rightly dividing the word of truth part 2

rightly dividing the word of truth part 2

In Winnie the Pooh, the wise owl was right to note the importance of proper interpretation.  Ironically, his dogmatic assertion about a faulty interpretation set a misguided course for Pooh and gang for the rest of the movie.  The whole movie is essentially about how they are seeking to rescue Christopher Robin from the Backson.  The journey was unnecessary, since Christopher’s note said “gone out. Busy. Back soon.” 

Misinterpretation can certainly

·         create faulty expectations

·         send one on an unnecessary journey

·         and create unwarranted fears. 

Misinterpretation causes problems.  Not only in Winnie the Pooh, but in the Church with regards to the Bible.  Proper interpretation is important.

Last week we pondered the fact that believers who follow the same Jesus, are indwelt by the same spirit, reading the same Bible have differing views on matters of faith and doctrine due to differences in interpretation.

So we began sharing a number of interpretive principles that will guide us as we seek to rightly interpret the Word of Truth.  These are not my principles that I made up; these are used universally by the scholars and experts; these are taught by virtually all bible colleges and seminaries.  To drive this point home, I will be sharing a number of quotes with you from the authorities.  I have quotes ad nauseum.

As a brief review: last week we looked at 2 principles:

PRINCIPLE #1: be objective with the text. We must get our theology from the Scripture; we must not force our preconceived theology into the Scripture.  Our theology needs to come from exegesis, not eisegesis.  Thus, it is important to set aside presuppositions that will color our interpretation.

PRINCIPLE #2: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!!  We must not take Scripture out of context!  It is imperative that we read the Bible in context.  Surrounding text.  Kay Arthur puts it this way: the rule of context – context rules.

This morning we add

PRINCIPLE #3: INTERPRET SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE

As far as the technical term for this principle I have heard it called analogy of Scripture and the analogy of faith; scholars seem to use these 2 terms used interchangeably.

Scripture interprets Scripture.   The best commentary on Scripture is Scripture.  

In other words if you are studying a passage about baptism, look at other texts about baptism.  Same with resurrection, the Holy Spirit and so on.

·         Interpret the difficult in light of the clear

·         Interpret the metaphoric in light of the literal

·         Interpret the detailed in light of the general

To quote the scholars and experts:

Systematic Theology | Lewis Sperry Chafer (page 205) “The fourth and most comprehensive rule of Biblical Interpretation is: Compare Scripture with Scripture……It results in the analogy of faith which regulates the interpretation of each passage in conformity with the whole tenor of revealed truth.”

The Gospel of Matthew: The King and His kingdom (Matthew 1-17)  | James Montgomery Boice (page 57)   “…interpret Scripture with Scripture, never taking a verse out of context but rather interpreting it by use of other verses or the Bible as a whole.  This is what the Protestant reformers called “the analogy of faith,” meaning that Scripture interprets itself…”  $258.78 for a new copy online barnesandnoble. com…

Let’s admit, sometimes in Scripture, we come across things that are puzzling.  When we seek to understand a text that isn’t very clear, our primary source of understanding should be another passage of Scripture that more clearly speaks on the same subject.

Westminster confession of faith with notes | J. Macpherson (page 40)  “IX. – 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.  In this section we have it clearly asserted that we do not require to go beyond Scripture itself, either to decisions of councils or to current views in the church, in order to determine the sense of Scripture; comparing Scripture with Scripture, the clearer parts will explain the more difficult; and in order to do this, we must avoid all obscuring of Scripture by imagining in it a variety of senses.  Scripture its own interpreter.”

