God Favored Me

Course: How to Study Your Bible Part 2a

2011-02-14T14:55:00.003-05:00

This course is presented by Dr. Mark Strauss. The following is my transcription of his lecture with minimal edits to make the text flow better for reading. You can download the lecture directly here (mp3) or go to the download page to download all nine lessons here.

INTRODUCTION

Lecture 3: Hermeneutics or Biblical Interpretation

The word hermeneutics comes from a Greek word hermeneuō which means to interpret. Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It is a science in that there are methods. There are rules. There is a measure of objectivity. It is also an art in the sense that it is a skill that is learned.

Some of my students ask, "Do I really need hermeneutics?" Some people say, I don't interpret the Bible, I just read the Bible. But, of course, every act of reading is also an act of interpretation. You cannot read something without interpreting it.

2 Key Goals of Hermeneutics

1. Exegesis

Exegesis is from a Greek word meaning to draw out the meaning of the text. Our first goal in interpreting Scripture is to draw out the author's original meaning. We contrast exegesis with what we call iesegesis. Iesegesis is another Greek word that means to read into it, outside meaning. In other words, our goal is to hear Scripture speak to us, not to bring our ideas and confirm our own presuppositions and ideas in Scripture. We wanna read out of it, to comprehend what the original authors intended.

Clarifications in reference to what we mean by exegesis.

THE ORIGINAL MEANING REFERS TO THE AUTHOR'S ORIGINAL MEANING. This raises one of the most important questions that Biblical interpretation seeks to answer, and that question is, "Where does meaning reside?"

In a written text, there are really three possibilities for where meaning resides:
a. Original author of that text - the person that wrote it
b. The text itself - words, sentences, paragraphs on the page
c. Reader of the text - one, whether ancient or modern, who picks up that document and reads the words that the author wrote

So in every passage in the Bible, as every written text in history, there are three possibilities as to where meaning resides: meaning could be a focus on the author who originally wrote it, meaning in the text itself, and meaning on the mind of the reader.

There is a modern literary theory that is called reader response/criticism that puts all of the focus on the reader, suggesting that we actually create meaning when we read. Every reader approaches a text differently, so really the focus and locus on the meaning is in the reader rather than in the author or in the text itself.

It certainly is true that reading is a dynamic interplay between the text and the reader, but ultimately, our goal is to get back to the author's intention—what the author intended when they wrote their document, what was going on in their mind, what their goal was.

There are important clarifications with reference to that. The original meaning we are looking for is the author's intended meaning but our approach has to be text-centered. Why is that? It's because the author is dead. The author of every New Testament and Old Testament document is not with us. So if we say, we're looking for Paul's meaning, but we can't ask Paul what his meaning is. We have to look to the written text, the text that the author penned, and determine the meaning from that text. So the text is important, it's not just the author we're looking at.

So our first clarification was that the original meaning refers to the author's intended meaning.
MEANING IS TEXT-CENTERED. It is the author's intent as discernible from the text itself and its context. The context refers to everything around the text—the life situation that prompted the author to write it, the recipients to whom it was written, the time and place which it was written.
TEXT IS HISTORICALLY POSITIONED. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the text represents what linguists call a speech act, a communication event in space and time. Why is it important to identify the text as a speech act?

Some people will say that you can make a text mean whatever it wants, because every reader comes to it and comes to it with their own conclusion on what it means. We can get around that difficulty, however, by recognizing the difference between what we call a sentence and what we call an utterance.

A sentence is a grammatically complete unit of thought. Let me illustrate this: Suppose I say, "He hit the ball." That is a sentence because it is a grammatically complete unit of thought. But suppose I'm in my home and I'm watching the television and there's a baseball game going on and the batter swings the bat and hits the ball, and I say to my wife, "He hit the ball!" But then my son is out back. He loves baseball. He's swinging the bat, and he throws the ball up, and he hits it, and I say, "He hit the ball!" Notice what we have in that case. We have the same sentence, exactly the same sentence, "He hit the ball," but that sentence now has two different contexts: one related to the baseball game that I'm watching on television, one related to my son out in the backyard. So that sentence has two meanings: one meaning referring to my son and one meaning referring to the baseball game. Though that is only one sentence, the same sentence, it is two different utterances.

A utterance is a sentence which occurs in real life. Now think about my illustration. When I looked at the baseball game and I said, "He hit the ball," that sentence referred to that baseball game. It was a real life sentence. It had a meaning because it was a real life sentence. Now when I turned and looked at my son and said, "He hit the ball," that was another utterance, a different utterance because it was a different sentence in real life. Now why is the distinction between sentences and utterances important? It is because sentences only have potential meaning.

Suppose I write on the board, He hit the ball! There is a sentence, but that sentence only has potential meaning 'coz I don't know who "He" is. I don't know what kind of a ball. I don't know what game this is. That sentence has potential meaning, but it doesn't have real meaning until I give it a context. With reference to the baseball game, with reference to my son, and say, "He hit the ball!" then suddenly that sentence has meaning, and it has only one meaning. It has the meaning that I meant when I stated that utterance.

So the important question is, "What do we in the Bible?" Do we have sentences or do we have utterances? And the answer to that question is, ultimately, we have utterances. We have utterances, because every passage in the Bible was written by a real author in a real context and they had a real intention, a real meaning in mind, when they wrote that context.

So our third clarification is that the Bible is historically positioned. Every passage, every sentence, every paragraph in the Bible has a specific place, has a specific time, has a specific historical position. And because it has a historical position, it has a meaning in that position.

The Bridge Illustration
I wanna illustrate our two goals with a bridge illustration. Picture a large bridge spanning a gorge or a river. This is the illustration we'll be using to describe what we're trying to do in hermeneutics and Biblical interpretation.

On one side of that bridge is us, in the sense of the modern reader of the text. On the other side of that bridge is them, that is the Biblical authors. So us is the modern reader of the text, that is you and I. "Them" is the Biblical authors—Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, one of the unknown writers of the Old Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, or any of the other authors. That's us and them, but between us and them, there is a great chasm, a great gorge, a great river valley. That chasm represents the time, place, culture, and language difference. We speak a different language than Paul spoke. We're in a different time. We have a different worldview. So there is this great chasm between us and them.

The first goal of hermeneutics or interpretation is exegesis, and exegesis is crossing the cultural and linguistic bridge that separates us from them. So if we want to understand what Paul meant when he wrote this letter. Well, how can we understand what he meant? We have to cross the bridge of time and space. We have to try to enter into the thought world of Paul. We have to learn the language. We have to learn the culture. We have to understand the life situation.

Take Paul's Letter to the Corinthians, for example. For us to understand that letter, we have to understand what was happening in the city of Corinth in southern Greece. We have to understand a little bit about Paul and who he was, an apostle of Jesus Christ. We have to understand his relationship with the church, that he established this church. We have to understand the conflicts that he had with the church, and we have to understand the letter. We have to read it sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and understand how one sentence relates to the next and how one paragraph relates to the next. That whole process is called exegesis. It's attempting to determine the original meaning of the passage in its original context. That is crossing the bridge in one direction: crossing the bridge from our life situation to the life situation of the Apostle Paul.

That's the first half of our task in reading and interpreting the Bible. That's what we call exegesis—determining the author's original meaning. But there's a second half of that process and that is coming back across the bridge—taking the message that you've discerned in the first century, Paul's message to his readers, to his context, and finding out how to apply that message to us today, in our cultural context, in our life situation.

2. Contextualization

If the first process, crossing the bridge back to the original context is called exegesis, we call of bringing that message back to us today as contextualization. Exegesis is determining the original meaning of the text. Contextualization is determining the contemporary significance—what that text means to us today, how that text applies to our particular life situation, to our culture, to our context.

