Rightly Dividing the Word of God – Keys to Biblical Interpretation P2

Welcome to The Dividing Line today. My name is John Sampson. I pastor Faith, no,

King's Church. King's Church in Phoenix. I also blog at effectualgrace .com.

You sure? I think. Pray for me. Pray for me. We're off to a grand start here on The Dividing Line.

It's a delight and joy and an amazing privilege to be here again. And we're walking through rules of interpretation regarding the scripture.

And we also would like to hear something of an update regarding Dr. James Wyatt and what he's doing out in Europe, specifically in Ukraine.

I've been to Ukraine. It's a wonderful place. Kiev is a wonderful city. The locals call it Kiev. And anything to report,

Rich? Well, the challenges that they've been having lately are – let me turn my speakers down back here.

The challenges have been that apparently the government has been turning the power off.

Which government is that? And it seems to be a daily thing. Is that the Russians or Ukraine? Well, I think

Dr. Wyatt's blaming Putin. But, you know, we have blamed Bush over here, so I don't know.

I don't want to go there. But the bottom line is apparently the first announcement was that they were going to turn it off for, like, two hours at a time per day.

And I guess the report yesterday was it was off for six hours. Oh, my gosh. And it's freezing cold.

So everybody's all bundled up in the seminary, working off of battery power on everything they get their hands on.

And somehow I saw a picture of them you see a bunch of guys with their laptops and you can see the glow of the laptops.

But he was able to get the overhead projector working. So they must have some kind of battery backup that enables the overhead projector to function.

And so it is a challenging environment to do this kind of work.

But they're slogging ahead. Yeah. How long is he there in Ukraine?

He's there through the end of the week. So through tomorrow, you have to realize for Arizona time, they're, if I recall, nine hours ahead of us.

And so then on Saturday, they will be flying to Berlin and basically doing the same thing there at school for the following week.

And so that's what's going on. Pray for the power issues, whatever is going on there.

But it is making for a difficult environment. There's no question about it.

I can't imagine being in Chicago right now with no power—better yet, because this happened—Detroit, you know, with as cold as it gets there.

I think that might be a reasonable comparison, or if not, even colder. So it's a difficult environment.

But health -wise, he's good, and the lectures are going good. As far as I've understood, yes. Very good.

Plug it away. Very good. Well, we'll keep up to date with all of that on the blog. I'm sure that when electricity allows,

James will give us an update personally. But let's track ahead with our study regarding how to study, how to study the

Scripture, how to look at the Scripture and gain the correct interpretation, believing that there is one.

A lot of people say the Bible is just whatever you make it to be. It can be a wax nose.

You can bend it and shape it the way you want. And with the rules of interpretation we're talking about today and last time here on the broadcast, that is not the case.

There are ways of interpreting the Bible to get the correct meaning. And we study because there is such a thing.

If there wasn't such a thing as the correct interpretation, if we could not rightly divide the word of truth, as 2

Timothy 2 .15 tells us to, then there would be no need to study because we all just make of it what we will.

But study to show yourself approved unto God, Paul wrote to Timothy, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, rightly handling, rightly dividing the word of God.

We looked at several rules. These are not perhaps all the rules that we could ever come up with, but I want to look at perhaps 16 or 17 of these and six of them we looked at last time.

And without going through all of them again, let's go to number six, which was talking about textual issues.

And to be on the dividing line and talking about textual issues is really safe ground because that's where Dr.

White excels. He's been instrumental in being an advisor on the New American Standard Bible Translation Committee.

And whenever there are issues regarding the text, he's one of the people that is called. He knows his stuff in that area.

And we were looking last time at Romans chapter eight, verse one, where there is a textual variant.

There's a difference between the Textus Receptus, which is what the King James Version of the

Bible is based on, as is the New King James Version. I remember having a discussion with Dr.

White about the New King James. I said, what do you make of it? And he said, it's an excellent translation of an inferior text.

And I think that is just about right. In Romans chapter eight, verse one, we read in the

English Standard Version, same would be true of the New International Version or the New American Standard Bible.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. And then there's a period end of statement.

And then it goes on in verse two to say other things in the New King James. It says there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.

And that is a phrase that is legitimate for verse four, where it occurs again in those

Bibles. But it's illegitimate in verse one, especially when it would negate everything that Paul is seeking to establish in chapters one through eight, which is that justification is by faith alone, not based on works, not based on performance.

If that little phrase was true to be the original text, it would suggest that our justification is almost like a probation.

You're on probation, you're justified right now, but your works will keep you in the kingdom or knock you out of the kingdom.

