It is the responsibility of every
Christian to be an interpreter of the word, but I must hasten
to add, not every Christian is qualified to interpret the word.
Now let's all let that soak in for a little bit. I said not
every Christian is qualified to interpret the word. There
are certain things that every Christian must know in order
to be an interpreter of the scriptures. We're living in a time when it
seems that every person thinks that he has the right to interpret
the scriptures any way he pleases. And whatever he might think about
a passage of scripture, that settles it. Thus, you can see
we're living in an age that is highly subjective. Whatever is
my opinion, that's all right. If it satisfies me, that's all
I'm concerned about. The Christian, however, is concerned
about pleasing God. And when he interprets the scriptures,
he wants the honor and glory of God to be magnified. To begin this discussion this
evening, I'd like you to turn first of all to Romans chapter
16. We're going to be as realistic
as possible. What I'm going to do tonight
is to dabble a little bit with the science of hermeneutics.
You notice I said I'm just going to dabble a little bit with the
science of hermeneutics. It is such a vast subject, it
would take months to teach the things that ought to be taught
on the subject. But I feel since we are now engaged
in the study of biblical prophecy And since there is so much misunderstanding
about biblical prophecy, I believe that we can look at a few rules
on biblical interpretation that will be a great help to us in
interpreting the Word of God. In Romans 16, beginning with
verse 17, Paul said, Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which
cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which
ye have learned, and avoid them. Before we read the next verse,
let us consider some things that are stated in verse 17. First
of all, Paul was deeply concerned about the spiritual lives of
the Romans to whom he had been writing. He had given some of
the greatest doctrinal truths that could be ever given to a
group of people. After having given those great
truths, he was concerned about people who would come in and
would minimize what he had presented to them. He knew that believers
in general were not qualified to interpret the scriptures as
they should, and that's why he's giving this warning. Look at
it again. I beseech you, brethren, mark
them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine
which ye have learned. Not the doctrine which you have
been taught, but the doctrine which you have learned. and avoid
them. You are to avoid them as one
would avoid a snake. That's plain language, isn't
it? Now the 18th verse, For they that are such serve not our Lord
Jesus Christ. We know that throughout Paul's
epistles He warns about false teachers. He gives many warnings
concerning individuals who serve not the Lord God but their own
bellies, and I'm using biblical expression. So he says here, they that are
such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ. And then he adds, but
their own belly. And by good words, listen to
this, this sounds like 1978, doesn't it? By good words and
fair speeches, deceive the hearts of the simple. Now look at the
last word of verse 18, deceiving the hearts of the simple. What does the word simple mean? Then he goes on in the next verse
to say, for your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am
glad therefore on your behalf, but yet I would have you wise. I would have you wise, wise in
the wisdom of God. This is what he's talking about. Unto that which is good. And
then he uses the word simple, or you may notice your marginal
reference, harmless concerning evil. Now let's go back to verses
17 and 18 for a few moments by way of introduction into this
study. The word simple, which could be translated innocent,
is a very interesting word. Young believers, or uninformed
believers, are simple. Don't you feel sorry for individuals
even though they're Christians and yet they have not been indoctrinated? And persons who have not been
indoctrinated are fit targets for everything that comes along. Christians, yes, simple. That is, they haven't been informed. They haven't been indoctrinated and thus become targets for false
teachers. I heard a man last evening on
the radio while I was taping some music. It's a program that
comes out of Boston, Massachusetts, and I usually tape it on Saturday
evenings because I'm through studying. It comes on from 7
to 7.30, and sometimes he'll give a good number or two, occasionally. Not long ago, he had Francis
Schaefer that some of you have heard about, and some of his
statements. I wasn't at all enthused by what
I heard, but anyway, he had him on. Last evening, he had on Roger
Staubach. And he introduced him as the
great Christian. And here was a man who is supposed
to be an evangelical, and Roger Staubach is a Catholic. And what
Roger Staubach said didn't amount to a hill of beans. It was about
as near nothing that could ever be given over the airwaves. But
later on in the program, this person was making a comment,
and this part was good. And I'll always accept that which
is good, I don't care who says it. Doesn't make any difference
to me whose mouth it comes from if it's good. He's talking about psychiatrists,
and there's so much emphasis on psychiatry today. And he said,
of course, these persons know the weaknesses of individuals. And he said, there are a lot
of preachers today. They know the weaknesses of individuals.
And knowing their weaknesses, they prey on those weaknesses.
