How to Study the Bible III - Principles of Interpretation
Vern Peterman · Jul 24, 2016
How to Study Bible (2016), No. 29
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4926536367625

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Just to ask the question, why do principles of interpretation matter? I mean, why is that important or why bothers? If you don't get it right, you're not going to interpret it. You can change the whole word of God by not interpreting it properly. Yeah, in other words, God inspired 40 authors, about 40 authors, to write what is written and recorded for our benefit. And there was an intended meaning with that, not just a, you know, hey, what do you think, right? And from time to time I'll hear about or I have attended a study where they just say, you know, what do you think or what does that make, you know, and subjective responses is not what's intended, right? Scripture is inspired, not just inspiring. Yeah, Stan? emphasized by the fact that we have so many different versions of the Bible.

Everybody thinks differently about what particular things are saying, so they make their transliteration a little bit different than somebody else's. Yeah, one of the things that we did early on was to point out, in terms of the English translations, is to pursue a translation that is more word for word. Because the more you start shifting over towards a paraphrase, you're depending on someone else's interpretation to paraphrase it and restate it. And it's another reason why we go over elements of language, history, and culture. Because a paraphrase tends to bring things over into our culture, as opposed to understanding the culture in which things were written.

All right, so we have these principles of interpretation. We say from facts to meaning. That's why we spent the first half of the year looking at just observation. How do we observe different elements of language and history and culture, right? And so we have this principle, our interpretation of a passage must be consistent with the whole.

The point in one intended meaning and saying the same thing, 1 Corinthians 1.10, has another logical consequence. Our interpretation of a specific passage in Scripture should end up being consistent with Scripture as a whole. Why is it important that I look at Scripture as a whole? Why can't I just, okay, there's the verse, I've read the verse, I interpret the verse, that's it. What's that?

Scripture cross-references from Genesis to Revelation. So there are things in the New Testament that you would not have context for if you didn't have at least a working understanding of the Old Testament and historically what has happened, what the culture of the Jewish nation is, as opposed to the extended nations around it.

We look at Genesis, written by Moses, about 1400 BC. And then we look at Revelation, written by John, 95 AD. So in round numbers, they're 1500 years apart in terms of when they wrote. But what's amazing is you'll find things in Genesis in the early chapters and then find them addressed again in Revelation in the last chapters. It talks about there being the creation of the sun and the stars in Genesis 1. And then you find in Revelation, the last couple of chapters, no sun and no stars.

Why? No need of it, because where does the light come from? From the Lord Himself. And so we stand back and we look at it and we say, okay, the Lord is addressing things from beginning to end. Here are these two authors, 1500 years apart in their writings. And yet they're addressing, you know, issues. And so John's at, you know, answering the question. Okay, we don't have any sun. Why don't we need the sun? We have that.

And what's amazing, you hear about the tree of life, and then it shows up in Revelation again, right? And so you find, you know, things that are initiated in Genesis are then completed and answered in Revelation. Okay, so let's continue on here. Since the Bible has one ultimate author, God through the Holy Spirit, and the message of Scripture is by God's intent, then our understanding of Scripture should fit within and be consistent with all of the rest of Scripture. So this point is made not to ignore the differences and sequences that are in Scripture by God's intent, but to say that God is the author of Scripture would not simply present a series of conflicted truths. In Genesis, who creates things? God is the creator, right? So you don't find some other story farther along that talks about, and this man created this, and this God created this other thing, and this God created... So you don't find a conflicted account, right? You find variations in time, but not conflict. The other is looking at scales of context. You ever hear about, you know, don't take that out of context, right? And there's, in fact, scales of context.

So, for instance, we have the example here, John 1, 1-3, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him, nothing came into being that has come into being. So, what we have is the immediate context of those verses, right? And then we also have the larger context of, for example, the Gospel of John. And one of the things that we find is that John, between, what other books did John write, aside from the Gospel of John? He wrote three letters, right? 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John, right? And what else? And Revelation. And what we find is there are things that correspond between those books.