And that would be doing violence to what Paul is actually seeking to establish in chapter eight.

In fact, there are banner headlines at the beginning and end of chapter eight. Verse one would say no condemnation.

And the last verses would say no separation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

And to base our justification on our performance in any way would negate justification by faith alone, which is what he's established so clearly in chapters three, four, and five.

And so there is therefore, therefore on the basis of all that has been said before now, no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

I picked up a statement on this by Dr. James Montgomery Boyce, and his words echo my own thoughts.

And he writes this, I'm reading from his set on Romans, volume two of his four volume series on the book of Romans, page 792.

He writes this, here I must deal with a manuscript problem. Those who use the authorized or King James text will notice the addition of the words who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit, following the words

Christ Jesus in verse one. This is certainly an error as even the famous Scofield Bible, which uses the

King James text acknowledges in a footnote. It is worth pointing this out because if the clause is retained, it suggests exactly the opposite of what the text actually says.

In its corrupt form, the text reads there is therefore now no condemnation to those or them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit,

King James version, which seems to be saying that if we continue to lead a godly life in the spirit, we'll not be condemned.

But that if we fail to live a godly life, we will be. How did such a serious textual error come about?

We do not know exactly, but it's not hard to imagine how this might have happened. For centuries before the invention of the printing press, just prior to the reformation,

Bible manuscripts were copied by hand and from time to time the copyists made errors as we would have done ourselves.

In the vast majority of cases the copyists were accurate. That is why we have such accurate texts today.

Even when there are errors, we can correct them by comparing the errant copy with the multiplicity of other more perfect manuscripts.

Still mistakes were made and this seems to have been the case here. We can imagine a weary monk working his way through the book of Romans, perhaps early in the morning when he was still sleepy or else late at night.

He's finished chapter seven and begins chapter eight writing, there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.

But at this point he either dozes off or perhaps weary with the arduous work of copying, looks ahead to the end of the book to see how much more there is to do.

He's only halfway through. When he returns to his work, his eye falls on verse two where he should pick up, but on the latter half of verse four he copies, who walked not after the flesh but after the spirit.

This is a mistake, of course a serious one, but it sounds right to him. It flows grammatically so he continues by copying verse two and the verses after it.

Does this mean we cannot trust the Bible? No, there are only a handful of such problems and besides they are well known to those who work with Bible texts.

They have been corrected. Nevertheless in this case the problem existed a long time. What I'm saying is that these words do not belong.

If they did, our escape from condemnation would last only as long as our next faltering step or sin, then we would be back under condemnation again.

Thank God salvation is not like that. Salvation is from God, it is by God. What the text says is that there is no condemnation for those who have been joined to Jesus Christ by God the

Father through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit. So there we go.

That's hopefully of help to you in recognizing there are certain texts we need to be aware of and there's not a whole lot of them, but they certainly are there and most, in fact the vast, vast, vast majority do not affect doctrine anyway.

But if we're aware of a text like Romans 8 .1, others in 1

John 5, we'll still steer clear of any false doctrine.

Moving on, number seven of these rules, syntax.

S -Y -N -T -A -X. This refers to words and their relationship with one another.

For example Romans 5 .1 says, therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ. It'd be totally incorrect, an error, it'd be wrong to think that we have to gain peace with God before justification takes place.

The word order is absolutely essential. The syntax is clear that in this regard as a result of being first justified, peace ensues.

You can't get those things in the opposite order and still have the doctrine of justification by faith alone intact.

Correct syntax is a vital component of sound interpretation. We could spend lots of time on that, but let's move on.

We've got others to talk about. Form of literature is number eight. By the way, I should be putting these rules up on my blog at some moment soon, so you can follow along these things that I've made mention of here.

Again, that blog is effectualgrace .com. Number eight, form of literature. We should interpret the

Bible literally, but that doesn't mean we don't recognize that parables are parables, and that to interpret them correctly, we interpret them as literal parables.

Historical narrative, storytelling is historical narrative.

Nouns are nouns. Verbs are verbs. Analogies are analogies.

The book of Revelation, for example, is highly symbolic. There are beasts there.

There are dragons. There are things coming out of the sea with seven heads on, and these are explained in certain parts of the book of Revelation as to what they mean.

But again, most of Revelation is highly, or much of it at least, is highly symbolic, and so we have to ask questions like, is this a literal beast or is it representing something else?

That's also true when we deal with numbers, like the thousand years that is mentioned in Revelation chapter 20.

It's certainly a method of division when someone takes a different approach to the numbers in the book of Revelation, and someone says, we've got to take this literally, but it's in a section that's highly figurative, and I don't want to fall out with anyone on those things.