And how true that is. I said, how true that is. So
he did make some very significant statements. Now looking at this
passage, those who are simple, being led astray by false teachers. We know that a simple person
is the unpretentious individual, and thus easily ensnared by appearance. I can remember in my own Christian
life, immediately after I was saved, I was led astray for a
brief period of time by some people in a Baptist church who
did not even embrace the doctrine promoted by the Baptist church
of which they were members. But they were in it, and they
were getting their food, you see, outside of that particular
local church. They manifested a lot of zeal,
and on the appearance they, it seemed that they had a lot of
wisdom. And it seemed that they had more in some areas than the
pastor of the church. My wife and I were very disenchanted
with the teaching that we were getting from the pulpit of that
church. We were not getting any teaching. When you heard the
man speak one time, you heard everything he had to say. Every
message was what he called an evangelistic message. He was
always trying to reach people, he said. It was his responsibility
to reach people. Well, getting back to the illustration,
and these persons that wanted to not listen too briefly for
a short period of time until the Lord showed us that they
were not of God. But here were individuals that
had the appearance of really having something, when in reality
they didn't. So you see, I was an unpretentious
person. My wife was a very unpretentious
person. We were simple in that we were
babes in Christ, uninformed. Now Paul says, I beseech your
brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary
to the doctrine which ye have learned. and avoid them, for
they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their
own belly, and by good words and fair speeches
deceive the hearts of the simple, are the unsuspecting, the unsuspecting. And that's exactly what young
believers are and those who have not been properly instructed.
The great tragedy today is many people feel they have been instructed
when in reality they haven't. I have never desired to pastor
a congregation with attendance larger than I could watch the
people as I teach and preach. I study people. You may not know
it, but I do. I study you just as much, in
fact, maybe more than you study me when I'm preaching. I watch
your reaction. And did you know that I can pretty
well determine, as I stand here teaching and preaching to you,
just about what your attitude is to that which I'm giving from
the Word of God. A person who is a Christian and
his soul is being fed, he is being blessed spiritually, he
can't help but manifest it. It will show on his countenance
if he has anything within to respond to that which is being
given. It is true that on occasions one might give something that
is relatively new to you and so you might be thinking through
it and you may not manifest. much interest because you're
thinking through or trying to think through what is being given.
But whenever the truth of something is seen and the soul of the individual
has been fed, he has received a spiritual blessing, beloved,
it will be manifested on the countenance of that individual.
I can even sit in my home and listen to the radio And if a
man says something that is good and it is informative and it
helps me, I rejoice. The other day I was in my car
and I had the radio on. I don't recall where I was going.
I was by myself. And while I was listening to
this man, and I, as a rule, don't like anything he has to say,
but I just happen to have my radio on KHCB. And just before
he concluded, he gave a profound statement. In fact, it went on
for about two or three sentences. And I was so afraid that I was
not going to be able to get it down because I wanted to expand
on it. It was good. It was helpful.
So there I was riding in my car, listening to someone, and all
that he had been giving didn't amount to a hill of beans. In
fact, I couldn't relate with it at all. But all of a sudden,
he gave something that was profound. He was quoting somebody, but
I thank God that he quoted somebody. And I couldn't wait until I was
able to make some notes of what he said. in order that I could
study it more at a later date. So you see, that was response
on my part, even while I was driving in the car. And my beloved,
I believe that is true in the life of every individual. I don't
believe that God's people can just sit like stumps, service
after service, when the Word of God is being expounded, if
their souls are being fed without there being some manifestation
in their countenances when something is given that is really helpful
to them spiritually. But I'll tell you something.
I'm not going to call any names tonight, but sometimes I wonder
if some of you ever get very much. I'm just saying that to
try to be helpful, and I'll let you think it through. You say,
well, who in the world are you referring to? I'll let you decide. I'll let you decide. Now notice
this in the 19th verse. He goes on to say, for your obedience
has come abroad unto all. I am glad therefore on your behalf.
But yet I would have you wise, wise unto that which is good,
and simple or harmless concerning evil. Concerning evil. So he makes a distinction, does
he not, between being wise and being harmless concerning that
which is evil. Now I'd like you to turn with
me to the 24th chapter of the gospel according to Matthew.