J.I. Packer | Fundamentalism and the Word of God  “The second basic principle of interpretation is that Scripture must interpret Scripture; the scope and significance of one passage is to be brought out by relating it to others. Our Lord gave an example of this when he used Gn. ii.24 to show that Moses’ law of divorce was no more than a temporary concession to human hard-heartedness. The Reformers termed this principle the analogy of Scripture; the Westminster Confession states it thus: “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, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” This is so in the nature of the case, since the various inspired books are dealing with complementary aspects of the same subject. The rule means that we must give ourselves in Bible study to following out the unities, cross-references and topical links which Scripture provides. Kings and Chronicles throw light on each other; so do the prophets and history books of the Old Testament; so do the Synoptic Gospels and John; so do the four Gospels and the Epistles; so, indeed, do the Old Testament as a whole and the New.”

Did you catch that?  We do not require to go beyond Scripture itself either to decisions of councils or to the current views in the church in order to determine the sense of Scripture.  In other words, we don’t say, we must interpret this text in light of the conclusions of the council of Nicea or we must interpret this text in light of the present view of the church.  What we do say is that we must interpret this text in light of other Biblical texts.  The Bible is its own interpreter.

Johann August Ernesti | Elementary Principles of Interpretation (p 79) “The analogy of Scripture and of Christian doctrine should always be before our eyes, so that the interpretation may be guided by it, i.e. that it may be so far guided by it as that no explanation contrary to it should be adopted; and in the obscure phrases, where the meaning may be doubtful, the sense may be accommodated to the analogy of Scripture sentiment.  This rule need not be wondered at, as common sense has sanctioned it and applied it to the interpretation of other books; all of which are to be explained, generally, and in particular passages, agreeably to the analogy of that doctrine which they contain.  Analogy of doctrine or faith does not consist in the doctrine which is approved by any particular body of men, as uncandid or unskillful persons assert; for then it would be various and inconstant.”

Ernesti makes 2 great points.  1) he piggy backs on what was said in the Westminster quote that the analogy does not consist in the doctrine which is approved by any particular body of men.  We don’t interpret based on conclusions of men at church councils or any body of men because that inevitably varies.  2) The second great point he makes (if I understand him correctly) is that we do this very thing with other books.  We certainly do this with movies. 

Now I’m going to throw a curveball here and do something totally out of character and give an example from STAR WARS.  When I watch STAR WARS, I must let STAR WARS define “the force” for me.  Otherwise I come into STAR WARS with my own definition of the force.  Force = mass x acceleration.  If I define the FORCE and don’t let STAR WARS do it, I have problems.

For example Luke says, “I want to come with you to Alderan.  There’s nothing for me here now.  I want to learn the ways of the force and become a Jedi like my father.”  If I define FORCE, then my conclusion is along the lines of Jedi are physicists since they know the ways of mass x acceleration. 

I’m further baffled at the words of Darth Vader when he says “The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant compared to the power of the force.”  The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant compared to the power of mass x acceleration? 

I must allow George Lucas to define the force and interpret STAR WARS with STAR WARS, not with my high school physics book.  In other words, I learn from Obi Wan Kenobi as he defines the force, "Well, the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together."

That makes sense of Luke Skywalker’s statement.  Luke wants to learn the ways of the energy field that gives a Jedi his power.  It also clarifies Darth Vader’s statement.  The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant compared to the “energy field created by all living things that surrounds and penetrates and binds the galaxy together.”  We interpret STAR WARS with STAR WARS.  How much more do we interpret the Bible with the Bible, not newspapers, not the creeds, not the councils, not the popular views of the church. 

Scripture is its own best interpreter.  INTERPRET SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE

Malachi 4:5-6 See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.  6He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers

So, according to the book of Malachi, God would send Elijah and he will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers.  Malachi prophesied about 400 BC, so since then the Jews expected a “2nd coming” so to speak, of Elijah.

Who exactly is Elijah? 2 kings 1:1-8 ¹ After Ahab’s death, Moab rebelled against Israel. ² Now Ahaziah had fallen through the lattice of his upper room in Samaria and injured himself. So he sent messengers, saying to them, “Go and consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, to see if I will recover from this injury.”