As long as we get the big picture in place that Jesus coming is the answer to not only the human race condition, but the planet earth condition, if we're in solid ground there, then

I can shake the hand of that person as my brother, as my sister. It could be that the numbers there are symbolic, and before you cry, heretic, think about it.

Think about it. It's in a very symbolic book where numbers are mentioned.

The book of Isaiah talks about the coming time when the trees of the field will clap their hands.

I'm not going to disagree with someone who says that's literally going to happen. Get out the way.

It's tree clapping time. That's not something you want to experience if you're close to a tree.

I think I saw that in the Wizard of Oz. That's right. Yeah. Is that literal?

Do you know, I think it's poetic. But again, it's something that you can look at and see the context and realizing that it's perhaps speaking of just a golden age when creation itself is cheering because it's released from its captivity.

Romans 8 seems to say that creation groans right now, including the trees. A symbolic passage could be something that would say trees themselves are going to be on the inside, filled with joy.

Do they have feelings? I don't know. I don't think so. But it's saying nature itself will be thrilled at its full redemption delivered from the curse that entered the world because of human sin in Genesis chapter 3, as it was recorded there.

So, forms of literature are important. When you're looking at the

Psalms, when you're reading them, when we say we take the Psalms literally, we're taking them as Psalms.

They are often poetic in nature, and the right way to interpret them is as poetic in nature.

Many times it's obvious it's a literal statement, but at other times it is symbolic, and the good reader of the

Bible will seek to find out which of those they are dealing with. Analogy of faith is really what we're talking about here.

The analogy of faith talks about the fact that we compare Scripture with Scripture, and that leads us to number nine, immediate context.

A text out of context, it's been well said, a text out of context becomes a pretext, a pretext for many different things.

We should take the time to get things in there context, otherwise we're taking things out of that context, of course, and we're misinterpreting.

If you were to come in on a conversation, haven't heard the five minutes that preceded it, and hear about some conversation saying, the team really let us down, the team really let us down, one person speaking to another, you overhear this, and you, because you're working on the setup team at church, think they're talking about the setup team at church, and you go off and say, this gentleman is really upset with us, and I've got a problem with him.

We come here two hours before service to set up, and all he can see are the mistakes, and something that was left out.

And you know what? He wasn't talking about the setup team, he was talking about his football team. They really let us down.

That's the context, but you missed the context. You heard the words, but you didn't hear what was being said.

That's true when it comes to the Bible as well. We must make sure we're interpreting the Bible in its context.

Let's go to Matthew chapter 18. Let's look at a scripture that is often taken out of its setting.

It says, Jesus speaking in verse 15, if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.

If he listens to you, you've gained your brother, but if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the testimony, the evidence of two or three witnesses.

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. It's interesting, this is just the second and only time

Jesus mentions the word church in the entire Gospels, ecclesia.

And if he refuses to listen even to the ecclesia, the church, let him be to you as a

Gentile and as a tax collector. Verse 18, truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Isn't that a verse that has been taken out of its setting? What is the setting? It's the arena of church discipline.

That is not often talked about when people say whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

I believe it's an acknowledgement of the fact that when church discipline is taking place,

God is behind the enforcement of elders and using their scriptural authority to guard the flock, to cause someone to say, you know what, as an elder,

I have to put you outside the church until I see repentance for the sake of the well -being of this flock.

And whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. God says, I'll back you in this as an elder or a group of elders.

Plurality. Verse 19, again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my

Father in heaven. Who's the two or three? I believe it's the people exercising church discipline here.

Not often talked about, is it? But that's the context. How about another place where we take things out of context?

How about the next verse? For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am, there am

I, among them, in the midst of them. We often use this verse in a lowly attended prayer meeting.

Oh, God is here because two or three are here. Well, is he not there when there's only one?

No, he's everywhere present. That's the doctrine of omnipresence.

So what is he saying? He's saying when you're in this arena where as an elder you're shaking in your boots because you're exercising discipline and you know you yourself are a sinner.

But for the sake of the flock, even though your knees are knocking, you exercise church discipline.

You go ahead and you put someone out because they will not repent for the sake of the well -being of the flock. I'm with you.

Whatever you're binding, I'm binding. Whatever you're loosing, I'm loosing. Whatever you're asking of me,

I'm there. I'm going to do it. I'm going to come alongside you. I'll support you because where two or three are gathered in my name.

Now it's in the context of the name of Christ being honoured for the sake of the well -being of the flock.

He says, there I am in the midst. It's so important again that we see them and these scriptures and all scripture in their immediate context.

Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst. That has a context and every verse in our

Bible has a context. The tenth thing I would like to say, tenth rule, would be document context.

The actual book that you're reading. For instance, Romans. There's a certain argument

Paul is pursuing and that helps us determine what is meant in isolated verses when we know the purpose for what is being written.

Again, Romans 8 is a chapter that is dealing with assurance, how the child of God can absolutely know that they are free from condemnation, that their salvation is as secure as the

Saviour who provided it and secured it. Nothing can separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our

Lord. But I've heard some people say, well, when Paul wrote about the things that could possibly separate us from the love of God, he speaks of many, many different things.

In fact, let's read of it. Romans chapter 8. We were there just a moment ago. He writes about the fact that death, life, angels, rulers, things present, things to come, powers, height, depth, nor anything else in all creation, none of those things will be able to separate us, us being the people of God, the called out ones, those who were foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified.

This is the earth. No one can lay a charge against God's elect. It's that group that he has in mind that is the us all the way through this passage.

Nothing can separate us from the love of God. But I've heard some people say, well, in that list, he does not mention sin.

Therefore, sin can put us out of the kingdom. Really, I think

Paul was going as far as he could with the language given to him to say nothing, absolutely nothing, nothing in the future, nothing in the present tense, nothing can separate us from the love of God, nothing else in all creation.

And I would still say that it is covered by the fact that death and life are mentioned.

Nothing in your life can separate you from the love of God. Nothing life throws at you, nothing that you experience in life can separate you as a child of God, a genuine child of God from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our

Lord. And why I know that's true is if there was something that could separate us, it would negate the whole intention of Paul's argument in Romans 8, which are the banner headlines, no condemnation, verse 1, no separation in verse 38, 39.

So understanding document context is a helpful rule.

It helps us avoid incorrect and errant interpretation. Number 11.

And I don't know how many we'll get through. We hope to get through as many as we can.

We'll see where we are at the end of the show. What verse will we go to?

Well, we could go to a number of them. Let's look at author's context. That's number 11.

We talked about document context, like the book of Romans, but author's context would be everything the author of a particular book has written.

Like if we're talking about Paul, we talk about Romans and Galatians and Ephesians and all the other epistles he wrote.

And we could find from there something of what Paul believed on a certain point.

Same with the apostle John. Author's context refers to looking at all of a person's writings,

John's writings, Paul's writings, Luke's writings. Luke wrote, of course, his gospel and the book of Acts.

One of these is particularly helpful when it comes to the word world.

In John's gospel, he, John, uses the word world in a number of different ways.

I think it'd be good to look at it. I put something of this in my book on 12 whatabouts, which was to answer common objections concerning God's sovereignty in election.

It's a subject that caused many people to say, well, if that's true, what about this? What about that? What about this?

And I mentioned 12 of these whatabouts and wrote about them. And to look at the word world and just interpret it as everyone on the planet is a mistake because that's not how

John uses the word. He uses it in more than one way. And some people say, well,

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son. God's love for the world means

God's love for everybody on planet earth. Therefore, election can't be true because God loves everyone the exact same way.

Well, you've got problems with when other scriptures tell us that he loved

Jacob and hated Esau. Again, people say, well, I don't like that particular verse. I know, but it's there in our

Bibles and you can go to bed and wake up and look at it and it'll still say the same thing and it'll still say the same thing 20 years from now.

Whatever way you look at it with all the gyrations theologically that you could propose to do, it will still say that there was a measure of love that God had for one of these brothers rather than the other.

There was a different measure of love that God had for Jacob than he did for Esau.

And God never explains why. He simply says, Jacob I loved,

Esau I hated. And however we interpret the word hate, there was a lesser love for Esau than there was for Jacob.

So how do we look at the word world? Well, he,

John, uses the word world in at least 10 different ways in his gospel. In one verse like John 1 verse 10,

John chapter 1 verse 10, the word world refers to the entire universe. It says he was in the world.

There it's referring to planet earth and the world, planet earth, and by implication all creation was made through him.

Yet the world, now here he's talking about the people of the world, did not know him.

If you have the idea that the word world refers to everybody on planet earth, we've already hit a snag, haven't we?

John 1 10. If the word world means everybody on the planet, every time it's mentioned, he was in the world.

He was in everybody on the planet and the world, everybody on the planet was made through him.

Yet the world, everybody on the planet did not know him. That makes no sense. Now the word world there refers to creation, planet earth in the first part.

And then later on, there's another word world. And again, it means planet earth.