We are in a study of prophecy and will be for a long period
of time. In the 15th verse of Matthew
24 and this is in relation to the book of Daniel and we're
going to go back now beginning next Sunday evening to the very
first chapter of Daniel's prophecy and begin a study of this great
prophecy. Hear the words of our Lord. When
you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel
the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him
understand. Daniel is a prophetic book according
to the words of Jesus Christ. Do you believe that? I do. And
I also believe that the greater portion of Daniel's prophecy
points to the future. Some of the great prophecies
of Daniel point to the future. Well, what are we doing today?
We're going to look at hermeneutics to some extent. I believe that
eschatology plays an important role in biblical interpretation. I'd like you to think about that
statement for a moment. I can understand why the amillennialist
has his own interpretation of Scripture. Eschatology to the
amillennialist plays a very important part in his interpretation of
Scripture. your view of eschatology plays
a very important part in your interpretation of the Word of
God. Not only prophecy but even ecclesiology and some of the other sciences
as we will be referring to in subsequent lessons. Now I've
been investigating some of the strongest works that have come
from the view of our Millennialists. Our Millennialists, as I believe,
have no real basis. Now notice what I'm saying. Our
Millennialists have no real basis for a consistent system of theology. Now that's a strong statement. And now it's up to me to prove
my statement. What did I say? I said that all millennialists
have no basis for a consistent system of theology. You say, Preacher, that's a little
bit too strong for me. I can't quite buy that. Well,
I think I can prove my point. All millennialists spiritualize
the subject of prophecy to a great extent. In other words, when
it comes to eschatology, their method of interpretation is spiritualization,
is spiritualization. Now notice what I said. And since
I made that statement, I must hasten to make this statement. The spiritualization of Scripture
is highly subjective. Do you know what I mean by that?
I said it's highly subjective. Now I'm going to be illustrating
that later on in the development of this subject tonight. I said
it is highly subjective. The method of interpretation
That method is, that is, has no real defense against liberalism
as we view liberalism today. Now I'm going to prove that point.
If the amillennialists can spiritualize Israel to mean the church, and
that's what they do, If our millennialism can spiritualize
the thousand years called the millennium of Revelation 21 through
6 to mean the gospel millennium, which has already lasted, according
to history and according to facts, 1,978 years, and I believe that's
more than a thousand. That's almost 2,000. Yet, beloved,
if the all-millennialists can spiritualize Israel to mean the
church and 1,000 years to mean nearly 2,000 years, then I want
to raise this question, and I'd like for them to answer. I'd
like for any of you to answer, if you might object to what I'm
saying. And I'd like for you to answer
this question. How in the world can such a view have any defense
against the modernist who spiritualizes the resurrection of the human
body? Now I just want to stop and just
let that soak in a while. Modern day liberals, modernism
if you please, do not believe in the literal resurrection of
the human body. And when you ask them about it,
their reply is, no, I do not believe in a literal resurrection
of the body. I believe that that resurrection
is to be looked upon as being something spiritual. It's a spiritual
resurrection. I believe in a spiritual resurrection.
I have already experienced that resurrection and so have you
as a child of God. You and I who are Christians
have been raised up by the grace and power of God, and we have
been made to sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2 verse 6 and Colossians 3 and verse 1. If ye then be
risen with Christ, then seek those things which are above,
and not the things which are upon the earth. Thus you can see we have already
experienced the spiritual resurrection. But just as there has been a
spiritual resurrection, the limit my Bible teaches me that the
body of the believer that dies and goes back to the dust of
the earth on the morning of the resurrection will be resurrected. And I believe it's going to be
a literal resurrection. And I have no patience, I have no time with
such spiritualization of the resurrection of the body of the
believer. Now think about it for a moment.
If the amillennialist can spiritualize Israel and make Israel the church,
I said. and can spiritualize, I could
use many other references and things to which they allude,
but this will suffice tonight, and spiritualize a thousand years
and make it to mean two thousand years, then what defense do they
have against the spiritualization of the resurrection of the body?
They have none. I said they have none. The all-millennialists who spiritualize
almost everything in reference to biblical prophecy also use
the same method of spiritualization when it comes to the church.