Both steps—exegesis and contextualization—are crucial. We have to cross the bridge back and understand what Paul meant in his original context, in his original culture; then we have to find out how that applies to us, what God is saying to us, what truth we can draw from this passage.

Why do we need contextualization? It's because not every command in the Bible was meant for all believers for all time. Let me just illustrate this for you:

Exodus 29:38 commands, "This is what you are to offer on the altar regularly each day: two lambs a year old." Most of us don't follow this Old Testament command, because that command was not given to us. It was given to the nation of Israel under the old covenant. There are many, many, many Old Testament commands that we don't obey.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says, "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son... all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you." This passage calls for the stoning of a rebellious son. Most of us don't practice the stoning of rebellious children today. We have other ways to deal with our disobedient children.

Leviticus 19:19 says, "Do not plant your field with two different kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." The command here is not to plant, say, barley and wheat, two different kinds of seed, within in the same field. Or not to wear clothing made of cotton and polyester, two different kinds of material. Most of us break that command today. Many farmers plant different kinds of seed in one field. Many of our clothes are blended clothes. So are we disobeying God's Word? Most Christians do not believe that this command applies to us.

We can not simply say, "God said it, and so I obey it," because many of these commands were not intended for us to obey. Take even one of the the 10 commandments, the Sabbath command:

Exodus 35:2, a restatement of the command, says "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death." The Sabbath, of course, is the seventh day, which is Saturday, but most Christians work on Saturday. They do work on the original Sabbath; yet according to Exodus 35:2, whoever works on the Sabbath should be put to death. Why don't we put to death people who do work on the Sabbath? The answer is most of us do not believe this Sabbath command is meant for us to obey.

How do we determine what commands are to be obeyed and what do we not have to obey? Contextualization, the second half of hermeneutics or Biblical interpretation, is to take the message as it was given, the original meaning in its original context and determine how that meaning applies to us today.

Now take this Exodus 35:2 passage, and let's do it with this: If we do our exegesis, what does it mean "for six days work is to be done but on the seventh day is a holy day, whoever works shall be put to death"? In our exegesis, we realize that this was a command given to the nation of Israel, that they were not to work on the Sabbath and that any Israelite who worked on the Sabbath was to be executed, because the Sabbath day was meant to be a day of rest given exclusively to God. That's our exegesis. We're looking at the passage in its original context and that's exactly what it means. It means that someone is to be judged guilty and executed if they worked on the Sabbath.

But that's only half of the process. The second half of the process is how do we apply that passage today? How do we keep the Sabbath today? Is that command given to us or is it not given to us? Or is it not for us? If it is not for us, then what application does that passage have? That is the question of application or contextualization.

You might say, we've been talking about Old Testament commands, but what about New Testament commands? Are we supposed to obey all New Testament commands? Let me just give you a few New Testament commands that many Christians today don't obey:

Peter 5:14 says, "Greet one another with a kiss of love." Many Christians today do not greet with a kiss. They might greet with a handshake. Many cultures do greet with a kiss, but certainly not all Christians believe that this command is meant for today.

1 Corinthians 11:5 says "For every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head..." Paul says that a woman must not pray or prophesy in church with her head uncovered. She has to veil or cover her head. In many churches around the world today, women worship, they pray or they prophesy, with their head uncovered. Are those women disobeying God? Are they disobeying the truth by praying with their head uncovered? Many Christians believe, at least, that this command is not meant for Christians all time.

The process of contextualization is looking at a passage of Scripture and trying to determine whether it applies today and in what way it applies today. One more example:

1 Timothy 5:23 says, "No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments." In this passage, Paul apparently commands to drink wine, but of course we recognize that Paul is writing to Timothy in a very specific situation and that the command is meant for Timothy.

So the question of contextualization is asking the question, How does this command apply to today? How do I understand what God wants me to do?

So here's our bridge again. The first part of our bridge is exegesis, that's moving from our context—the context of the modern reader—crossing the bridge backwards the chasm, the gorge of time, place, culture, and language to understand what the text meant in its original context.

I can tell you, if we understand that passage correctly, Paul meant for women in Corinth to cover their head when they were worshiping, when they were praying, when they were prophesying. That's exegesis, determining what the significance of that head covering was in its original culture, in its original context. But that's only half the process.

Then we have to say, okay, that's fine. That's what Paul meant for them, but how would Paul want us to do it? More importantly, what would God want us to do in our particular culture and context, which is very different in Paul's culture and context? Contextualization is determining the meaning for today.

In reading Paul's letter, we are reading someone else's mail. We are reading the letters of Paul—this individual from the 1st century, this missionary, this church-planter, this world traveler. He is writing letters to specific 1st century churches. The letter to the Galatians is written to a variety of churches in the Roman province of Galatia. The 1 and 2 Letters to the Corinthians is written to the church in southern Greece or Achaea in the city of Corinth. The Letter to the Romans is written to the house churches in Rome. So every one of Paul's letters is written to a specific life situation, to a specific church or churches, to a specific cultural context.

Here's a statement that I'll make to my students that sounds a little shocking to many Christians. The statement is: The reason the Bible is sometimes so hard to understand is because it wasn't written to you. Now that's true. None of these books originally, in their original context, were written to us as individuals, to us as modern readers. Isaiah wrote to the people of Israel of his time. Moses wrote to Israel of his time. John wrote to the churches to which he was ministering. Paul wrote to the churches that he had established and to the churches that he knew. But none of these writers were writing specifically to us as modern readers. So one of the reasons why the Bible is so hard to understand is we don't live in that cultural context. We don't speak that original language. We don't always know the circumstances, all the situations, everything that was going on.

So the reason the Bible is sometimes so hard to understand is it wasn't written to you. That's why we need exegesis. We need to enter into the world of the text. We need to learn the languages of the text. We need to understand the 1st century culture and context and background. That's why we need exegesis.

But although the Bible wasn't written to you, it was written for you. We just changed the preposition from to to for and this suddenly becomes a true statement. In order words, this is God's Word for you, even if it wasn't written to you.

In our last session, we talked about the nature of the Bible as both fully human and fully divine. And we can relate this point we just made to this idea of being fully human and fully divine. It's fully human in the sense that it had a real life situation. It was written by a written by a real author (Peter, Paul, Luke, or John) in a real life situation (Paul writing to the church in Rome, John writing to his community, Mark writing perhaps to a suffering church in Rome). Every writer is writing to a specific situation. Every writer is writing in a human reality, in a human situation. That's the human side.

But this is also God's Word. It's meant for God's people of all time. So even if it wasn't written to you, it was written for you, because the Bible is divinely inspired. Because the Bible is God's word, it has truth and application and relevance to us today.

So contextualization or application is determining how the Bible relates to you. If exegesis is the meaning for them in their original context, contextualization is the significance for us today.

Now I've been using the word contextualization instead of the word application; it means really roughly the same thing. The reason we use the word contextualization instead of the word application is because application means simply applying the Bible to ourselves, but there can be good application and there can be bad application. In other words, I can take a passage of Scripture and apply it to my life, but I may be misunderstanding how God intended that to be applied.

The reason we use the word contextualization is it means appropriately taking that message and applying it to a new context. That's where the word, contextualization, comes from. It had an original context, and now it has a new context—our context. Paul's letters were written one context, the context of the 1st century world of the Mediterranean. We wanna take that message to them that we determine by exegesis, and we wanna apply that message to us today. Take it from one context, the 1st century context, and bring it into our world, into our context.