And the third time it's used is talking about the people of the world. John 17 five, Jesus prayed, and now father glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Again, that's talking about the entire universe, planet earth, the stars, the word world there does not there refer to everybody on the planet.

Second use is the physical earth. So you've got the entire universe in the first one, physical earth,

John chapter 13, verse one. Now, before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the father, having loved his own who were in the world, physical earth, he loved them to the end.

Again, I think that's self explanatory. John 21 25. Now there are also many other things that Jesus did where every one of them to be written.

I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Again, that would make no sense. If the word world mean means everybody on the planet there it's, it's talking about the physical earth.

I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that could be, would be written.

The third use of the word world is the world system. John 12 31.

Now is the judgment of this world. Now will the ruler of this world be cast out there?

It's talking about the system in place that is governing the affairs of men.

John 14 30. I will not, I will no longer talk much with you for the ruler of this world is coming.

He has no claim on me. John 16 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Again, this is not referring to a world leader who has a physical throne in some city in Europe or somewhere else where everybody acknowledges him as the ruler of this world.

It's talking about a world system, the prince of this world, the ruler of this world, which is speaking of the devil.

He rules the world system, which is in opposition to God. The fourth use is all humanity minus believers.

John seven verse seven. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it, that its works are evil.

This is talking about everybody minus believers, all humanity except believers.

John 15 verse 18. If the world hates you, know that it is hated me before it hated you.

Again, there's a differentiation between the world and the believers. If the world hates you, know that it's hated me before it's hated you.

Number five, this word world is a big group, but less than all people everywhere.

Now, in the original text, we might be looking at one single

Greek word, for instance, the word cosmos, but to rightly interpret that world, we have to look at the context of the verse to find out which expression, which meaning of the word world

John is referring to. Number five is a big group, but less than all people everywhere.

See if you'll see if that fits. John 12, 19. So the Pharisees said to one another, you see that you are gaining nothing.

Look, the world has gone after him. Really? Everybody on the planet?

No, that would not make sense. It wasn't true that everybody in Iceland was going after Jesus.

Everyone in South America, the Americas, Spain, Italy. No, the world there is referring to a very, very big group, but less than all people everywhere.

Number six, the word world can refer to the elect only.

John 3, 17. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Well, who's going to be saved? Only the elect will be saved. All that the father gives me will come to me.

Jesus said, John 6, 37. Again, I don't believe it's talking about everybody on the planet when it uses that last phrase of world in verse 17 of John 3.

Number seven, the non -elect only. John 17, 9. Hear this, the word world refers here to the non -elect only, where Jesus says,

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

So the ones that are given to him, those are the ones he's praying for. And he says, I'm not praying for everybody else.

I'm not praying for the world. There it means the non -elect. Number eight, the realm of mankind.

John 1, 10. He was in the world and the world was made through him.

Yet the world did not know him. And this realm of mankind, we've got Jews and Gentiles and everybody.

The realm of mankind is a general term to speak of world population, the people of the world.

And that's probably the best understanding of the word world in John 3, 16 also. God's love for humanity,

God's love for the world at large was seen by the giving of his son. God sent his son for the people of the world.

Number nine, the word world can mean Jews and Gentiles, not just Israel, but many

Gentiles too. John 4, 42. They said to the woman, it is no longer because of what you said that we believe we have heard for ourselves.

And we know that this indeed is the savior of the world. Jews and Gentiles, not merely

Jews. Again, this would have been quite a statement for them to have come up with to say, you know what?

He's not just a Jewish Messiah. He's saving Gentiles. He's saving a

Samaritan woman. That's big deal. That's a big thing. That's big news.

Number 10, the general public as distinguished from a private group, not those in small private groups.

Let me say that again. The general public as distinguished from a private group. In other words, not those in small private groups.

Where do I get this? John 7 verses three and four. So his brother said to him, leave here and go to Judea that your disciples also may see the works you are doing for no one works in secret if he knows to be known openly.

If you do these things, show yourself to the world. You see the context there?

The word world is being used of the general public as distinct from those who are meeting in small private groups.

All right, those are 10 uses of the word world in John's writings.

And seeing that list can be very helpful, especially when tradition reigns supreme in some people's minds that world always means all people everywhere.

Sometimes it does, but most of the time, as I think I've established, it does not. It's a tradition.

It's actually a very strong tradition, but one that cannot survive biblical scrutiny.

These are important things to know, isn't it? These things are important because they help us gain correct interpretation.

Number 12, biblical context. And what we're talking about here is the broadest possible sweep of the entire

Bible that allows us to ask if our interpretation of a passage is consistent with the whole of scripture.