And they say that the church is spiritual Israel. Now I'd
like to clarify that tonight. So will you turn with me please
to John chapter 8. First of all, to John chapter
8. In the discourse that our blessed
Lord had with the Jews, in John chapter 8, and there are ten
parts to the debate between Christ and the Pharisees. I don't have
time to point out those ten parts. But I would like for you to look
at verse 33 and verse 37. They answered him, we be Abraham's
seed. This refers to the Pharisees
who were replying to the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus had made
the statement that you shall know the truth and the truth
shall make you free. They didn't like what Jesus Christ
said about freedom. And so they said, we be Abraham's
seed and we've never been in bondage to any man. They didn't
understand, did they, what he was saying? We be Abraham's seed. And then they say, how sayest
thou ye shall be made free? Now verse 37, here's what Christ
said. I know that ye are Abraham's
seed, but ye seek to kill me because my word hath no place
in you. I speak that which I have seen
with my father, and ye do that which ye have seen with your
father.' They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.
Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would
do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a
man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God. This did not Abraham. Now concerning
Abraham's seed, let me give these three things. The seed of Abraham
must be viewed from three different points. Number one, the natural seed of Abraham.
Now when Christ said in verse 37, I know that your Abraham's
seed, he was not talking about them being the spiritual seed
of Abraham, because had they been the spiritual seed of Abraham,
then they would not have been treating the Lord Jesus as they
were. So to what does this refer? It
refers to the natural seed of Abraham. It is true that these
Jews to whom Christ spoke were the natural seed of Abraham. I'll give you some verses that
you can look up other than this. The 37th verse here and Romans
9, 7 is a tremendous statement that is given us by the Apostle
Paul. I'll not turn to it. Most of you are familiar with
it. Now number two, the spiritual seed of Abraham. Now there were
Jews who were naturally the natural seed of Abraham, who were also
the spiritual seed of Abraham. That means they had been saved
by the grace of God. So they were not only natural
seed, but they were spiritual seed. Now for proof of this,
one can look at Romans 9, 7, and 8, 1 Peter 1, verses 1 and
2, and the epistle to the Hebrews, which we are now studying. This
was a Hebrew epistle, and the apostle was writing to Hebrew
believers. Call them brethren. They were
Jews who had been saved by the grace of God, not only with a
natural seed, but they were what? Spiritual seed. They had been
born again, like Nicodemus of John chapter three. Now that's
number two. Number three, we also have people
who are the spiritual seed of Abraham, who are not the natural
seed of Abraham. And I'm looking at quite a few
tonight. In fact, I do not know of any of you who is a Hebrew
naturally speaking. You don't look like it. I think
I'm talking to a bunch of Gentiles. Now, those of you who are saved,
you are the spiritual seed of Abraham, Romans 4, The entire
fourth chapter of Romans is a great proof text and proof passage
of what I'm saying, but I want you to turn now to Galatians
3, 29 for an outstanding reference on this. People who were of the
spiritual seed of Abraham and yet not the natural seed. Galatians
chapter 3 and verse 29. And then we're going to look
at that verse that is always quoted, but they are millennialists,
and they amuse me when they use this verse. But first of all,
look at Galatians 3.29. Keep in mind that Galatians is
an epistle to Gentile believers. Let's read, if you will, please,
beginning with verse 28. There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female,
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Now verse 29. For if, or since ye be Christ's,
and here's where Romans 4 comes in, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Now what do we have when it comes
to the nation of Israel? We have Jews that are naturally
Jews, fleshly speaking. But that doesn't mean that they
are spiritual Jews. And Christ addressed natural
Jews in John chapter 8. Then we have Jews who are not
only natural Jews, but they are of the spiritual seed because
they've been saved by the grace of God. And number three, we
have individuals who are not Jews naturally, but they are
Jews spiritually because they have been saved by the grace
of God. Now turn with me please to the sixth chapter of Galatians
and verse 16. Here's the verse, now it's always
quoted by our millennials. And as many as walk according
to this rule, peace be on them and mercy and upon the Israel
of God. Now don't use this verse or quote
this verse and forget about Galatians 3 29. So the Israel of God is simply
a reference to those who had been born of the Spirit of God,
thus they were the spiritual seed of Abraham, though they
were not natural seed of Abraham. Now I'll ask a question. To interpret
it in this manner, is that to destroy even the natural seed?
