase of interpretation last week. We talked about the grammatical historical method of interpretation and we defined what that meant.

And today we're going to break down. How we can actually arrive at that interpretation. How do we get to a proper grammatical? historical interpretation of the text. In dr. Hendricks book. He gives five C's.

There are five C words that are The outline for how to arrive at a proper interpretation. We are going to look at all five C's and Then I'm going to show you how I personally Break that down to three C's.

And and then I'm going to show you you'll notice on your desk or on your table when you came in. There was some handwritten notes that are photocopied. Those are my handwritten notes that I used to preach this morning.

And I'm going to show you how I arrived at what I preached this morning at set free church, which I do every Thursday morning and. So that'll be part of what we do today. And I like I said rather than five C's I break it down to three and I'll show you why I have done it.

That way but let's go into the five C's if you have your books. This is in your textbook. So you don't necessarily have to write notes of everything. I say there are good notes in your textbook. You may just want to go in to this particular chapter on interpretation find this section on the five C's and were I a smart man I would have looked up the page number, but I didn't so you'll have to find the page number.

Do you know what it is? 230 what is it? Chapter 30 and Page 230. Okay, so it's page 230 if you want to go into your book make yourself a just maybe dog ear it or put you a piece of paper in as a as a Bookmark that way you don't have to sit here and note everything I say I'm basically going to be simply reiterating what you've already read if you've read out of the textbook this portion.

And I'm going to be adding my own commentary to some of what dr. Hendricks has given us five C's. The first C is content now. This one you should already possess. Because content is what you arrive at with good observation.

So content is based on the first of the three main headings. Observation interpretation application. Content is done by your excavation of the text. You have searched for certain things. You have searched for terms.

You have searched for literary structure and type. You have looked at the genre. You have asked the major questions of who when what? Where why and wherefore? You have noticed what things are emphasized.

What things are repeated. What things are related? What things are alike and unlike and which things are true to life and. Again the more time you spend an observation The more your content will grow.

You will simply have more and more content to deal with. The more you simply seek to observe the text so that one was pretty simple content. We've already spent time with but then we move on to context over the years you may have heard Pastors say this and I've maybe have said it myself a time or two if somebody says how do you interpret the Bible a?

You say there is three rules to interpretation context context and Context and that is a little bit of a joke, but it is really the foundation because context refers to. Not what does this mean? But what does this mean in light of everything else around it?

What has come before this and what comes after this both? Immediately before and immediately after as well as within the book. What has come before and what will come after and what is in the whole Bible both before and after?

So you have the what we might say the microscopic context where it is then you have the broader Context and then you have the telescopic context. What does this mean within the whole of scripture and.

There are several types of context that dr. Hendricks mentions one is literary context. What type of literature are we looking at. Historical context when does this take place in the history of redemption?

Cultural Context. How did this ancient group of people use this language, or how did they engage in this activity? How did they behave at this time when regard to this thing these are all parts of cultural context?

Geographical context. Where is this happening. Is this happening next to a body of water. Is this happening on top of a mountain. Is this? Happening in a valley. Interestingly enough if you read Chapter 5 of the gospel of Matthew through chapter 7 you have something called the sermon on the mount.

If you go over to Luke's gospel you will read almost the same sermon but there are certain things that are unique to Luke that do not show up in Matthew's gospel and That has led some people to believe that perhaps.

This is a different telling of the same event Luke giving different information however I am Moved that it is not a different telling of the same event, but that it is a different event. Because in the gospel of Luke it says Jesus was in a plane Not on a mountain and so I believe it's two different sermons because of the geographical context where he was Identified what he was doing and people say well.

Why would the sermon be so similar? I say is it not right that a man preached the same thing twice if they're both true and I've certainly said many things that were repeated in sermons and certainly I believe Jesus would have said many things Over and over because people are so hard-headed you have to drill it in to get it in and make it stick so.

So finding the same sermon but different preached at a different location By Jesus is really not that difficult to believe at all in fact. You know Jesus fed 5 ,000 but he also fed 4 ,000 at a different time at a different location and so did Jesus have a habit of doing certain things over and over.

Yes, he did and so there is no problem, but again the geographical context would lead us to an understanding of that particular Text looking at where it happened. There is also the theological Context.

What did the author know about God that is a very important question. And you said what do you mean when you ask that question. Well? Did Abraham Know as much about God as Did Moses? You say well I hate to ask that question or even seek to answer it because I don't want to think that anybody Knew anything more than Abraham.