Again, we talk about the analogy of faith, and that is that scripture interprets scripture or scripture is its own interpreter.

If we come up with an interpretation that is not only minimized or more than that, is actually taught of conclusively as opposite to that.

If we come up with something that scripture itself clearly teaches is not true, then our interpretation is wrong.

It needs to be abandoned because we're working with the principle that God is the author of scripture and he does not contradict himself.

Contradiction is not the hallmark of truth, but the hallmark of error. Let me just pick up what

Dr. R .C. Sproul says about this. At the time of the Reformation, to stop unbridled speculative and fanciful interpretations of scripture, the

Reformers set forth the fundamental axiom that should be governing all biblical interpretation.

It's called the analogy of faith, which basically means the Holy Scripture is its own interpreter. In other words, we are to interpret scripture according to scripture.

That is, the supreme arbiter in interpreting the meaning of a particular verse in scripture is the overall teaching of the

Bible. Behind the principle of the analogy of faith is the prior confidence that the

Bible is the inspired Word of God. If it is the Word of God, it must therefore be consistent and coherent.

Cynics, however, say that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. If that were true, then we would have to say that the smallest mind of all is the mind of God.

But there is nothing inherently small or weak to be found in consistency. If it is the Word of God, one may justly expect the

Bible, the entire Bible, to be coherent, intelligible and unified.

Our assumption is that God, because of his omniscience, would never be guilty of contradicting himself.

It is therefore slanderous to the Holy Spirit to choose an interpretation of a particular passage that unnecessarily brings that passage into conflict with that which he has revealed elsewhere.

So, governing principle of reformed hermeneutics or interpretation is the analogy of faith.

I absolutely agree. So, if you're coming up with an interpretation that you know elsewhere is refuted by clear statements of the

Bible, you've got the wrong interpretation of the passage you're dealing with. Number 13.

Understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive statements in the

Bible. Prescriptive, what is that? That's something that is telling us to do something.

When a doctor gives a prescription, what is he doing? He's telling you to take certain pills.

Do this three times a day, whatever he might say. Descriptive is something different that's describing something and it's not commanding anything.

For instance, there's this verse that has plagued many people's conscience and minds because they've failed to make this distinction

I'm seeking to talk about here. The difference between the prescriptive and the descriptive.

Matthew 24, 13. Heard this one? But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.

People look at that and they say, well, there you go. We can never know if we're really saved because those who are breathing right now haven't endured to the end.

So, no one breathing can know for certain that they are saved. Why? Because only the ones who endure to the end will be saved.

The Bible clearly says it. What do we do with that? Well, again, using the analogy of faith, 1

John says that his whole reason for writing the epistle of 1 John was so that the reader who believes in Christ would know that they have eternal life.

They would know that they're saved. They would know that they are not going to experience the wrath of God in hell forever.

I've written these things, 1 John 5, verse 13, that you might know that you have right now eternal life.

Now, the Roman Catholic Church tells us it's a mortal sin to believe that you know you have eternal life.

Well, that's in conflict with 1 John 5, verse 13. Who do you believe, Rome or the

Apostle John? For me, it's a no -brainer. Scripture alone is the

Word of God, no doubt whatsoever. So, if you and I have an interpretation of Matthew 24 that is in conflict with something clearly stated by another part of Scripture, namely 1

John 5, we need to go back and then re -examine our conclusions because we've got it wrong.

The one who endures to the end will be saved. The one who endures to the end will be saved.

Notice what it does not say. If you look at the text, it does not say endure and you will be saved.

It doesn't say that. That's how we often interpret it. But if that was true, salvation cannot be certain now.

Why? Because if we're breathing, we haven't endured to the end and only those who endure to the end will be saved.

No, it's not a prescriptive. It's not telling us to do something. It's descriptive.

It's telling us that if you observe someone enduring to the end, it's because they're a saved person.

Why? Because saved people endure. It's the nature of the kind of faith

God gives that it is supernatural in its origin and there's a continual look and feasting upon Christ in the heart of the true believer because that's the kind of faith that God has given as a gift.

The kind of faith God gives is an enduring faith and the person with true faith will continue to endure.

How else do we know this? Again, 1 John chapter 2, look at verse 19.

It says, they went out from us because they were not of us for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us.

But they went out to show that they were never of us. Again, it adds weight to this concept that true

Christians endure. Why? Because that's the kind of faith

God gives. So, I hope that's a blessing to you. It was to me when I understood Matthew 24, 13 is a descriptive verse.

If it is prescriptive, let me just go through it one more time. If it is telling us to do something, no one can be sure of their salvation for the simple reason that no one presently reading the text or hearing the statement has, as right now, yet endured until the very end.