In other words, when a Jew naturally becomes a Christian, does he
cease to be naturally a Jew? No. Does a Gentile, when he is
saved, cease to be a Gentile? No. He is a Gentile who has the grace
of God. If he's a Jew, he's a Jew who
has the grace of God. Now I'd like you to turn to another
passage. I'd like you to turn to 1 Corinthians 10. And beloved, this annihilates
the view held by our millennialism. The 10th chapter and the 32nd
verse. Now this was written by Paul after, notice what I'm saying,
after the all-millennialists say that now the church, and
that would mean that the church at Corinth, is the spiritual
Israel of God. Well, let's see if Paul makes
a distinction between Jew, Gentile, and the Church. If Paul makes
a distinction between the Jew and the Church, you and I better
make a distinction. And here it is. I make that distinction. Verse 32, give none offense,
neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of
God. My question is, does Paul make
a distinction between Jews and the church? He does, and I do
too. I do too. And I'm not going to
spiritualize Israel and say that the church is now spiritual Israel. I have no authority to do it. I gave you this statement, but
I want to repeat it again. It was last Sunday evening I
gave this. I think it's a tremendous statement. Quote, a literal promise
spiritualized is exegetical fraud. I hope you write that down somewhere
in your Bible and don't ever forget it. Now I'm not through. What is the difference between
the word simile, metaphor, and allegory? Now I'm dealing with
hermeneutics tonight, I said, at least I'm dabbling with it
a little bit. And then in closing, I'll give you some rules or guidelines
to be used in the interpretation of Scripture. First of all, let's
look at the word simile. What does the word simile mean?
Well, simile is a figure of speech in which things that are unlike
are compared. I'll illustrate. Israel is like
a vine. And I'm emphasizing the word
like. Now if I had time tonight I could go to the fifth chapter
of Isaiah's prophecy where Israel is likened to a vine or vineyard. We could go to the New Testament
and point out many references where Israel is likened to the
fig tree. Well that doesn't mean that Israel
is the fig tree or the fig tree is Israel. But you see it's a
simile. Now we often hear statements
like this, she is like a rose. She is like a rose. Or we can
say Israel is like a vine. Like a vine. Now let's go from
a simile to a metaphor. What is a metaphor? There is
a little difference now between a simile and a metaphor. A metaphor
is the application of a word or phrase to an object or concept. Notice what I'm saying, to an
object or concept and it does not literally denote. So a metaphor
is the application of a word or a phrase to an object or concept. It does not literally denote,
in order to suggest comparison. Now we would say something like
this, Israel is a vine. Instead of saying Israel is like
a vine, we'd say Israel is a vine. Now let me give you an illustration
of this in the New Testament. In the 15th chapter of the Gospel
of John, the Lord Jesus Christ said, I am the vine, ye are the
branches. Well, I don't understand that
to mean that Jesus Christ is a literal vine, neither do you.
So I don't have any problem with that, and no Christian has any
problem with that. So to illustrate this further,
and we hear it often said, that a mighty fortress is our God. Is our God, that's a metaphor.
or Israel is a vine or Jesus Christ is the vine and we are
the branches. That's a metaphor. Now let's
look at an allegory. Now, I'm not going to this much
because we have a perfect example of this by the Apostle Paul in
the fourth chapter of Galatians. But I want to say that most people
look upon an allegory as being an extended metaphor. an extended
metaphor. Now, after having said these
things, you and I, at least I, do not believe that the church
is Israel. I don't believe that. And I'm
open, and I've studied it for years, but I just don't believe
it. I said I do not believe that the church is Israel. Now the
amillennialists say that the church is Israel or spiritual
Israel. I don't believe that. Not for
a moment, not for a second. That's the spiritualization of
what? The scriptures in reference to
the subject of ecclesiology or the church. Now I was reading
just this past week where one amillennialist said, And he admitted
that the spiritualization is confined mostly to the science
of eschatology. He did admit that. He said it's
confined mostly to the science of eschatology, even though it
is used to some extent in the area of ecclesiology. I don't believe that the church
is Israel. I hope you don't, but if you
do, that's between you and the Lord. I make a distinction between
the church and Israel, nationally speaking. I do it because the
Bible does. And I have already shown that
the seed of Abraham must be considered from three points of view. First
of all, the natural descendants. Number two, the spiritual descendants.