Quick Review

So we have talked about what is hermeneutics—the science and art of interpretation. Secondly, we have talked about the two basic goals of hermeneutics:

Exegesis - determining the author's original meaning and
Contextualization - determining the significance of the text for today.

Using the bridge illustration, exegesis means moving from us to them, going back into the world of the text, understanding the author's intended meaning in its original context; and contextualization means taking that message and bringing it into our life situation and applying it today.

We will talk about both rules of exegesis and rules of contextualization (rules of both exegesis and contextualization), principles we can apply to understand God's Word in its original context and then principles to apply to determine how that applies to us today.

Avoiding Shortcutting the Hermeneutical Process

There are mistakes that are sometimes made, and we want to avoid those mistakes as we read and study God's Word. Let me give you two possible mistakes that we want to avoid:

Application without exegesis
In other words, applying God's Word without fully understanding God's Word. Application without exegesis. One form of this is called subjectivity—assuming that whatever I first understand the text to mean is what it means to me. Applying the passage directly to my life without understanding its original meaning or context. So this is application without exegesis—applying it without determining its original meaning.

You may have been in a Bible study perhaps where a passage was read, and then everyone went around and described what they thought it meant or how it applied to them.

I have one cartoon where a Bible study leader is reading a passage in Paul's letters and he says, "Paul says that because of his chains, others had been encouraged." And then he asked the Bible study group, "What do you think that means?"

One man responds, "Paul is writing a letter, right? So this is a chain letter, like the one I just got." So he misunderstands Paul's chains to mean a chain letter.

Another woman says, "No, no, you're missing the point. I'm a chain smoker and God is speaking to me through this to tell me I'm to encourage other chain smokers."

A third man says, "Well, it reminds me of that Aretha Franklin song, Chain of Fools. Maybe Paul means we're all fools for Christ."

So each one applies the passage directly to themselves. The Bible study leader says, "Those are interesting insights, but don't you think Paul could simply be referring to his prison chains?"

One of the Bible study participants says to another, "I told you this Bible study wasn't about practical living."

You see, the point is that in that Bible study, the people were not thinking about what the passage meant in its original context, what the passage meant to Paul. They were simply taking it and applying it in any way they wanted to with reference to themselves. But that's a misapplication of the passage.

Here's our point: We must understand the original meaning of the original author, before we can make application for today. Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, in their book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, say it this way, "A text cannot mean what it never meant." A text cannot mean today something that it never meant in its original context.

So that's one form of application without exegesis, applying the Bible before we understand.
Prooftexting
Prooftexting is trying to find a verse that supports our perspective. We have a tendency to come to the text of Scripture, and we know what we believe. Maybe we know what we believe because our church has taught it to us or we know what we know what we believe because our parents taught something to us, and so we read the Bible assuming we know what it's going to say.

I've got another cartoon where a young man is reading his Bible and his sister comes up to him and he says, "Don't bother me! I'm looking for a verse of Scripture to back up one of my preconceived notions." You see, he knows what he believes. He's not going to Scripture to understand what it means. He's going to Scriptures to defend his own perspective.

But you see, we'll never hear God speak to us unless we allow the Bible to speak for itself, until we seek to understand it on its own terms.

So, in that case, you are trying to apply God's Word before you understand God's Word. We need to avoid shortcutting the hermeneutical process by applying it without exegeting it.

The opposite is also true, however. Some people do exegesis without contextualization, or they might understand what the text meant but they misapply it to their life today in some way. Let me give you a couple of examples of that.

A liberal error related to exegesis without contextualization is not allowing the Bible to transform your life. Reading it, understanding it in its original context but not allowing it to change us. I have read many commentaries that are very well-written, that quite fully understand the original context in culture, in background, in language; but then the author is not a true believer. That author doesn't allow that message to change his/her life.

Hebrews 12:4 says, "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." God's Word is meant to be read and understodd and, ultimately, applied. It's meant to transform our lives. We cannot fully interpret God's Word until we allow it to change us.

That might be a liberal error associated with exegesis without contextualization, but there are also conservative errors that misapply God's Word, and one example is confusing eternal principles with cultural applications. Sometimes in Scripture, what we have are specific cultural applications of eternal principles, but God did not mean for those things necessarily to apply for all time.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:34, Paul says, "Women should remain silent in church." Now we have to first of all exegete that and understand what it means it its original context, because it's obvious that Paul doesn't mean that command to apply to all women, in all churches, for all time. We know that because even earlier in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul assumes that women are prophesying and praying in church.

So exegesis without contextualization would say, "Paul said it this way, therefore this is the way we should apply it," without fully understanding why Paul said it and then determining what its appropriate application is for today.

A second conservative error with reference to exegesis without contextualization, we might call the magic answer book or the verse for the day syndrome, and that is, searching Scripture for the answer for a specific problem and so taking a passage out of context.

It's like the young soldier who was in boot camp, and he was really suffering under the rigors of military life, and he desperately wanted to go home. So he began searching his Bible for an answer, for something to help encourage him; and he came to Genesis 31:13 where it says, "Arise! Get out of this place." And he took that as a message from the Lord, so he deserted his army post and went home. His exegesis was fine. He understood what that meant, but he applied it inappropriately to himself. That passage was never meant to be for him. It was meant for an entirely different life situation.

In many Christian books, I read stories of people who understand and discern God's will in this way. I remember reading a story of a woman whose husband was considering taking a new job, but she wasn't sure that it was the right job to take because it would require them to leave their home and move to another town. She was reading her Bible and came to Luke 4:43 where Jesus said, "I must proclaim the good news of the Kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent." She read that verse and read that as a message from God, that they were to move from this town to the other town.

Well, the problem with that is that passage was never meant to tell us that we should move from one town to another. That passage was Jesus telling his disciples that his mission was to proclaim the good news to all the towns of Israel. In fact, that woman could have read another verse. She could have read Isaiah 32:20 that says, "Look upon Zion, a tent that could not be moved." She could have taken that as a passage telling her she should stay put. The passage goes on, "Its stake shall never be pulled up nor any of its rope broken." So she could take that to mean she should stay in her town and they should not move.

You see, the problem is, that's not what the passage ever meant. As Stuart said, a text cannot mean today what it never meant its original context. Appropriate contextualization, appropriate application has to come from appropriate exegesis—determining what the author meant in their original context.

Lecture Summary

Okay, let me summarize the points that we looked at in this session.

Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It's a science in that we need to bring specific principles, a specific method to bear. We have to diligently study God's Word in order to understand it.
2 Goals of Hermeneutics

Exegesis - determining the original meaning, the author's intended meaning in that author's original historical, cultural, and literary context
Contextualization - determining the contemporary significance—what that text means to us today, how that text applies to our particular life situation, to our culture, to our context

2 Ways to Avoid Shortcutting the Hermeneutical Process

Application without exegesis - misapplying the text without first exegeting the text
Exegesis without application - exegeting the text but then not applying it to appropriate situations

This lecture was provided by BiblicalTraining.org.

Course: How to Study Your Bible Part 1b

2010-08-16T15:34:00.009-04:00

INTRODUCTION

Lecture 2: The Nature of the Bible: Unity and Diversity

The best way to understand the nature of the Bible is unity and diversity. Together, these two terms really help us to understand what the Bible is and how we ought to approach it.

Diversity

By diversity, we mean that the Bible is a diverse collection of literary works.