And as you read through 1st John, sometimes John says some things that are kind of startling. But what's amazing is to find the connections between 1st John and Revelation and the Gospel of John. That is a key to understanding so it's that's a part of the larger context John writes very consistently One of the things that John does in the gospel of John and in the book of Revelation is Jesus says, you know, I am the Good Shepherd in the gospel of John I am the bread of life and he has seven metaphors and that he uses in the Gospel of John. John also writes about seven miracles in the Gospel of John. So you find both the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation have patterns of sevens. And Christ is the Word in both the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation.

Is that a pattern that John knows just from how things were written previously in Scripture? You've answered this before and for some reason it's not sticking. Yeah, the pattern of sevens is not only something that John himself sticks with, but it's something you think about creation.

How was creation carried out? You get six days of creation, God rested, that is ceased from his creation work on the seventh. And so the seventh is set apart. So then God turns around and through Moses, establishes in the law, you Jews are going to work seven days and then rest on the seventh, the Sabbath, right?

So this pattern of sixes and sevens is established early in the Bible, and John's just continuing on with that. So John is a Jew. John's Jewish, yes, very. So, I'm thinking it's like, in the Jewish culture, is it kind of like innately a part of their understanding of how, like, sequences go? This is thinking after God. This is thinking about the way God does it.

Even, okay, here's Jacob, and he had to work how many years for Leah? seven years, right? And then he got a trick pulled on him and so now he has to work how many more years? Seven more years, right? So it's a week of years, right? And so that again just follows the pattern. Yes?

And also in Revelation, John wasn't told to write about seven lampstands, he was shown seven lampstands and other things. He was shown all these things and he just wrote them down. It's not like he chose to write about seven things. Those were the ones shown him. It was shown to him by the Holy Spirit, by Jesus Christ himself. There weren't six churches or eight. This is what he wrote, right?

And it fit in with the pattern of things that you see from the very beginning. Okay, then we have the other four Gospels. The other four Gospels are the next context. Why? Because they write about similar things. Right, and it's about the life of Christ and His first coming, correct? And so you're going to see some things that are different, as well as some things that are comparable. And those particular books are also transitioned from one model, let's say, to what is coming again, like coming ahead. Yes. Yeah, Stan? It's also, you're saying, similar time and culture. Ah, yes.

Yeah, and so here you have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and they're writing about the life of Christ, and except for a brief period going into Egypt, Jesus concentrated on Israel. If He went somewhere else, it was only a place where the Jews should have taken the land. So Jesus goes up to the place, and there's the Syrophoenician woman in Matthew 15, and you say, well wait a minute, why is he going up there? It's a place the Jews should have taken as their land. So he goes around to different places, either because that's where the Jews are, or that's the land they should have taken.

Okay, so we have the four Gospels, Matthew targeting particularly the Jews, Mark is writing to a Roman mind, Luke is writing as a God-fearing Gentile who has become a believer, writing to other God-fearing Gentiles and quite possibly Theophilus. would have been the name of a God-fearing Gentile that both Luke and Acts are written to. And then John, and John is writing later, John is also writing some different things than the other three, what are called synoptic Gospels. He's intentionally writing some different things, excuse me, that the others don't report.

And then the larger sense of the New Testament, and then the whole Bible. So we kind of expand the context as we're looking at things. So that's one of the things to keep in mind, scales of context, and how do we, you know, kind of look farther and farther out to get the fuller sense of context.

Now, how can I tell if something is to be taken literally or figuratively? Okay, so you're reading through the book of Revelation and you're, wow, Jesus has got hair like wool and eyes are flame of fire and woo! What is this? We're going to be going specifically through Revelation to look at here are the keys to interpreting the book of Revelation and understanding things. But the starting point is this, on top of page two. When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, therefore take every word as its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the fact of the immediate context studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise."

If we read Revelation, and look at everything with wooden literalism, we will end up with things that are incongruous absurdities. Take an example. They describe Jesus from the book of Revelation. Seven horns and seven eyes, right? Alright, and he's in heaven and he tells John, you know, I was dead and now I'm alive, right?