And number three, those who are not natural descendants, but
are spiritually the children of Abraham. That's where you
and I come in. And these are distinctions, beloved,
that must be made in order to interpret the Scriptures properly. I believe that with all of my
heart. That's why I said at the very beginning that eschatology
plays an important part in the interpretation of Scripture. Now, if I wanted to tonight,
I could give you a list of quotations as long as my arm of people who
agree with me, but that isn't necessary. I don't care for that. Not at all. I looked at one work,
and Brother Hank handed me this, and he knows what I'm talking
about. This man quoted I don't know how many different men who
agreed with him as though that proved his point of view. But
below that doesn't prove anything. I could give to you the quotations
of men as long as my arm tonight who agree with me, but that still
doesn't prove anything. Let me illustrate it. How many
of you remember Hatticoll? Now, of course, the younger people
don't remember Hatticoll. I remember when Hatticoll was
supposed to cure anything, anything that was ailing a person from
an ingrowing toenail to anything else. How many of you remember
that name, Hatticoll? Well, many of you do. and they
just had testimonies after testimonies that had a call would cure anything. Well, now you don't even hear
had a call. Well, what about those testimonies? Testimonies
alone prove nothing. Prove nothing. So I'm not really
concerned about the testimonies of men, but I do want to go back
to Neander, and that goes way back in church history. I'd like
to give you a statement by him and one other statement. prophecy fulfilled literally
must be interpreted literally. And listen to this, the primitive
church held the position concerning the scriptures, quote, that what
the understanding can daily make use of, what it can easily know,
is what lies before our eyes unambiguously, literally, and
clearly in holy writ. Now listen to this statement
by Neander, one of the earliest church fathers. And then another, that was by
the end, excuse me. Now here's another statement.
Quote, I hold for an infallible rule, this man says, in exposition
of the sacred scriptures, that where a literal construction
will stand, the furthest from the letter is commonly the worst,
end of quote. Horatius Bonar, I remember what
he said in reading him several years ago. He said accept it
as literal unless you cannot accept it. Accept it as literal
unless you cannot accept it. That would be like saying where
Jesus Christ says I'm the vine, you're the branches. Now we can't
accept that literally as Jesus Christ being a literal vine.
We know that is a metaphor, and we know that was metaphorical
language that our Lord was using. So I don't have any problem with
that, and I don't believe any believer has any problem with
that. So when the word literal is employed by you and me in
the interpretation of Scripture, we do not mean that we deny figurative
language in the Scriptures. And this is what the all-millennialists
want to do with us. They want to say we deny figurative
language. I was really amused at one of
their so-called proof texts as I was reading some of their works
recently. And did you know that they even go so far to use 1
Corinthians 2.14 as one of the proof texts? And I'll now explain
that. Turn to 1 Corinthians 2.14. Let's read the verse. And you
may wonder how in the world that an amillennialist could use this
as a proof text. Well, I'll show you what he does.
Paul said, but the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God. This is a verse that we quote
many, many times. Now the last part of the verse.
For their foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, and
here's what they magnify, I'm talking about the all-millennialists,
because they are spiritually discerned. Now let's look at
that last phrase. Will you study it with me? Because
they are spiritually discerned. What does spiritual discernment
mean? That's the question. Does it
mean that we are to attach a spiritual meaning to the incarnation and
death of Jesus Christ and discard the literal altogether? I'm raising
a question. spiritual discernment. This is
what we're looking at tonight. This is what we're investigating.
I believe that when Jesus Christ came into the world, born of
the Virgin Mary, that he came literally, and you do too. I believe his death on the cross
was a literal death, and you do too. I believe his resurrection
out from among the dead was a literal resurrection, and you do too. I believe it's going to come
again the second time literally, and I think you do too. Well, what about the kingdom? Is there
going to be a literal kingdom or is the kingdom now a spiritual
kingdom? So what does spiritual discernment
mean? We do not discard, beloved, the literal. Do we? No, not at all when we
talk about spiritual discernment. So spiritual discernment is discerning
the things of the Spirit of God. Now look at the entire verse.
Let's look at this last phrase in the light of the context of
the text itself. So what does it mean? It simply
means that discernment is discerning the things of the Spirit of God,
that is, the things that have been given to us by the Spirit
of God. Just as simple as it can be.
I'm not through. The things of the Spirit of God
are a matter of record. Are they a matter of record?