Kinds of Diversity

Diversity of Time - The Bible is written over a long period of time, something like 1500 years.
Diversity of Authors - We have authors from all walks of life in the Bible. We have fishermen, tent makers, priests, prophets, kings, a whole range of different occupations and different backgrounds from different cultures in different contexts
Diversity of Cultures
Diversity of Languages - The Bible was written in two main languages. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The New Testament was written in Greek. There is a smattering of Aramaic, both in the Old Testament and then a few Aramaic words in the New Testament.
Diversity of Genres - Perhaps the most significant and important. Genre refers to different literary form. What kinds of genres are in the Bible? The two main genres are prose and poetry, but there are many, many sub-genres: psalms, parables, letters, historical narratives, laws, proverbs, prophecies.

How does that extraordinary diversity affect the way we read Scripture? What are the implications associated with this great diversity of Scripture that was written by many different authors in many different times and places, presenting various theological perspectives?

3 Key Implications of Diversity

We must adapt our methods for various kinds of literature.
As we just mentioned, one of the aspects of diversity is diversity of genre, and different genres require different methods of interpretations, different approaches. Let me just give you some illustrations of this:

Daniel 7:6 says, "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule."

That's a strange passage for many people. You've got this image of a beast that's a cross between various animals. In order to understand this passage, we have to identify the literary form or genre. We can't possibly understand it unless we identify and recognize that this is what is called apocalyptic literature. Apocalyptic literature often uses symbolic, sometimes bizarre, imagery in order to communicate spiritual truth or in order to communicate some historical event or some historical person. So in order to understand this passage, we have to first acknowledge and identify what literary form it is.

Ecclesiastes 1:1-4
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”
What does anyone gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.

If we read that passage and ask, Is it true? Is everything ultimately meaningless? In order to understand this passage in God's Word, we have first to identify its literary form. Is this meant to be God's wisdom? Is this meant to be absolute truth that everything meaningless or is this truth given from a human perspective apart from God. Identifying the genre of the book of Ecclesiastes is essential before we can understand it.

Psalm 137:9 says, "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" That's not a very pretty picture nor does it sound like the loving God who cares about all people. How do we understand that passage? We have to recognize its genre, its literary form. It's not just a psalm, it's actually what we call an imprecatory psalm.

An imprecatory psalm is the psalmist crying out in agony, in suffering, against his enemies. So we recognize this is not necessarily something we should be saying about our enemies. This is someone's human emotion expressed towards God. Identifying that literary form or genre is essential if we're gonna understand that passage.

Isaiah 55:12 says, "You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands."

We might ask, is that true? Will the mountains one day burst into song? Will the trees in the field clap their hands? In order to understand this passage, you have to acknowledge and recognize that the genre is poetry. It's poetic, and it's eschatological poetry, or focusing on God's end-time salvation. It's using symbols. It's using metaphors to describe the restoration of creation at the end of time.

Is it to be taken literally? No, because it's figurative poetry; it's meant to be take figuratively. So identifying that literary form is essential if we are going to understand God's Word.

So, that was the first implication of the diversity of Scripture. We must adapt methodology for various kinds of literature.
We must recognize the progress of revelation
There is a development of doctrine in Scripture. Later stages do not replace the earlier stages but they clarify the earlier passages, and they develop a gradual developing [and] understanding of the people of God. Hebrews 1:1 illustrates what we mean by the progress of revelation.

Hebrews 1:1-2 says, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe."

That verse points out that the old covenant, the Old Testament, was given at various times and in various places in a somewhat scattered way through the prophets. The new covenant, the New Testament, is God's final, complete revelation through His Son. So we see progress from the old covenant to the new covenant.

Let me give you some examples of the progress of revelation, the way we see the development of doctrine between the old covenant and the new covenant.

Doctrine of the Trinity
The truth that God is three persons. One God in three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Perhaps the most foundational truth of Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity. But if you read your Old Testament, the doctrine of the Trinity is not clearly taught. We get some hints of it, some suggestions of it in the Old Testament. When God says, "Let us make man in our own image," the us there perhaps refer to the Trinity: Father, Son, and Spirit, but it certainly is not clear. We see the Spirit of God hovering over the waters at the time of creation, but in the Old Testament, the Spirit of God is not clearly identified as a distinct person within the Trinity. The Spirit of God is the vitality of God, the presence of God in the world, the power and presence of God. So in the Old Testament, we do not see the Trinity clearly taught.

We get to the New Testament, of course, we see God reveal Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We could point many, many passages in the New Testament to confirm the doctrine of the Trinity. We see this progress of revelation from the Old Testament to the New. The diversity of Scripture reminds us that we have to read an Old Testament writer within that writer's original context. We must not force New Testament meanings, for example, on the Old Testament unless if we must allow allow each writer to speak for themselves.

Why did God not reveal Himself more clearly as Trinity in the old covenant? One possible answer to is that the nation of Israel was living in the context of polygamy, where there were many, many gods, and the nations around had competing gods; and perhaps the rallying cry of Judaism, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord He is one," one as opposed to the many gods of the nation. So perhaps God revealed Himself in the unity alone in the old covenant in order to keep Israel from adopting a polytheistic view of God or that the demonstration of the one true God was essential for Israel's religion under the old covenant.

The practice of sacrificing of animals
The old covenant commanded animal sacrifices to be made and those sacrifices were meant to pay the penalty for sin. We get many Old Testament passages that refer to the sacrifice of an animal paying the penalty for sins. We get to the new covenant, however, the New Testament, and it becomes clear that Jesus Christ is the only true and ultimate sacrifice; and that the sacrifices of the old covenant never really did pay for sin.

Hebrews 10:4 says, "For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." The old covenant seems to suggest that the blood of bulls and goats did take away sins. The new covenant confirms that the blood of bulls and goats, the sacrifices of animals, never did actually take away sins.

How do we put these two together? The answer is the progress of revelation. God progressively revealed His plan to human beings.
We must first allow the Biblical writers to speak for themselves, then we must seek an internal unity behind their diverse expressions of faith.
Too often, we have a tendency to interpret one author exclusively by another author instead of first listening to that particular author. We must allow the Biblical writers to speak for themselves. Let me give you a few examples of this:

James and Paul on the issue of faith and works
At first reading, these two seem to contradict each other. Paul says a person is justified by faith alone, apart from works (Romans 3:28). A person is justified or declared righteous by God by faith alone apart from works.

James, on the other hand, says faith without works is dead (James 2:17, 20, 26). He also says, you see a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:14, 24).

These two writers, at first, seem to be contradicting each other. Well, this point about diversity, we must allow the Biblical writers to speak for themselves. We must listen to James in the context of James's letter. We must listen to Paul in the context of his life and letters and overall theology. So we must, first of all, allow the Biblical writers to speak for themselves. Once we understand James, and once we understand Paul, we can be confident that these two will ultimately agree. They will complement each other, rather than contradict each other.

Hebrews and Paul on the issue of eternal security
Paul, for example, in a great passage in Romans 8:29-30 says, "For those God foreknew He also predestined... those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified." Paul makes it clear that those that God foreknew, those He saved, He will glorify. That once you are saved, you can be certain that you will retain that salvation forever.

The writer of the Hebrews, on the other hand, says in Hebrews 10:26-27, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." At first reading, it sounds as though the writer of Hebrews is saying that you can lose the salvation you've gained.

So how do you bring Paul and the writer of Hebrews together on an issue of eternal security, whether we're once saved and always saved? The diversity of Scripture reminds us that we need to, first and foremost, listen to each author in their original context. We have to understand what Paul is saying in his context, and we have to understand what the writer of Hebrews is saying in his context; and, ultimately, we know that these two will be brought together. They will be complementary, rather than contradictory.

On this issue of the diverse theologies of various New Testament writers, the study of each diverse theology is called Biblical Theology.

Biblical Theology

Biblical theology deals with God's progressive revelation through the distinct theological emphasis of persons and periods.