He was called the friend of God. Yes, he was but we also believe in something called progressive revelation and that means that as history progressed there was more light given to the people of God and The greatest of light was given through the person of Jesus Christ, and so I would say I know more about God and his Trinity and his fullness and his Purpose in this world than did Abraham because I'm on this side of the progression of revelation.

I don't say that for pride. I simply say that because of where I am historically. And so would Moses have known more about God. I think in regard to his his nature of holiness, and how he wanted his worship accomplished.

All of these things come out in Leviticus, and how he established his temple, and so you asked the question what did Abraham know? Versus what do we know the Bible says God preached the gospel to Abraham.

Galatians says that God preached the gospel to Abraham. Okay, but what did Abraham know about the gospel? This is what we know. He knew he knew that in his seed all the nations of the world would be blessed.

And that was the gospel that Abraham understood now does that mean he understood Jesus Christ was going to come. I think he did have some understanding of that. But I don't think that that means that he had a fully orbed understanding of the cross or of Redemption and how it was going to take place.

I believe he trusted in the promise of God that God was going to save him by grace through faith. And the Bible says he believed God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness. Genesis 15 and verse 6 and so.

Did certain people in history know more than others yes? And so when we read what is written about them, and what is written by them. We see a process and a progress of revelation. This shouldn't I see a lot of confused face this shouldn't bother us.

I'll give you an example. There was a man. I I was I used to work at a high school. I would say Well, I did a couple of jobs. I was a security. I was a security person and I also worked with children who were Slow learners, and I worked with them and and I was in a classroom.

I was a pet called a paraprofessional and. And I would work with those students well the teacher that I had interestingly enough his name was Mr.. Moses and At that time I was working on my Degree my master's and so I would take all the time that I could in between classes and all that to use the school's Computer to type or to research.

I didn't have internet. You know very good at home. So I had internet at the school I could use it to research, and I would oftentimes spend all of my downtime at work researching for my master's degree and so this led to conversations between me and Mr.. Moses and Mr.. Moses one day got to asking me about Moses from the Bible of course his namesake would cause him to have some interest and He began to ask me about Moses, and he said you know Mr.. Foskey I wonder if Moses ever met Jesus and He did not mean that in the spiritual sense.

He meant that in the physical sense, and I said well, Mr.. Moses. There was about a thousand year gap between Moses and Jesus well was about 1 ,500 year gap after and I'm just explaining to him that there is a there's a much.

There's a wide time period between Moses and Jesus and He said oh, I didn't know that. Okay, you know I mean he he was not a Bible student. I don't think he was a Christian. But the point of the matter is that is something that some people just don't really understand going into the Bible that there are several hundreds of years between these important people and the events that happened in their lives and So understanding where you are historically geographically culturally and Theologically will help you interpret.

What is being said? All right, so that is the context now. Let's move on to the third C. Which is the C of comparison comparison is Where we apply the principle known as on a logia Scriptura onologia Scriptura is Latin for the analogy of scripture or more simply put the belief that scripture interprets scripture the Westminster Confession of Faith States this in chapter 1 part 9 Quote the infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself and Therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, which is not manifold.

But one it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly unquote. So the Westminster Confession, which is a protestant reformed confession Most widely used in the Anglican and Presbyterian Faiths it states very clearly that the one infallible source for interpretation is The scripture.

If you want to interpret the scripture use the scripture as your interpretive grid. And again, if you just simply write out scripture interpret scripture, that's a good thing to remember. Charles Hodge Said this he said if the scripture be what it claims to be the Word of God They are the work of one mind and that mind is divine.

From this it follows that scripture cannot contradict scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what he teaches in another. Hence scripture must explain scripture if a passage admits of different interpretations that only can be true One which agrees with what the Bible teaches everywhere on that same subject.

Essentially, he's simply saying that if the Bible says something in one place clearly and you are at another place where it seems to say Something that contradicts what it says elsewhere clearly then what it is saying in the place where it seems not so clear must be being Misunderstood if it's clear here and it's not clear over there and the not clear is Contradicting the clear then you have to use the clear to clear up the unclear Clear as a clear as mud.

Yes. How many of you are familiar with What we would call the laws of logic. Have you studied the laws of logic? Well, the laws of logic are how we identify truth and how we Recognize what is and what is not true and there are certain laws of logic, which must be.

The first one is called the law of identity. I'll use this board. I don't know if everyone can see it. This might be trouble but if I say a equals a Is that true yes, we call that the law of identity a Equals a you say well that's simple enough.

Okay. Well, here is the second which we call the law of non contradiction and that is that a Equals not a and we would take I'm going to just change colors for the sake of this we would say a Cannot equal not a and that would be the law of non contradiction and then the final one for this particular is what we would say is the law of the excluded middle, which is that a and not a cannot both Exist one must exist at the exclusion of the other.