They surely are. So the things of the Spirit of God are a matter
of record. We can't get away from that. They are not left to the imaginations
of every man who professes to be guided by the Spirit. Listen
to that please. I'll repeat that again. You know, I get really amused
today at people who have never studied a subject, they have
never considered even the science of hermeneutics or certain laws
that must be obeyed in the interpretation of Scripture, and yet when something
is stated from the Word of God, I don't believe that. I don't believe that. Now let's
look at this spiritual discernment here for a moment. Here's a real
lesson for us. The spiritual discernment that
Paul is talking about is simply discerning the things that the
Spirit of God has said, and what the Spirit of God has said is
a matter of record. And since the things of God are
a matter of record, then it is not left up to the imagination
of any person. Have you ever talked with someone
Who hasn't even maybe read the scriptures and you quote some
past descriptions that I don't believe that In other words he thinks that
his own imagination His subjective reasoning is all that is necessary
to say what he has said That's why I said that spiritualization
is highly subjective and I'll have no part of subjectivism in that sense. Well, let's go
a little further. To properly discern what are
the teachings of the Spirit of God in the light of this verse,
the record must be received in the sense prescribed by the use
of language. Isn't that true? It surely is. God communicates with you and
me by means of language. God has said something, and what
he has said is a matter of record. Now, let's look at literal interpretation,
and that's what I'm classified as being a literal interpretationist,
as far as possible. Someone has said literal interpretation
recognizes symbols, types, figures of speech, and so forth. But
if symbolic, it is to be interpreted by the laws governing symbols. If typical, then it is to be
interpreted by the laws governing types, and so forth. How simple
that is. I have no problem with that. And this is not the spiritualization
that we are condemning. You see, the witness of the Spirit
that you and I have within us, beloved, is not and never does
work independently from the written revelation of the mind of God.
Anytime you come to me and you say, well, my spirit is, the
Spirit is bearing witness with my spirit, and I just don't believe
that, and then you make a statement that is in direct contradiction
to the Word of God, then you're listening to the wrong spirit.
You're listening to the wrong spirit. It's just that simple.
Because whenever the Spirit of God bears witness with your spirit,
the Spirit of God never bears witness with your spirit in contradiction
to the Word of God. That's how simple it is. And
yet that statement is ignored by most religionists today. Now
we've come to some very important principles in interpretation.
And I believe these things will be of help to you. They have
been to me. And whenever I interpret scripture,
I try to follow these principles to the best of my ability. I
learned these in the study of hermeneutics many years ago.
But they are principles that I can never get away from. I
have them written in my Bible. And every once in a while, I
go back and consider afresh these principles. I want to quote Charles
Hodge, first of all, a Presbyterian. I have some of his works in my
library and he was a great expository in many areas of biblical truth.
I think this statement that I'm going to give to you is an outstanding
statement. I'll give it and then I'll amplify
it and then go to the rules for our Bible study. Here's what
Charles Hodge said, quote, when a passage admits of two interpretations,
whenever a passage admits of two interpretations. Now let
me pause and explain that a little bit. Because of lack of understanding
or the lack of general knowledge, there are many subjects when
one considers the scriptures, and sometimes both these things
may seem to be right on the surface. In other words, it may seem that
there could be two different interpretations of this. You
know what I'm talking about? I'm sure you do. And that's what
Hodges is talking about. When a passage admits of two
interpretations, then he says the choice between them must
be determined in the following ways. Now I'm going to give you
three things. the choice between them must
be determined in the following ways. Number one, by the analogy
of Scripture. That's number one, by the analogy
of Scripture. He makes this brief comment on
by the analogy of Scripture. If one interpretation contradicts
what the Bible plainly teaches in other passages and another
interpretation of cards with those passages, then we are bound
to accept the latter. Now I'd like to explain that
before we look at the next statement. Let's use Arminianism for an
illustration. There are a great number of verses
in the Word of God that on the surface seemingly seemingly teach. I said many verses that seemingly
teach that Jesus Christ died for every individual. Now I could give the verses that
seemingly on the surface that would indicate that Jesus Christ
died for every person. We all know that the Arminian
is always quoting those passages. Because he'll always quote John
3 16 without understanding John 3 16 and he'll quote like 1st
Timothy chapter 2 verses 1 through 4 without understanding the passage
and I could go on and on he'll quote 2nd Peter 3 9 without understanding
either the text or the context So he'll go he has his verses.
He has his pig trail down to the scriptures But beloved you
and I know That to make a statement like that will contradict many
verses of scripture which I could give. You see what I'm talking
about? Now listen to this. Here's what
Charles Hodge said. He says, when a passage admits
of two interpretations, and we'll take the Arminian point of view
or the one who believes in free will and the individual who believes
in free grace, we'll take that as an illustration. Then he says
the choice between them must be determined in the following
ways. One, by the analogy of Scripture. He says if one interpretation
contradicts what the Bible plainly teaches in other passages, and
another interpretation accords with those passages, then we're
bound to accept the latter. Now that's an important thing
to remember. So, beloved, whenever you're studying the Scriptures
and you get some preconceived idea in your mind that this is
true, you better consider if that idea will conform with all
the revelation of God's mind. And if it will not, you're going
to have to stop and start all over again. Because when one
has the truth on a subject, that truth will harmonize with all
Scripture. Now listen to point number two. Still giving this by Charles
Hodge. He said, secondly, by established
facts. The first was by the analogy
of scripture and the second is by established facts. This is
his statement. The true interpretation must
be decided by established facts. The true interpretation must
be decided by established facts. That's important to remember.