Examples of distinct theological emphasis of a particular person: Paul's theology, John's theology or Johannine theology, Isaiah's theology, or (broadly) prophetic theology (the theology, in general, of the Old Testament prophets)

Doing theology as we apply God's Word to life is always a three-step process, and Biblical theology is the centerpoint of those three steps. We'll be talking more about this in future lectures, but essentially, the first is what we call exegesis.

Exegesis is (a) seeking to determine the author's original meaning in a particular passage and then to (b) relate that particular passage to an author's overall perspective.

Let me give you an illustration: Suppose we're reading Paul's letter to the Philippians. We try to read that passage, that letter, in its original context, and we read it by trying to discern what Paul intends to say in that passage; but then we take that message and we look at it from the perspective, from the context, of Paul's theology as revealed in his other letters. That's biblical theology.
Biblical theology is examining the distinct theological emphasis of a particular person or of a particular period. Every Biblical author has a distinct theological perspective--a theological perspective that is not contradictory of other perspectives but is complementary of other perspectives.
Systematic theology or taking those various distinct theological perspectives (Paul's theology, John's theology, Isaiah's theology) and bringing them together into a system of truth or a systematic theology, statements of absolute or statements of God's truth.

The whole point of this discussion is that before we can identify systematic truth or God's truth, we have to first read God's Word in context. Doing Biblical theology is just reading Paul's letter within the context of Paul's thought world and John's letter within the context of John's theology.

So we've examined three implications of the diversity of Scripture:

We must adopt methodology for various kinds of literature.
We must recognize the progress of revelation, that later doctrine doesn't replace earlier but explains it, develops it, gives us a greater understanding of who God is and what His purpose for the world is.
We must allow the Biblical writers to speak for themselves and then seek an internal unity behind their diverse expressions of faith.

We might call the diversity of scripture the human side of the Bible, because we recognize it was written by human beings in different cultures in different languages at different times. That's the human side of Scripture, but there's also a divine side of Scripture related to the inspiration by God.

Diversity was the first point under the nature of the Bible. Our second point is unity.

Unity

Despite this diversity of authors, despite this diversity of times and places and language, we have an ultimate unity in Scripture, and it is a unity of theme. That theme could be stated in a variety of ways. Let me give you one statement of theme. In other words, what the whole Bible is about from beginning to end.

Here's a statement of theme that would describe the entire Biblical revelation, the actions of God in bringing salvation to humanity through Jesus Christ. It is the story of God's redemption. So the actions of God in bringing redemption to creation through Jesus Christ, through Jesus the Messiah. This theme can summarize the whole Scripture from beginning to end. The Old Testament looks forward to the coming of Jesus Christ and the salvation He will accomplish; the New Testament looks back at the salvation achieved through Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection, and then it looks forward to the final salvation which will be accomplished when He comes.

I'd like to look at one passage that really summarizes this whole issue of the unity of theme and Scripture. It's in Luke 24:13-34. It's the resurrection appearance of Jesus to two disciples on the road to Emmaus. These two disciples are walking along when Jesus joins them. He is just risen from the dead, but they're prevented, God prevents them from being able to recognize Him, and as they walk along, He asked them, "What were you discussing together along the way?"

It says, "they stood still, their faces downcast." One of them said, “Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

Jesus plays along, and says, What things are you talking about? And they describe Jesus of Nazareth, "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people." This Jesus was this powerful prophet and we thought he might be the one to redeem Israel. We thought he might be the Messiah, the savior of the world, but he's been crucified. He died, and so he can't possibly be the one we thought he was.

Jesus responds to them with this, "He said to them, 'How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?'" Jesus says you've missed it, haven't you? You don't understand. Isn't this all along what the prophets said? That the Messiah would have to suffer and die before entering into His glory?

In Luke 24:27, "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets--Moses refers to the first five books of the Old Testament, Genesis through Deuteronomy. The Prophets are the books that follow that. Moses and the Prophets is a shorthand way of summarizing the whole of the Old Testament.

So Luke, the author, tells us, beginning with Genesis and moving all the way through the Old Testament revelations "He explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself." What an incredible sermon that must have been as Jesus took these two disciples through essentially the whole revelation of the Old Testament. Because all Scripture, ultimately, points to Jesus Christ; so the unifying theme, once again, of all of Scripture is the actions of God in bringing redemption to creation through Jesus the Messiah.

Genesis describes how God created a perfect world, how He placed Adam and Even within the Garden to tend it, to keep it; but then Adam and Even rebelled against Him, and they were judged by God. And all of creation entered a fallen state. The whole rest of the revelation of Scripture is God's purpose and plan to redeem that creation, His purpose and plan through the Messiah, through Jesus Christ, who is the centerpoint of history.

So, the unity of Scripture tells us that we have one central theme, and the central theme according to Luke 24 is Jesus Christ. The old covenant looks forward to Jesus Christ, the new covenant looks back to what He accomplished on the cross.

So we have seen the diversity of Scripture, written by human authors in diverse situations and context. Now we see the unity of scripture.

2 Key Implications of Unity

The Bible is one story from beginning to end.
Though made up of diverse literature, though made up of many, many short stories, in one sense, every book of the Bible relates to God's ultimate redemption.

Let me just give you an example of what we mean by the Bible as one story. Take the Old Testament story of Joseph in the Book of Genesis. It's a great narrative, a great story in its own right. The story of Joseph who is favored by his father, Jacob, over his brothers. His brothers hate him, and so, at one point, they seize him and sell him as a slave into Egypt. A story of sibling rivalry, but also a story of Joseph's faithfulness as he perseveres, remains faithful to God, and God takes him and blesses him in Egypt. He becomes second in command only to Pharaoh. Eventually, his brothers, because of a famine in the land of Israel, come to him. They're reunited with Joseph. Just a wonderful story.

We can understand that on the level of story. We can talk about moral lessons and so forth that are taught by that story, but, ultimately, that story fits into the larger picture of God's overall story, the grand narrative--what we might call the metanarrative of Scripture that begins in Genesis and comes to conclusion in Revelation.

The Joseph story is part of a larger story, that larger story is the story of Israel, because the Joseph story shows us how God preserved His people, the nation of Israel, during the great time of famine by sending Joseph ahead of his family into Egypt. He prepared the way for them, and so the children of Israel were saved, were delivered from that famine. It's part of Israel's story, the story of their redemption.

But Israel's story is part of God's grand narrative, God's story of redemption that begins in Genesis and ends in Revelation--the story of God's plan to save and redeem His people, because through the nation of Israel, the Messiah would come. Jesus who would die for the sins of the world, who would reverse the results of Adam and Eve's sin.

So Joseph's story fits into the larger perspective of Scripture, confirming the Bible is one story.

Let me just give you another example: another Old Testament book, the Book of Esther. The Book of Esther is unique in many ways, and one way it is unique is the fact that the name of God never appears in Esther. Not once is God mentioned in Esther. Some had wondered why this book is even part of the Bible if God is not even mentioned. But the story of Esther is part of a greater story, just like the Joseph story. It's part of two greater stories actually. It's part of the story of Israel, because Esther once again is a story of how God's people are rescued and delivered. When someone attempts to destroy them, Esther becomes queen, and through that story, she accomplishes Israel's deliverance. The story of Israel's deliverance is once again part of the larger story of God's redemptive plan for all of humanity.