But he's looking as a lamb as if slain. A baby lamb. By the way, the word is for a tiny, tiny lamb. A lamb that's no more than weeks old. So here he is, but he has seven horns, and whoa, and seven eyes, and he looks as if slain. But he's alive forevermore, and he's got a five-foot-long barbarian battle sword coming out of his mouth, right? And his eyes are on fire. He needs to go to the ER, right? So this description is, whoa! So you look at it, it describes an absurdity, if I take it with wooden literalism.

Okay, so that's one of the things as you look at something is, what does it look like? And if what it looks like ends up, boy, this is absurd, this is incongruous, then it's telling you that these are some symbols. And one of the things that we've been going through the revelation on a Thursday night study, one of the things we pointed out is, that horns, for instance, were symbols of power, and that comes back from the Old Testament, one of the places being the book of Daniel. So we get figurative indications of that, so when Jesus in Revelation has seven horns, I mean, you ever heard of a lamb having seven horns? That's kind of like a birth defect or something, right?

So this is figurative language telling us something, but then how do we know what it means? That's where we have to go back and actually scripture describes what everything means. There really isn't any question as to what those symbols are. The symbols are actually quite clear.

Yes. I would hope no one would look at that and say, well, literally, he now somehow transformed from a literal man to a seven-eyed baby lamb with a Ramphaya sword. With a Ramphaya sword that is a tiny baby lamb that's as if slain, but he's also the Lion of Judah. Yeah, as a man. Right? As a man, right?

So you look at it, when we see things that would, if taken with wooden literalism, would look as an absurdity, you know, built-in contradiction, then it's telling you it's figurative. And one of the things we also look at is because there's different symbolism between the Greek mind and the Jewish mind, one of the things to determine is what kind of symbolism is this? So we'll go into that in greater detail. But the starting point is to take things literally as the starting point, and then look at certain places to see where you've got symbolism, where you've got things that are intended to be figurative. You will also have statements in Revelation, for instance, where it'll say, and this means this, and this means this, so you have the understanding that, okay, here is the figurative, and here is the literal meaning. Okay, so then we have to compare Scripture with Scripture using clear passages to interpret one that is less clear. So although Scripture provides for the whole counsel of God, but we can use the truth taught in one passage of Scripture to clarify and expand upon the truth stated in another passage of Scripture. The principle can help us at different scales. For example, what does Paul mean when he uses the word mystery in this passage. So we give, for example, Ephesians 3, 1-7.

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles, by the way, what's a Gentile? A non-Jew. That's it. I'm a Gentile. If indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you, that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief, by referring to this when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it now has been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit. To be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given to me according to the working of His power. When we think of a mystery, what are some of the definitions that we typically have in mind in our culture?

Something that is unknown. OK. All right. And something is unknown. Any other descriptions come to mind? Well, I was just thinking Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie. OK. And in other words, a mystery will be figuring out a crime. Right. Right. Who done it kind of thing. All right. Yes. To be revealed. OK. To be revealed.

It can also in our culture mean something that remains mysterious and doesn't necessarily have any promise of solution, right? This is a mystery and we just leave it at that. And we don't necessarily know if we'll ever have an answer to why this circumstance is the way it is. Why does light behave as both a wave energy and a particle? This is a mysterious thing.

So we have things that remain mysteries and are paradoxical or enigmatic. The word mystery in the Bible is consistently, however, something else. Paul defines it in Colossians 1.25-27. of the church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God that is the mystery which has been hidden from past ages and generations but has now been manifested to his saints so he uses the word mystery to actually consistently all the way from the Old Testament into the new the word mystery has this definition But it's different than the way we use it commonly. But in this verse, Paul defines it. So he tells us what a mystery is, so we don't have to keep going about, I wonder what he's talking about. Is this something that remains mysterious? No. It's something that has been mysterious in the past, but has now been revealed and understood. In essence, isn't that what Paul's Scripture is?