If one interpretation agrees with established facts and another
contradicts them, then the former must be true. The latter must
be rejected. Now, number three, by considering
the text in the light of its context. Now, this is where most
people fail. It has been my experience in
talking to people, in talking to people who have an erroneous
view, that they're not even willing to sit down and consider a verse
of Scripture in the light of its immediate context. I'll illustrate
that. I'll bring it up to date. We
had Thomas and Amber's schoolteacher in the service last Wednesday
evening. Tommy has talked to him. He's talked to Tommy a lot.
And so he sat there. Well, he seemed to listen pretty
well. He didn't say much to me after the service. But he told
Tommy, he said, well, I like the way that your preacher presented
things, but I didn't agree with it. Well, you see, I touched on some
very important points. points that I knew. I didn't
know who he was until after the service, but after I found out
who he was, well, I knew immediately. I don't know why that I brought
these things up, but I did. And he wasn't willing to consider
the verse in the light of its context. Schoolteacher, yes,
that doesn't mean a thing. He can be the President of the
United States, that doesn't mean anything either. A person must be willing
to consider the text in the light of the context. Now, listen to
Charles Hodge. Every text has its immediate
context. Now, three things are given here,
and these are very, very important. In fact, you ought to memorize
what I'm giving you. There is, first of all, an immediate
context. in the passage from which the
text is taken or to which it belongs. Then he says, so every
text has its immediate context in the passage from which it
is taken, its broader context is the book to which it belongs,
the broader context, and then its ultimate context, which is
the Bible as a whole. Now that's a tremendous statement
that Charles Hodge has given. What did he say? Every text must
be, first of all, considered in the light of its immediate,
its immediate context. In other words, if I quote Ephesians
1, 4, where it talks about being chosen in Christ before the foundation
of the world, consider that text in the light of its immediate
context. and don't stop there. Then Charles
Hodge says, then its broader context is the book to which
it belongs and the ultimate context is the Bible as a whole. So you have what? The immediate
context and you have secondly the broader context and finally
you have the ultimate context which is the word of God as a
whole. Then he gives this statement, which I think is great. The true
interpretation must be rightly related to each of the contexts
if its character, scope, and significance is to be adequately
understood. I want to give that again. I don't know about you, but I'm
concerned about rightly handling the scriptures. I've always been, ever since
God saved me, I am today. In fact, more so now. I want
to handle the scriptures properly. I don't just pick up my Bible
and read the Bible to get a verse that'll tickle my fancy at the
moment. And that's exactly what most believers do. They just
pick up the Bible and they read and they come across a verse,
oh that's good, and that tickles their fancy and so that's as
far as they go. That's not the way, that's not the proper way
of studying the scriptures. Brother Huber said the night
before the service, he said, Preacher, if there could be about
a 25% regression in your preaching, you'd have about a 75% increase
in attendance. I believe that. In fact, I know
it's a fact. I can't do it. I never will do
it, but the grace of God, anytime I start doing it, you'll know
I've lost my marbles or part of them anyway. But I know what the religious
public wants. I know what the religious public
wants. And I could satisfy the religious public by giving what
the religious public wants. But God didn't call me to give
the religious public what it wants, but to give the Word of
God. as it is. So listen to this last statement
again, the true interpretation must be rightly related to each
of the contexts if its character, scope, and significance is to
be adequately understood. Now I want to give three rules
for Bible study, three rules for Bible study. I've given three
rules for interpretation and in conclusion three rules for
Bible study. Number one, all Scripture has
but one primary interpretation. Two, all Scripture may have several,
notice this now, may have several practical applications. And three,
many scriptures have also a prophetic revelation. Now let me give you
these three things again. One, all scripture has but one
primary interpretation, just one primary interpretation. That's
true of all scripture. Two, all scripture may have several
practical applications. And number three, many scriptures
have also a prophetic revelation.