So every small narrative in the Old Testament fits in to the larger narrative of Israel, and every larger narrative of Israel fits into the grand or metanarrative of all of Scripture, beginning in Genesis and ending in Revelation. So we can place each story into its context of God's ultimate purpose and plan for all humanity.
A systematic theology becomes a possibility
What do I mean by that? I mean we can ask the question, What is Truth? And by examining Scripture, we can come up with answers, with propositions, with statements that are complete, that are cohesive, and that are complementary not contradictory.
- Complete - We recognize that we have the whole story. Genesis through Revelation forms a complete narrative of God's purpose and plan, covering all topics that we need for faith and practice. So the unity of the Bible reminds us that God's story is complete.
- Cohesive - It is a story that makes sense, that begins at one point, that ends in another, that describes God's actions in human history.
- Complementary not contradictory - Not only is it complete and cohesive, it is also complementary not contradictory. We can read one author and understand them within their context, and then read another and understand them within their context, and those two authors will be complementary. They will not contradict one another because of the unity of God's Word.

Summary

So what have we seen? We have seen two aspects of the nature of the Bible. We've seen the diversity of Scripture by different authors at many times in many places. We've seen the unity of Scripture. Ultimately, it is one story. It is God's Word.

One analogy we can draw here: The Bible is God's word. It is the written Word. Jesus is identified in John 1:1 as the Living Word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus, as the Word, means that Jesus is God's self revelation. We talked about Jesus' nature. We talked about Him as fully human and fully divine. By being fully human, He could pay the penalty for our sins. By being fully divine, He could die for all the sins of the world. So Jesus is the Living Word of God. God's living revelation is fully human and fully divine.

But the written Word, the Bible, is also fully human and fully divine. And these two aspects of the nature of the Bible, diversity and unity, point to the humanity of the Bible, written in real life situations by real authors in real time in real places. That's the human side. But it is not only fully human, it is also fully divine. It is God's Word, and that gives the Bible this unity from beginning to end. We can ask the question, What is Truth? And we can recognize that the Bible's answer will be trustworthy and will be true.

This lecture was provided by BiblicalTraining.org.

Course: How to Study Your Bible Part 1a

2010-08-16T00:05:00.015-04:00

INTRODUCTION

Lecture 1: Introductory Hermeneutics

This is a course in basic introduction to the Bible. We call the interpretation of the Bible, hermeneutics, and so this is a course in introductory hermeneutics. God's Word, the Bible, came to us in human language and in human culture and in human contexts; and we understand God's Word by reading it within that particular culture and context in which it was given. We're gonna divide the course up beginning with introductory issues, and the first issue we're gonna cover today are some of our presuppositions, the presuppositions we bring to the table to interpret the Bible.

Presuppositions

1. The Bible is God's Word

This is not something we are seeking to prove. This is something that we take as a given as evangelicals, as those who believe the Bible is God's Word. We take it as a given that the Bible is God's Word.

What does that mean, that the Bible is God's Word? Let's look at two aspects of that:

The inspiration of Scripture - The Bible is inspired by God. That is claimed implicitly throughout Scripture. The Old Testament carries a constant sense throughout that... "This is the Lord's Word", "The Lord says". The prophets frequently say that.

The New Testament has the stamp of apostolic authority. Compare these various Old Testament citations in the New:

Acts 2:16, citing Joel 2:28-32, says "This is what was spoken by the Prophet Joel, 'In the last days, I will pour out my spirit on all people'"; so, in Acts 2, Peter cites Joel 2 and he cites it as something spoken by the prophet. So the Old Testament was given by the prophet.

But then if we look at Hebrews 3:7 citing Psalm 95, the writer of the Hebrew says, "So as the Holy Spirit says, today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion." Who spoke in the Old Testament? It was the Holy Spirit speaking.

We get maybe an overall clear view of inspiration in Acts 4:25 citing Psalm 2:1: It says, "The Lord said, by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of your servant, our father, David." Who spoke in this case? It was the Lord speaking by means of the Holy Spirit through the mouth or through the spokesperson that is David.

So we could see that Scripture is God's Word given by His Holy Spirit, spoken by the human author. So the inspiration of God's Word is claimed implicitly throughout Scripture.

It's also claimed explicitly. One of the keys for the inspiration of Scripture is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, where it says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training, and righteousness."

That word, inspired by God, is a Greek word, theopneustos, which seems to have been coined by Paul himself. He seems to have made it up by combining two words. It means God exhaled or God breathed out His Word. How did God do that? Scripture doesn't tell us exactly how God did it, but we know that this is God's Word by virtue of His Divine inspiration.

2 Peter 1:21 gives us a little bit of a hint of how God did it: It says, "No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but people, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God." So God moved individuals to speak the message that He wished to deliver.

Now one clarification needs to be made here: this does not mean dictation. In other words, for the most part, God did not dictate Scripture word by word to these human authors. How do we know that? How do we know that God's word was not given for the most part through dictation? Well, the answer to that question is that the different writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament had different styles. Their personalities come out. Their style of writing comes out, and so we see that there is a human dimension in inspiration. If all of Scripture was simply dictated by the Holy Spirit to human authors, we would expect a heavy uniform style. But since we see the human authors' personalities and the vocabulary they used and the grammar that they used coming through in the Scripture that they write, we see that this is not simply dictated.
Authority as Scripture - What do we mean by authority as Scripture? We mean that Scripture has claim to our life and that we submit ourselves to Scripture's authority.

3 ASPECTS OF AUTHORITY
1. Scripture is authoritative over experience - We don't allow our human experience to determine what we believe or the behaviors we practice. We submit to Scripture's command, Scripture's authoritative statements.

2. Authoritative over reason - It doesn't mean that we leave our brains at the door when we read the Scripture. It means that it is authoritative over rationalism or over naturalism. We assume the supernatural. We assume the existence of God and the fact that God engages in human history and God intervenes in human history.

It also means unresolved issues or apparent contradictions that we find in Scripture do not negate Scripture's authority. Instead, we accept the wait-and-see attitude if we can't resolve a particular issue in Scripture. I believe that God is the God of reason and that His Scripture will stand up under historical and scientific scrutiny.

3. Authoritative over tradition or dogma - Church traditions are good. The ancient creeds of the church are good—they help us to understand who God is and what His Word means, but, ultimately, all church tradition must be subordinated to the authority of Scripture. So Scripture is authoritative overall church tradition or dogma. The rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation was "Sola Scriptura", that is that, ultimately, Scripture has the final authority.

Sometimes we think of certain groups of placing tradition over Scripture. Maybe we think of the Roman Catholic church, for example, as placing tradition over Scripture, but in fact, we all have a tendency to do that, because all of us, whether Baptist, whether Methodist, whether Presbyterians, have church traditions that, in many ways, govern the way we think and the way we believe. Ultimately, we are to submit those traditions to the authority of Scripture.

2. The interpreter must be born again

This is something we take as a given. (We take as a given something we are not going to try to prove but simply to acknowledge in this class.) The interpreter must be born again—the interpreter must be in a relationship with Jesus Christ in order to fully comprehend God's Word.

2 Corinthians 4:4 says, "The God of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

1 Corinthians 2:14 says, "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness and cannot understand them, because they are discerned only through the Spirit."

So, ultimately, it is the Spirit who enlightens and illuminates Scripture, so that we can understand it. That raises a significant question: Can non-Christians understand the Bible? I raise that question because we've got many Bible scholars who do not have faith in Jesus Christ, who are not believers, but they know the historical culture, they know the background, they apparently interpret God's Word very well. So how can I say then that the interpreter must be born again?

Well, I think the answer to that question is that someone can interpret Scripture, but if they don't apply it to their lives, they are mishandling God's Word. Hebrews 4:12 says, "For the Word of God is alive and active, sharper than any double-edged sword: it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

God's Word is meant not just to be read and understood. It's intended to be applied to our lives. Like a double-edged sword, it's meant to cut us, to challenge us, to change us, to shape us, to guide us; and if God's Word does not guide us, if we don't allow it to guide us, then we are mishandling God's Word. So, in order to do proper Biblical interpretation, we have to know God. We have to be born again. We have to have a relationship with Jesus Christ. To read the Bible without letting it transform you is to mishandle the Word, and so to short cut the process of Biblical interpretation.