So what are you talking about? Well, let's let's break this down if I say If I say Rosanna your son is man. Okay, so a equals a you are man. And then if I say you are not man You can't be Not man, if you are man, that would be a contradiction and you can't be both at the same time.

Even though the world might say now you can be both at the same time. If I say something is and Then I say something is not At the same time and in the same relationship. That is a contradiction. If I say I am here and I say I am NOT here.

That is a contradiction. All right, I'm not trying to make this harder than it needs to be. The reason why I'm pointing this out is because when it comes to the scripture we have to deal with the accusation of contradiction.

People will say the Bible contradicts itself. I will say show me where show me where in the 66 books of God's Holy Word that there is a contradiction and I will tell you that I have yet to be convinced that there is anywhere in the 66 books.

That there is truly a place where the laws of logic are broken. There are times when there are paradoxes. Meaning there are times where it appears as if there could be a contradiction. But upon a further examination We find that that contradiction Actually is not a contradiction.

Probably the best example is between the writings of the Apostle Paul and the letter of James. James tells us that we are Justified by works and not by faith alone. Paul tells us we are justified by faith and not by works.

Lest anyone should boast if there are any two places in scripture where man has had his His his bell rung when it comes to trying to find a justifiable Reason why these two men are not at odds. It is that place.

In fact, it was Martin Luther who took great issue with the writings of James. Even coming to the point where he identified the epistle of James as the epistle of straw. Meaning that he was saying that it was not A an epistle that was worthy to be included within the canon.

Thankfully he abandoned that and he did not maintain his position that it was unworthy to be called among God's Word he came to a right understanding that James is speaking of one particular aspect of Justification and Paul is speaking of a different aspect of justification.

Moreover James is speaking primarily of our justification in this world before others and Paul is speaking of our Justification before God. There's more to it than that. But that's a simple understanding of the distinction between the two because James is concerned with seeing faith.

He says if faith cannot be seen by works. How can we identify it? He says in faith without works is dead if you can't see it. How do we know it's real and that's James's argument. Paul's point though.

Is that no work that we do can add to our justification because our justification is not in our works. But in the work of the final work of Jesus Christ, and so is there an apparent contradiction? Yes, but it is not a true contradiction when we come to an understanding that both writers are dealing with two different aspects of the doctrine of justification.

So this is why? Comparing scripture with scripture is necessary. If all you had was James chapter 2 You might walk away. Thinking that your works somehow are going to get you into heaven. Because you would not be able to compare James with the rest of the New Testament and therefore even the Old Testament so you understand now why I'm pointing to the issue of contradiction and understanding what constitutes a contradiction.

A Contradiction is something that cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. Give you another example. I don't want to waste all our time on this, but I do like talking about this there is a narrative in the Gospels where Jesus goes to the country of the Gadarenes and while he is there he sees a man who is chained and He has a demon actually he has many demons.

It says he he says identify and he says a legion for we are many. Well, there is another Narrative same Scenario where it is told in a different gospel that there were two men and so there has been leveled against that particular narrative that there is a contradiction because one gospel says there was one man and Another gospel says there were two men and so maybe for fun I'll send you home and ask you to figure out why there's not a Contradiction or would you rather I just tell you okay?

That's easy enough. This particular situation kind of deals with the with the issue of the law of non-contradiction. Today as I was leaving set free one of the men stopped me and told me about His life and what had led to him being where he is now.

And he asked me to continue to pray for him that he would continue to do well. That he was struggling with some things and he asked me to encourage him in prayer. I was thankful that he felt like he could ask for that.

And so I Shook his hand and we parted and I left. Is that story true? Yes. You don't know because you weren't there. Does it make a difference that there was another man there? Why? Because I was focused on the one in the story and I had the choice to tell you there were two.

Or to tell you that there was one and by telling you that there was one. I did not negate that there was another and So when we're reading the narrative, we have to understand that one of the authors is focusing on one of the men Particularly and the other one is broadening to help us to understand a bigger picture.

It does not Contradict one or the other it simply gives a broader picture of what happened this happens all the time. You come home from work. How was your day? Well, I did this that and the other you don't tell them everything that happened.

You tell what you feel is necessary and what you think is important. And so when we read Comparing stories in the text of Scripture. We should not ever be surprised when there are Conflicting accounts.

I've told you the story of how I taught on the resurrection narratives. There are four different resurrection narratives and each of them tell a little different story but as I said if I put four people on a corner and they all watch the same car accident and You ask them to sit down and tell the truth of what they saw each one may focus on a different aspect.