 ³ But the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite, “Go up and meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and ask them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going off to consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?’ ⁴ Therefore this is what the LORD says: ‘You will not leave the bed you are lying on. You will certainly die!’” So Elijah went.

 ⁵ When the messengers returned to the king, he asked them, “Why have you come back?”

 ⁶ “A man came to meet us,” they replied. “And he said to us, ‘Go back to the king who sent you and tell him, “This is what the LORD says: Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are sending men to consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron? Therefore you will not leave the bed you are lying on. You will certainly die!”’”

 ⁷ The king asked them, “What kind of man was it who came to meet you and told you this?”

 ⁸ They replied, “He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist.”

   The king said, “That was Elijah the Tishbite.”

So we compare Scripture with Scripture and see who this famous Elijah was.  When the Scriptures mention Elijah, this is the individual that comes to mind for God’s people.  Elijah was a famous prophet, one of the most well known prophets of Israel.  Notice what Elijah wore: a garment of hair and a leather belt around his waist.  Keep that in mind.

Now turn with me to Matthew chapter 3.  Matthew is the first book in the NT.  As you turn there, I’d like to point out that we are doing something we discussed briefly last week: establishing the broader Biblical context and the historical context.  Whatever we find in the NT needs to be read and interpreted in light of the OT since the OT establishes the historical context for whatever the NT narrates and dictates.

From the 2 passages we just looked at in the OT, we have established who Elijah was: a famous prophet of Israel who prophesied Elijah lived and prophesied during the reign of King Ahab of the northern kingdom of Israel, in the time of the divided kingdom, 874-853 BC. Nearly 500 years later in about 400 BC, Malachi prophesied that God would send the prophet Elijah and that 6He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers

Set against that historical and prophetic backdrop, about 400 years later Matthew records the following in his gospel account. 

Matt 3:1-4  ¹ In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea ² and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” ³ This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:

   “A voice of one calling in the desert,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
   make straight paths for him.’”
 ⁴ John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist.
So 400 years after Malachi foretold the “second coming of Elijah” we have this character John the Baptist on the scene calling people to repentance.  Have you ever wondered why Matthew would record the detail about John’s clothes?  I always thought that was a little strange.  Why would he do that?  That would ring a bell for those who knew the Scriptures, namely Matthew’s first century Jewish audience.  That would draw their attention to someone else’s clothes.  2 Kings 2 said that Elijah wore a garment of hair and a leather belt.  We compare scripture with Scripture and we see that John the baptizer seems to be manifesting this second coming of Elijah.  To be fair, there may have been other people who wore those clothes; it may have been the style of the day.  So we don’t necessarily have anything conclusive here.  But it should definitely cause us to go “hmmmm.”  Let’s continue.

After the transfiguration Mark 9:9-13  ⁹As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. ¹⁰They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant.

 ¹¹And they asked him, "Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"

 ¹²Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? ¹³But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him."

Here is another text, this time 400 years later, in the NT that can perhaps shed some light on this 2^nd coming of Elijah.  The disciples acknowledge the idea that Elijah must come.  Jesus replies in v13.  “Elijah has come; they have done everything to him that they wished.”  Elijah came?  When did this happen?  Did we miss something?  This seems unclear.  Let’s go to another passage of Scripture to see if we can get clarification on this second coming of Elijah. 

Matt 11:7-15   ⁷As John's (JTB) disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? ⁸If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings' palaces. ⁹Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. ¹⁰This is the one about whom it is written:
   " 'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'

¹¹I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.¹²From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. ¹³For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. ¹⁴And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. ¹⁵He who has ears, let him hear.

So we interpret Scripture with Scripture.  Scripture is the best commentary on Scripture.  When something is unclear in Scripture, we interpret the unclear passage in light of the clear passage.  Regarding the 2^nd coming of Elijah, we see here that Jesus says that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come.