But if it's prescriptive, it would negate the wonderful assurance of salvation that the

Holy Spirit wishes us to know. Breathe a sigh of relief.

Your salvation is of the Lord. He's the Savior. He saves. It's a descriptive statement.

Number 14, we're going quickly through these. Number 14, build all doctrine.

Doctrine is just a word for teaching. Everything you and I believe, build all doctrine on necessary rather than possible inferences.

A necessary inference is something that is definitely taught by the text.

The conclusion is absolutely unavoidable. It's necessary.

When you see certain statements, it can only be read as saying certain things.

A possible inference is something that could or might be true, but not something actually stated by the text.

Now, if we understand this statement, build all doctrine on necessary rather than possible inferences, it would really help us.

It's helped me and I believe it will continue to reveal to me any blind spots I have in my thinking, in my theology.

But it's often a lot harder than it first might appear because it means we have to take a step back and analyze exactly why,

W -H -Y, why we think a verse teaches something. In other words, it means testing our traditions and doing a lot of thinking.

A lot of Christians don't want to think. They'd rather have a revelation. They'd rather have a vision.

They'd rather have a dream. They'd rather go up on a mountain and have something revealed to them. 2

Timothy 2 .7, do you want to hear what it says? Paul wrote to Timothy, think. Excuse me, is that in the

Bible, the word think? No, it's not in my, oh yeah, it actually says think.

Think. One man came up to me after a sermon and said, gosh, you really made me think as if that was shameful of me.

I don't expect to go think when I come to church. No, Paul wrote to Timothy, think over what

I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything. Now, when you come to conclusions and when you recognize that you're getting true interpretation, when

God reveals truth to you, it is because of the gracious hand of God and that alone.

Yet, God uses means. And a chief way that God reveals truth to us is thinking.

Think over what I say, for the Lord will give. I just believe if God wants to give it to me, he'll give it to me.

Well, you can believe that, but Paul said you actually have to think before God gives.

And when he gives, it's all grace. It's all his grace, but he's the one even behind you desiring to think and thinking through the passage.

But Paul says, he writes, think over what I say, because the

Lord will give you understanding in everything. All of us should be prepared to hold up our preconceived notions to the light of Scripture to see if those assumptions are valid or not.

The result often means the killing of some sacred cows, but that's a good thing if what we held to cannot be supported by the biblical text.

I don't want to believe a tradition that's not supported by the Bible. We all have our blind spots and traditions.

The problem is we're not always aware of them. I'm convinced that if I've got someone near me who believes the

Bible, they would change in an instant if they could see that what they believe presently is a tradition rather than the

Scripture. But oftentimes we're not aware of it, and that's the problem. Therefore, the serious

Bible student asks questions of himself and of the text constantly in order to determine what the text actually says, and then he builds his thinking on that.

Here's a good example of that. John 20, verse 19. On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the

Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, Peace be with you.

After the resurrection, Jesus is appearing to his disciples. Many read that text and conclude that Jesus walked through the locked door, and they say

Jesus, his resurrection body can walk through doors and walls, and they base it on this text.

Jesus walked through the locked door in order to present himself to his disciples. But let's just wait a moment.

Does the text actually say that? No, it does not. The text might be teaching that.

Now, that's a possible inference. It's possible, but don't build doctrine on what could be possible.

Build doctrine on what is actually stated, not implicitly, but explicitly by the

Scripture. It's a possible inference drawn from the text, but by no means a necessary one.

There are other possible explanations concerning this verse. Let me quote from the

ESV study Bible. There's a note in there that says, Some interpreters understand the doors being locked to imply that Jesus miraculously passed through the door or the walls of the room, though the text does not explicitly say this.

Well, I thought forever that Jesus walked through the door, and yep, I know, but that's only a possible interpretation.

Some interpreters understand the doors being locked to imply Jesus miraculously passed through the door or the walls of the room, though the text does not explicitly say this.

Since Jesus clearly had a real physical body with flesh and bones after he rose from the dead, one possibility, oh, another possibility, is that the door was miraculously opened so that the physical body of Jesus could enter, which is consistent with the passage about Peter going through a locked door sometime later,

Acts chapter 12, verse 10. Again, not mentioned, but it's possible.

So therefore, I'm not going to base my teaching and what I believe, my doctrine, on only something that is a possible inference.

It's possible, but I wouldn't bank on it because Scripture doesn't explicitly say it.

Isn't there safety in what God has actually said explicitly?

I believe there is. That's where safety in doctrine emerges. To state the principle again, we should build all doctrine on necessary rather than possible inferences.