3. The interpreter must be filled with the Spirit

This is directly related to the second presupposition. Not only must they be born again, but they must actually be empowered to understand God's Word and be guided in their understanding of God's Word through the Holy Spirit.

John 16:13 says, "But when he, the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

That passage was given by Jesus to His 12 disciples in the upper room discourse on the last night of His life here on earth before His crucifixion. It was given specifically to them. It wasn't given to all believers, but the truth that it teaches certainly applies to all believers, because we, like the 12 disciples, have the Spirit living in us; and He is our guide, and He is our direction. So in order to properly hear God speak, to properly understand God's Word, we have to be filled and empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Theologians sometimes speak about the Spirit's role in two dimensions. These are not clear distinctions given in Scripture but, I think, they are reliable and accurate descriptions of what actually happens, how the Spirit actually works.

Inspiration by the Holy Spirit - The product of the human author and the divine author. Inspiration means receiving new revelation, so the authors of the Bible were inspired to write God's Word
Illumination by the Holy Spirit - This relates not to the author but to the reader, and that is interpreting and applying previously given revelation

The Holy Spirit does both. The Holy Spirit was the one who inspired original authors to record God's Word, but the Holy Spirit also illuminates us as we read and interpret God's Word. He guides us into all truth.

Summary:

Those are just three basic presuppositions that we are approaching Scripture with in this class:

The Bible is God's Word - It is both inspired by God but also authoritative.
The interpreter must be born again - Only believers can accomplish the full process of interpretation; not only understanding what the text means, but also applying it to their lives.
The interpreter must be filled with the Spirit - We cannot properly hear and understand God's Word unless God's Spirit is guiding us.

This lecture was provided by BiblicalTraining.org.

John MacArthur: Is the Bible Reliable?

2010-08-11T09:15:00.003-04:00

This is a collection of lectures in mp3 by John F. MacArthur regarding the reliability of the Bible. Here's a quick introduction to this great man:

John Fullerton MacArthur, Jr. (born June 19, 1939 is a United States evangelical writer and minister, noted for his radio program entitled Grace to You. MacArthur is a fifth-generation pastor, a popular author and conference speaker and has served as the pastor-teacher of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California since 1969, and as the President of The Master's College (and the related The Master's Seminary) in Santa Clarita, California.

Visit his official website, Grace to You, where you can find links to his blog, radio podcasts, video podcasts, daily devotionals, and numerous other Christian resources.

Is the Bible Reliable?

Love in Christ,

The Bible in MP3

2010-05-18T20:44:00.002-04:00

I finally remembered to check out the audio CDs of the Holy Bible from the library. The set is the Contemporary English Version produced by Recorded Books. I don't really have the entire set, although if I was allowed, I'd have borrowed all 30 volumes all at once. Greedy, huh? For now, I have the following volumes:

Mathew
John
Mark
Acts
The Letters of Paul I
The Letters of Paul II

I'm ripping them into mp3s as I type this post.

In the process of searching for a CD cover image for the mp3s, I found out these sites, where you can download audiobooks for free:

The complete KJV Bible
The Bible in MP3 (includes links to audiobook downloads of the Bible in different languages)
Free Christian AudioBooks

Please note that I'm listing these sites without thoroughly checking the providers of these audiobooks and whether the files are clean (virus-free). I'm listing them here more to serve as notes for myself to check out letter.

Failure Isn’t God’s Rejection but God’s Redirection – Part 5

2010-05-04T16:04:00.007-04:00

Success Doesn't Teach You Much;
Only Failure Teaches You
Your Most Powerful Lessons Of Victory.
This is the irony of life.

Success doesn't teach you much. It's only Failure that teaches you your most important Lessons of Victory.
When you're successful, you don't know why you're successful. You just assume that perhaps it's this or that thing.
When you're successful, you're complacent.
When you're successful, you're not teachable.
When you're successful, you're proud.
When you're successful, you're hard-headed.
But when you fail, you fall on your face.
You hit the ground.
Bang!
You're stunned.
You're dazed.
You've got blood on your lips.
You've got massive pain on your knee.
Suddenly, you're attentive.
Suddenly, you're quiet.
Suddenly, you ask hard questions.
"Why did I fail?"
"What can I do so I won't fail again?"

As you answer these questions, you learn lessons of victory. And when you apply those lessons of victory, that's when you succeed.

See Everything As A Blessing
One day, a man, who was stranded in an island, decided to protect himself from the burning hot sun. For many days, he built a grass hut. But on the day he was to sleep in it, a lightning hit the roof, starting a fire. He hurried to put it out, but it was no use. Everything burned down. He was devastated. He clenched his fist towards the heavens and screamed, "God, how could you do this to me?"

When he woke up the next day, a ship was going to the island. He was being rescued! He jumped up for joy. When the ship landed on the shore, the man asked his rescuers, "How did you know I was here?" The men said, "We saw your smoke signal last night."

Friend, what is your grass hut? What has been taken away from you? What has been destroyed and lost forever? Is it a relationship? Is it a job opportunity? Is it a dream gone bad?

Don't fear. Don't give up.

God is teaching you a lesson of victory. Through your loss, your failure, your trial, God is rescuing you. God is saving you. God is bringing you to a better place.

Eagles Are Made For Storms
Let me end with one more thing about Eagles.

When a storm comes, other birds hide in trees and caves. But not the Eagle. Because Eagles love storms. Eagles sense in their bodies that a storm is coming. And they get excited. Because Eagles don't really fly. Eagles soar. All they do is spread their 7-foot wings and use the wind to carry them. So the stronger the wind, the higher they go. Some say that Eagles can sleep in the storm.

Friend, your storm will lift you higher. Rest in God's love.

May your dreams come true,
Bo Sanchez

Failure Isn’t God’s Rejection but God’s Redirection – Part 4

2010-05-04T15:39:00.004-04:00

Is It A Dip Or A Dead End?
Seth Godin is one of my favorite business writers. He says that when we get into a difficult situation, we need to decide if it's a dip or a dead end. A dip means there's great success if you persevere through that difficult time. Dead End means there's no great success even if you persevere for a thousand years.

So ask yourself: When you get over this difficulty, will you be number one or number two in that niche? If not, it may be time to bail out. And look for an area where you can be great. Like I'll never be great in the food business, no matter how much I persevere with my food carts. But I knew that I'd be great if I just stick to my core gift of communication.

Same Thing In Ministry
When something isn't working, when something is causing pain, when something is not growing, be quiet. Listen to God's direction in your heart. He may not be asking you to change location, or change a job, or change a business, or change a relationship.

He may be asking you to change strategy.

Let me give you an example in my ministry. My spiritual family is Light of Jesus. For over 10 years, Light of Jesus was stuck. Like we were stranded. Our growth was stagnant. We tried various ways to make Light of Jesus grow, but we felt like we were ramming our heads on an iron ceiling. For years, Light of Jesus got stuck with 2000+ members. We tried everything. We gave Life in the Spirit seminars, built prayer meetings left and right, but nothing was working.

Psalms 119:71 says, My suffering was good for me, for it taught me to pay attention to your decrees. Our suffering made us listen to God. And He spoke to us. He led us to change strategy. And the results have been mind-boggling.

From "Chapters", we created "Feasts". Here's the big difference: Chapters were traditional, religious prayer meetings for "Insiders". Feasts were wild parties, radically obsessed to reach "Outsiders".