That seems pretty clear, right?  Let’s muddy the waters a bit.  Regarding this John the Baptist who was the Elijah who was to come, let’s see what the gospel of John says:

John 1:19-23  ¹⁹Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.²⁰He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ. "

 ²¹They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"
      He said, "I am not."       "Are you the Prophet?"
      He answered, "No."

 ²²Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"

 ²³John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' " (Isaiah 40:3)

What?  He’s not Elijah?  I thought Jesus just said he was Elijah.  What is it?  Is he Elijah or isn’t he?  Well, first off, Jesus didn’t say that he was Elijah, He said that he “is the Elijah who was to come.”

Now let’s see if we can get some clarity from another passage of Scripture.  Scripture interprets Scripture.  This is what an angel says to Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, regarding John:

Luke 1:13-17  ¹³But the angel said to him: "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John. ¹⁴He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, ¹⁵for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. ¹⁶Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God.  And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Again, if we go back to our original text in Malachi, we see that God says, “I will send you the prophet Elijah; He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children.”  The turning of the hearts of the fathers to the children is applied directly to the work accomplished in this 2^nd coming of Elijah and it is said of John the Baptist that he does this very thing.  So this passage says that John will go before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah.

So, when we interpret Scripture in light of Scripture we come to the following conclusions:

·         Jesus said very clearly that John the Baptist is THE Elijah who was to come

·         John says that he is not Elijah (not literally)

·         Malachi is the source of the prophecy of the 2^nd coming of Elijah

·         The angel says that John will do the very thing that Malachi said Elijah would do: turn the hearts of the fathers to their children

·         Therefore, the 2^nd coming of Elijah is not a literal coming in the sense that Elijah, himself would return, but it is a coming in spirit and power as it is manifest in the life and ministry of John the Baptist

·         John was not Elijah; not literally; he was John the Baptist, but he was THE Elijah who was to come;

·         He went forth before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children.

Once again, our PRINCIPLE:  Interpret Scripture with Scripture.  The best commentary on Scripture is Scripture. 

You may be wondering “how do I know where to go in order to compare scripture with scripture?  How do I know where the other passages about a topic reside?”

·         Over time, the more time you spend with your Bible the more familiar you will be

·         But, if you’re not there yet, I have good news for you: we live in the future

o   There really was a time when people needed to know where stuff was in the bible

o   Today, my bible is in my phone.  I have 4 bibles in my phone and there is an amazing search function

o   Don’t have a smart phone, www.biblegateway.com

Let’s do another example: (Crowd participation time)

Recall our friend John the Baptist.  Remember his message.  In Matthew 3:1-2  ¹ In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea ² and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

What are they to do?  REPENT.  For the kingdom was NEAR. Kingdom of what? HEAVEN.

If you continue on in the text you will find that Jesus continues the message about the kingdom in Matt 4:23 Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom.  Where did Jesus go?  GALILEE.  What did he preach?  The GOOD NEWS.  Good news of what?  The KINGDOM.  What kingdom?  Based on Matt 3:2 the kingdom that John preached which was the kingdom of HEAVEN.

Now turn with me to Mark 1:14-15  ¹⁴ After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ¹⁵ “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!”  Just as we saw in Matt 4, Jesus is preaching where?  GALILEE.  What is he proclaiming? GOOD NEWS.  His message is that the kingdom is NEAR.  Just like JTB said.  But JTB said it was the Kingdom of Heaven that was near.  Here it says that the kingdom of GOD was near.

The context is the same.  The accounts are parallel.  The logical conclusion:  the kingdom of heaven is the same thing as the kingdom of God.  This makes sense.   Logically speaking if A=B and B=C, then A=C.  

·         The kingdom of heaven is near. 

·         The kingdom of God is near. 

·         The kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of God.

One might claim that this isn’t an airtight argument.  It doesn’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these are the same things.  They could be 2 entirely different things and both be near.  Granted, that’s possible.  What further evidence must one furnish to satisfy such doubt?  What if we found that in Matthew’s account Jesus consistently made certain claims about the kingdom of Heaven and in Mark and Luke’s accounts Jesus consistently made those same claims about the kingdom of God?