All else, all else is speculation. Number 15, and this will probably be our last one for today, interpret the unclear passages in Scripture in light of the clear.

Oh, this is helpful. Though all Scripture is God breathed, every passage is inspired, breathed out by God.

God uses human authors. He did in the process, but every word, every jot and tittle is breathed out by God.

Yet not every passage is equally clear, equally easy to understand.

You ever read a passage and think, gosh, I'm not sure I'm even getting the big picture here. That's happened to me.

Happened to every saint of God, if they're honest. Here's what Scripture says.

The apostle Peter struggled with some of Paul's writings, even though he recognized them as Scripture.

Really? Yep. The apostle Peter struggled with Paul's writings. He found some of it, quote, hard to understand.

He says, which the untaught and the unstable distort. Do you mean that when we're teaching people how to interpret the

Bible, we're helping people avoid error? Absolutely. Absolutely. Untaught people teaching others, that's a problem.

The untaught and the unstable distort as they do also the rest of the

Scriptures to their own destruction. Let me read that again. Peter's writing about Paul's writings, and he says some of it is, quote, hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort as they do also the rest of the

Scriptures. What's the implication there? Paul's writing was Scripture, and they do this with Paul, and they do it with the rest of the

Scripture. This is not just implicit, this is explicit. Peter calls Paul's writings

Scripture, even though some of it he found hard to understand, and they do this, he says, to their own destruction.

You'll find that 2 Peter 3, verse 16. Look it up in your own Bible. Peter recognized

Paul's writing as Scripture, but he says some of it, it's a little tough to handle.

I'm still working through what Paul actually meant. When determining what the

Bible teaches on a particular topic, here's the advice I believe will be sound for us. Find the passages which clearly address the issue at hand, and make this the starting point of your doctrine, rather than an obscure passage that could be interpreted several different ways or is less than clear.

For instance, when it comes to justification, go to where Paul wrote on the subject.

Romans chapter 3, chapter 4, chapter 5, Galatians chapter 2,

Philippians chapter 3, Ephesians chapter 2, other places. I mentioned

Philippians chapter 3, terrific teaching on justification, rather than, I found the word justified over there.

Well, what's the context? If it's not talking about salvation in the ultimate sense, you could be interpreting that word justification properly, but he could be using it in a different way.

In fact, that's what's happening in the book of James, where James is not talking about salvation in the ultimate sense.

He's talking about how we perceive someone to be truly having faith. The kind of faith that justifies is one that has works, because the nature of true faith is to have a living faith that expresses itself in action.

It's a different context, certainly not the same context as Paul writing in the ultimate sense.

There's no doubt whatsoever what he's writing about in the book of Romans. Start your thinking there.

Start on clear passages that are dealing with the subject at hand. Once that which is clear is firmly grasped and understood, then proceed to study the passages which at first seem to be unclear using all the rules we're talking about this time and last time here on the broadcast.

I think that's helpful. It's been helpful to me in my own life. When I find a verse and I think, that seems to negate what

I've read somewhere else. Well, ask yourself, is what I'm reading now in the context the way to understand the doctrine?

Start with what is clear. Start with passages that are clearly addressing the issue before you return to look at other passages which are less than clear.

Here's the principle, interpret the unclear in the light of the clear.

What I found when I do that is the unclear begin to become clear. Start with the clear.

Build your doctrine on what you can prove from scripture. I make it my aim in my preaching.

I don't know if I always am able to fulfill this, but this is certainly my desire, not to preach anything

I can't prove, or if I'm teaching something that I'm not sure about, I make the admission.

I'm not sure on this, but it's speculation, but this, this, this, and this.

I try and do that as rarely as I can, because I just want to be able to preach what I know scripture says.

It's less exciting for some. They'd rather have speculation that what is happening in Iraq and Iran right now is fulfilling some passage in Ezekiel.

It's funny, I have to bring them into the show next time and show you end time books that are hysterical now when we look at them, written in the 80s about Gorbachev and about President Bush and about Iraqi wars.

People made their millions writing those things, and today they're kind of good for being at the bottom of a canary cage.

That's how useful they are. Why? Because they based their doctrine in an entire book and an obscure verse that certainly wasn't in context, driven from the text, drawn out of the text, but that's by the by.

We'll talk about that perhaps next time. It's been a joy coming to you here on the broadcast. My name is John Sampson.

You can find my blog at effectualgrace .com. Keep praying for Dr. White out in Europe as he's ministering there.

Thank you so much for watching, for listening. We'll talk more about these rules next time here on the broadcast.