And yet still all be telling you the truth. So the question is not whether or not it's true. The question is whether or not it contradicts and if it contradicts it's not true so we find harmony in the text that is what is called the harmony of Scripture seeking to find how it lines up rather than how it doesn't and I always tell people this is a little little narrative.

I always and this may my wife is here says may be a little awkward, but I'll tell it anyway if I were to come home and and there would be a man leaving my house that I've never seen before and He's walking out.

And I don't know who this guy is. My relationship with my wife will probably determine how I feel about a strange man leaving my home. If I have a trusting relationship with my wife where there is no doubt of her fidelity to me and mine to her.

Then I will immediately Wonder why this man is there, but I will not have an immediate sense of dread that my wife has done evil against me. However if there were in my marriage doubt and Suspicion then I might immediately feel like I want to take and lay hands upon this man and so I Say this my word of God my word the Word of God has always been faithful.

To me it has stood the test of time. Therefore when I see something that is to me. So a question mark I don't automatically look for where it is unfaithful. But I find how it is being faithful in the telling of the truth.

And so I think that's a good way to look at it again, and I trust my wife. So if I see a guy was leaving my house I'd have no doubt that you know something happened that required him being there and there was no Badness happening.

Therefore when I open the text of Scripture if I TC two parts that are difficult I don't automatically run to the Contradiction I I say God's Word has been faithful. It has stood the test of time. Let me dig deeper and thereby find what the real answer is and I can be Assuring to you tonight.

There is an answer there are whole books written that have given answers to the supposed Contradictions of Scripture. They're worth your time if you feel like this is something you want to get into. All right, I spent more time on that than I wanted to but I would encourage you just know that the Scripture Interprets of Scripture and even there are times where it may seem difficult.

That is what we want to do is compare Scripture with Scripture. We're going to talk a little later about how to do that. But just let's move on now to the fourth C, and this is the sea of culture all of us live in a culture.

Even if we don't know it. But it becomes obvious when we're removed from our culture and we're put into another culture. Anybody ever. I've spent my whole life down south. You go up north you feel like you're in a different culture.

You go out west you feel like you're in a different culture that is cultural change. I want you to think about this. How different must it have been to live in America a hundred and fifty years ago? Before the advent of motorized travel before the advent of flight.

You know it is said that many people in the ancient world Never left their house more than 20 miles away from their the place where they were born. Simply because they travel was not available as it is today.

So most people grew up and lived and died close to where they were born. The idea of people just traveling all over was was very unique it was it was you know held with soldiers and men of war and things like that, but not the average person.

And so 150 years ago if you lived in America you'd live in a much different culture. Think of 2 ,000 years ago in Israel 2 ,000 years ago in Asia Minor 2 ,000 years ago in Greece where people literally went to the temples of Epaphrodite and and and Diana and and and Zeus and they worshipped in these temples these Mythological gods and they worshipped through the process of things like cult prostitution.

Where they believed that by having sex with a cult prostitute they were drawing themselves closer to the gods. That's a much different culture. Okay having said that now I want you to open your Bibles with me very quickly.

And I just want to read something to you. Because when you read your culture into a text you're no longer interpreting. You're imposing. You're not exegeting you're eisegeting you're reading into the text all right go to 1st Corinthians chapter 8.

Excuse me 1st Corinthians chapter 8 verse 1. Now concerning food offered to idols. We know that all of us possess knowledge. This knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something he does not know yet as he ought to know.

But if anyone loves God he is known by God. Therefore as to the eating of food offered to idols. We know that an idol has no real existence, and there is no God but one. For although there are many so-called gods in heaven and on earth as indeed there are many gods and many lords.

Yet for us there is one God the Father from whom are all things and for whom we exist and one Lord Jesus Christ. Through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However. Not all possess this knowledge.

But some through former association with idols eat food as really offered to an idol and their conscience being weak is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat and no better off if we do.

But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple. Will he not be encouraged if his conscience is weak to eat food offered to idols?

And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed the brother for whom Christ died. Thus sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak you sin against Christ. Therefore if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat lest I make my brother.

Stumble, let me stop there. Verse 13. Not understanding the cultural background of this text Would make it almost impossible To truly be able to come to a right interpretation of this text. Most of us have never lived in a situation or been in a situation where the eating of meat offered to idols is even something that we have ever had to deal with.

In Fact most of us don't even know what that means at least not practically we have never seen the guy down at Houston's taking a piece of meat and Offering it up to one of the pagan gods. And if we did we might feel a little awkward about purchasing that meat from that man.