Basically, God told to us, "Forget yourself. Love your neighbor." In the old structure, we were serving ourselves. We spoke our own language (Christianese). We designed all our events for us, locals. But God led us to give up our selfishness and love those who didn't belong to our group. We began to design the entire event for those who felt out of place in church.

What happened? We shattered that iron ceiling. Two weeks ago, we were expecting 6000 people to come to our Easter celebration. But on that day, 9000+ came-and that's just for Metro Manila alone. For one year, Light of Jesus has been growing explosively.

Friend, do you feel that you're stuck? Do you feel that life is stagnant? That you're not growing? Listen to God's voice. He may be asking you to change your strategy. Don't be attached to how you did things before. Because what brought you to where you are now may not bring you to where you want to go.

Failure Isn’t God’s Rejection but God’s Redirection – Part 3

2010-05-04T15:38:00.004-04:00

Failure isn't God's rejection. Failure is God's redirection.
Proverbs 20:30 says, Sometimes, it takes a painful situation to change your ways.
He didn't want me in the food business. He didn't make me a cook. He made me a communicator. He didn't make me to feed bodies. He made me to feed minds.

Failure Isn't God's Rejection;
Failure Is God's Redirection

Like Mommy Eagle, God was teaching me how to fly. He wanted me to get out of the food business because it wasn't my big thing. It wasn't my passion. (I just had a passion for eating!) It wasn't my core gift.

Totally discouraged and without much money left in my savings, I was forced to create businesses that didn't need any capital. The only possible businesses for me were those in my turf: Communication. My first successful business was corporate seminars. I was already preaching for 20 years. Why not preach to companies and get paid? I hit the road running. No learning curve. From Day 1, I started earning.

Today, I run 12 small businesses. All of them incredibly successful.

Today, I thank God that my food businesses failed. If they didn't, I would have been stuck there, doing what I didn't love. Friend, is God pushing you out of your nest? Has your provision stopped? Perhaps God is saying, "There's a better life for you than this. There's a better relationship for you than this. There's a better job for you than this. There's a better business for you than this..."

Believe that God wants to teach you to fly!

Failure Isn’t God’s Rejection but God’s Redirection – Part 2

2010-05-04T14:09:00.006-04:00

God Taught Me How To Fly
Twelve years ago, I launched myself as an entrepreneur. Because I was serving God, I felt God would bless my little businesses. I mean, that was the least He could do! After all, I served Him already for almost 20 years. Confidently, I got my savings and poured it all into food carts. I started with a "squid balls" cart. I stationed it on the sidewalk, very near a market and a municipal hall. Perfect location, I said. But the results were pathetic. Some days, I was breaking even. Some days, I was losing money. I felt very discouraged. But I told myself, "No worries. I'll try again."

So I bought two more food carts. This time, it was a hotdog stand and an ice cream scooping station. I rented space in a new mall here in Ortigas Center. But month after month, I was losing money. Soon, I was forking out money just to pay for my rent and salaries of my workers.

Finally, before the year was over, I had to accept defeat, and close all the food stores. My entrepreneurial ambitions were now dashed to the ground. I lost P600,000+. That may not be big for you, but that was my life savings as a missionary.

I felt depressed. I asked God, "Lord, why did you not bless my businesses?" I was confused. I told myself, "Perhaps God doesn't want me to be an entrepreneur. Perhaps He just wants me to be a preacher."

For many months, I didn't know what to do. I was lost. I was like a ship trapped in a thick fog. What should I do now? Looking back, I now know what God was doing...

What Will It Be: Thorns Or Clouds?
Like the Mommy Eagle, God stopped feeding me. When provision stops, God isn't saying, "I've decided not to love you today." When your provision stops, God is saying, "I'll provide for you in a greater and more abundant way."

Like Mommy Eagle, God removed the soft cushion of my nest. My food businesses were like sharp prickly thorns beneath me. Every little move I made was painful. When your life becomes painful, God isn't saying, "I don't care for you." When life becomes painful, it means God is saying, "I have a better place for you."

Like Mommy Eagle, God was pushing me out of my nest. But I jumped back right in, only to be hurt again. I have seen this happen with people in toxic relationship. They get very hurt in the relationship and cry buckets of tears. But soon, they just jump back right in-only to get hurt again. They get attached to the
toxic relationship.

But pain is life's messenger. It's saying, "There's a better place for you. You weren't born to live around thorns. You were born to soar above the clouds."

Failure Isn’t God’s Rejection but God’s Redirection - Part 1

2010-05-04T13:18:00.013-04:00

My good friend, Jane, shared the following piece with me when I most needed it. In turn, I’m sharing it with you here, so that you may partake of its uplifting message as well.

Eagles are amazing parents.
I didn't know how special their nest was for their babies. To make it, Daddy Eagle picks up sturdy twigs and sharp thorns to build this special home. But to make the nest comfortable, he'll cover the twigs and thorns with soft grass. And here's the amazing part: Mommy Eagle will pluck her own feathers from her breast! She'll place them on the nest for added warmth and softness.

Many times a day, Mommy Eagle will fly out to look for food. She'll fly back to put fish and other food into the open mouths of her hungry kids. Because the nests are built on high rocky cliffs, winds are very strong. Whenever there's a storm, Mommy Eagle covers them with her large wings. The tiny eaglets live a pampered life. Because every need is met by their loving parents. But one day, it's time to teach them how to fly. And in an instant, their entire world changes.

Flight Training Is Always Cruel
To teach their young to fly, Eagles follow four stages-all painful. First, Mommy stops bringing food. The tiny ones are crying out in hunger but she doesn't seem to hear them. The kids are in shock. They ask, "Why is Mommy not listening to our cries?"

Second, she flaps her wings to sweep away the grass and feathers in the nest. The sharp thorns are now exposed, pricking the delicate skin of the Eaglets.

Third, she does the unthinkable: She throws them out of the nest. The little Eaglets jump back in, only to be pricked by the thorns. They're now bleeding. They're shrieking in pain. And they're wondering, "Why is Mommy torturing us? Why is she cruel?"

Fourth, Mommy pushes the Eaglets off the nest again. But not just off the nest, but all the way off the cliff! The little Eaglets hurtle down to the ground-one thousand feet below--towards sure death. But before they hit the ground, Daddy Eagle swoops down and catches them on his wings. He drops them back into the nest.

They cry out, "Mommy, why are you killing us? What have we done?" But they barely are able to catch their breath, when Mommy pushes them out again.

This death-defying, terrifying ordeal is repeated seven to eight times until the Eaglets get the message-and start flapping their wings. Soon, they're soaring on top of the clouds with their proud parents beside them.

Friend, this is exactly what happens to you when God teaches you how to fly.

An Old Man Prays

2010-04-28T17:18:00.004-04:00

Source: Tim Rowland

In the Philippines, a copy of this print art adorned the wall of our dining room for as long as I can remember. It was an old copy, framed in a humble wooden frame, not so different from those found in a dollar store. Humble though it was, it was the most inspiring article in the house. Its message of humility and gratitude pervaded the house—and our hearts.

My dad, who was a clergyman, did not make much in terms of salary, but when things were rough, we would always look to this print on the wall and never failed to be filled with a sense of abundance.

This image, to me, says, "The Lord provides" and so He does.

I found the following images on the Internet, while searching for the one above. I think they are beautiful, too.

Source: B.Lemley's Art Gallery

Source: Yovonna's Blog

Do you have similar childhood memories that remind you to be grateful everyday?

P.S.

When my sister bought her house several years ago, she very much wanted to have the same print in her dining room. She was so elated when she found it. I was, too!