Let’s compare scripture with Scripture and see if that’s the case.

Matt 13:31-33 ³¹ He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. ³² Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.”  What is the kingdom of heaven like? MUSTARD SEED.

 ³³ He told them still another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough.”   What is the kingdom of heaven also like?  YEAST.
According to Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, the kingdom of HEAVEN is like a mustard seed and the kingdom of HEAVEN is like yeast.

Flip with me to Luke 13:18-21 ¹⁸ Then Jesus asked, “What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? ¹⁹ It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches.” What is the kingdom of GOD like?  MUSTARD SEED.

 ²⁰ Again he asked, “What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? ²¹ It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough.”  What is the kingdom of God like?  YEAST.

According to Luke’s account the kingdom of GOD is like a mustard seed and yeast.
The gospel writers use the phrase kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven interchangeably. Once again, by comparing scripture with scripture, we see that the kingdom of God is the same thing as the kingdom of heaven. 
Conclusion: based on what little comparison of scripture that we did, it appears that the kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of God, it is the good news, and it was near in the first century.
Let’s do one more, very briefly before we close.  But as we do it, let’s do it with principle #1 at the forefront.  Be objective with the text.  Set aside presuppositions that may color your interpretation.  Let the text speak for itself.

2 Samuel 24:1-4 ¹ Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”

 ² So the king said to Joab and the army commanders with him, “Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enroll the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are.”
 ³ But Joab replied to the king, “May the LORD your God multiply the troops a hundred times over, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king want to do such a thing?”
 ⁴ The king’s word, however, overruled Joab and the army commanders; so they left the presence of the king to enroll the fighting men of Israel.
Here we have:

·         The LORD incited David to count the troops

·         Joab didn’t want to but the king’s word overruled him

Now, let’s compare scripture with Scripture

1 Chronicles 21:1-4 ¹ Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. ² So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, “Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are.”

 ³ But Joab replied, “May the LORD multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king, are they not all my lord’s subjects? Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?”
 ⁴ The king’s word, however, overruled Joab; so Joab left and went throughout Israel and then came back to Jerusalem.
 Here we have:

·         Satan incited David to count the troops

·         Joab didn’t want to but the king’s word overruled him

This seems to be 2 different accounts of the same event.  However, in one account Jehovah incites David to count the troops, in the other, Satan incites David to count the troops.  Let’s use the same logic we used earlier: if A=B and B=C, then A=C.

·         If God = the one who incited David to count troops

·         and Satan = the one who incited David to count troops

·         then God = ________.

Who likes the sound of that?  I don’t know that anybody likes the way that sounds.  If you’re like me, the reason is that I tend to come to the text with presuppositions about who Satan is, which makes it difficult to objective with the text and let the text speak for itself as the scholars and experts have encouraged us to do.

So, how do we reconcile this?  I’m not going to answer that today.  In a few weeks we will revisit these texts as I introduce another principle of interpretation.  Don’t want to get ahead of ourselves here.  In the meantime, I’ll let you wrestle with the possibilities.  And if you want to hear my honest and (to the best of my ability) objective interpretation based on the principles of Bible interpretation as taught by scholars, experts, Bible colleges and seminaries, you’ll just have to keep coming over the next few weeks and join us for the journey. www.ncfgeorgetown.com  Church in Georgetown, Texas. Reformed church Georgetown, Texas preterist church Georgetown Texas. Pastor David Boone. Full Preterism. Covenant Eschatology. New Covenant Fellowship Georgetown. Page House 10:00 am Loving God. Loving Others. Realized eschatology fulfilled eschatology  Preterist church Austin Texas.  Bible church Austin Texas Second coming of Jesus Christ

Our sermon audio and video files can be found at www.ncfgeorgetown.com/media.html

www.ncfgeorgetown.com