But again, this is not something that we have to live with. It's not something that we culturally are able to really grasp in our modern day now. If you lived in India You might be in a situation where there is in the market things that have been sacrificed to Idols.

In India there are many gods and so there may be Sacrifices made that you would have to address this in a more close Context to the context that Paul is writing to the Corinthians in. So, how would I know?

Well, this is one of the times where I think a Bible handbook or a commentary could be helpful especially again if you don't know if you've never studied this before you're just reading this text as it's written and you know a few things by Observation, you know Paul is dealing with something that apparently is happening.

There's something to do with eating meat offered idols, but you don't know why they're eating meat offered idols. You don't know why this is an issue. You don't know why this is a cultural problem. So what I did is I printed one paragraph From a commentary.

I'd like to read it to you simply to show you how a commentary can add cultural Understanding to a passage. Now, this is not an in-depth exegetical commentary. This is a basic commentary on This text called the Bible knowledge Commentary this is I believe it's put out by Dallas Theological Seminary.

It is it is not an in-depth Commentary, but it's certainly helpful tool and this is what it says. I'll quote Ordinarily the Greeks and Romans Burned the less desirable portions of an animal in the course of their sacrifices and retained the choice or parts for personal consumption.

At banquets celebrating the sacrifices if a sacrifice were made in connection with a state function. The meat which remained was frequently sold in the marketplace the Corinthians questioned Apparently concerned the acceptability of buying and eating the meat from one of these sacrificed animals.

The Acceptability of eating this meat as an invited guest in the friends home and the acceptability of attending one of these pagan sacrifices and enjoying the meal of Celebration which followed in the temple precincts.

Paul speaks to each of these issues. Does that help? I think so. It tells us now what's happening. The the meat was being Sacrificed to the idol and then it's being sold in the marketplace. Should a Christian buy that meat?

That's the question Paul is seeking to answer. But again, we wouldn't know how that even functions if we didn't have this little insight into the historical situation. So having this little tool and again Carpenters as good as his tools, right?

You know, we use the tools of the commentaries. We don't we don't let the commentary Guide us in the sense that it doesn't become our interpretive grid. It's a helpful tool. It it's it's it's secondary to scripture and it gives us something that a little insight Historically that maybe we don't have from the scripture because Paul doesn't explain this situation.

Because Paul is speaking to people who know the situation. Paul is speaking to people who are living it. It'd be like me today if I started talking to you about an iPhone. I don't have to explain what an iPhone is.

I don't have to explain how it works. I simply say take your Bible app out and blah blah blah. Well if there was a culture that didn't have iPhones. Somebody might have to explain what an app is and how the app works and what the device is known as the iPhone.

You understand that's what the commentary is doing here. It's providing a cultural picture. Okay, and now we can better interpret what's happening in this situation. So again understanding the culture often takes the use of tools because we don't live there and We have not done the individual research on our own most of us Have not done historic Archaeological or other type of research.

So we go to the tools that allow us to learn those things and one of them is the commentary helping us understand culture. All right, the last C Follows that up because the last C is the C of consultation.

Consultation. Consultation is looking at secondary sources. What is a commentary? It's a secondary source. So is a Bible handbook. I Talked about that last week. I think those are. Those are underused tools.

Bible handbooks people people who are who are studying the Bible. You have these tools men have have have spent a lot of time putting together these these. Useful tools giving you context giving you background giving you historical data.

All that helps you interpret and they're they're in these things called handbooks. We have the Erdman's which I misspelled last week I said it was e a r d. It's actually e e r d m a n s Erdman's there's Halley's.

There's several others that are very good useful tools. I think brother Dan picked one up for less than four dollars off of the off of an online Source so get with him if you're interested in finding a good Bible handbook.

Inexpensively. You can only go so far with your own knowledge. Because again, I and like I said last week some people say well, I never use commentaries. I tell you what, I am willing to stand on the shoulders of Giants.

I Am willing to crawl up there if I have to. Because I know if I only go with what I know. Not only am I going to run out real fast but I'm also I am I'm confining myself to the ignorance of my own research and It's just not helpful to do that again.

We don't start with secondary sources though. That's that that's the part that I've been trying to help you with this you start with the scripture. And then you seek to find out as much as you can through observation.

You seek to interpret as best you can and then as you realize I don't know what the culture is you go find out what? The culture is. I don't know what the geographical context is. You go find that out you get those informations and you begin to build remember.

Observation is excavation. Interpretation is construction. You're building your understanding now and you use the tools to to build that framework of understanding. So now we've come to the meaning of the text we consult the secondary sources and I Want to tell you something about commentaries?