Revealing the mystery of God. I think one of the things you look at is what is God's eternal purpose? To reveal and declare His glory, to share His glory that He might be glorified. And so to declare and reveal things rather than leave things just absolutely completely mysterious. Let's ask this question. Are you intended to know God? Does God know you? Yes.

In Islam, God is unknowable. All you know are expressions of His power and what He expects of you, but He is otherwise unknowable. It is not your place in Islam to get to know God. He doesn't reveal Himself. He does not expect you to get to know Him. He doesn't let Himself be known. He lets it be known what He expects of you. That's it. So it's a very different character.

The God of the Bible intentionally reveals things, including even giving us, here's the definition of the word mystery, as the Bible uses it. And it's the same way from back in Job and Daniel, all the way into the end of the Bible. It has the same definition. And I think that's one of the things for us to look for is when we're asking, well, what does this mean? The Bible very, very often has a place where it defines what words and concepts are. This is this, and this is this, and this is one of them. The word mystery is one that in Colossians chapter 1 gets defined for us.

Top of page three, as a part of comparing scripture with scripture, observe the patterns of language in scripture as a whole with specific authors or groups of authors and interpret accordingly. One of the things we brought out is consistent in all of scripture, Old Testament on into the new, the pattern if God does something with hands, by the way, does God have hands?

No. If God does something with hands, he does something in the physical realm. If he does something without hands, it's in the spiritual realm. And that pattern is consistent all through scripture. So you are identified with Christ in his death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and seating. Did God do that with his hands? No. The biblical figure of speech would be without hands. Because it's something he accomplished in the spiritual realm. He still accomplished it.

It's a done deal, but it's in the spiritual realm, so it's without hands. And the whole Bible has that pattern, no exceptions. So we have an example there, Hebrews 9, 11. When Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, he entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation. Not in the physical realm.

And so other examples there from Daniel and 2 Corinthians and Colossians. Then, the present evil age, or the Messiah's age, that one of the things we pointed out last Sunday, the age, this age, or this present evil age, refers to the time from fallen Adam, or from some point subsequent to that, to the time, the Messiah's time. And then the age to come, the Messiah's time, starting with the tribulation and the second coming on into his rule in the kingdom, those are consistently called that age, the age to come, or the one to come. And what's interesting is with one exception in Hebrews, it's either Jesus' words or Paul's writing. Jesus and Paul used that the age, this age, this present evil age, and that age, the age to come, the one to come, they both use it consistently throughout.

So another one is the word formerly, Greek pate. So in the apostle Paul's letters and the writings of his associates, By the way, who are Paul's associates? If you look at it, those he's working with, and we have letters by them, like here's Dr. Luke writing, etc. The pattern is, formerly always means, no exceptions, formerly always means you're describing the believer before the believer believed. always, consistently. So when you see patterns like that, then you can interpret them with consistency and certainty as to what it means. Here's another one.

Walk, walks, walked or walking is used hundreds of times in the Bible for how one lives and orders his life step-by-step individually, according to a spiritual principle. The spiritual principle may be good or evil, but the word walk is used that way consistently hundreds of times in the Bible, starting on which book? Genesis, right? Which book? Because Enoch did what with God? He walked with God. Noah walked with God.

And so you find that term walked, it's the individual ordering of one's life, according to a spiritual principle, is used consistently starting with Genesis and on and through the rest of the Bible. Paul writes, and we're going to be looking at this in more detail, Paul writes in Ephesians 2 verses 1 through 3, and you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you walked. You individually walked. And so that's that individual ordering of one's life, but that was before you were a believer. So he then describes that walking according to the principle of the power of the air, and the spiritual principle is an evil one, but there's still a walking.

Yes. Yes. That's right. And so here's the word formerly and walk. You put it together and it's a consistent pattern. And so once we understand that and understand where it applies, then we can have certainty about what we're reading. Right. And so and one of the things we're going to see in Ephesians is that that Formerly it's actually twice in Ephesians 2, 1-3 and then twice again in Ephesians 2, 11-13. So next week we're going to be looking at all the Jewish patterns of speech in the first two chapters of Ephesians. And then we're going to revisit it again and look at the Gentile patterns of speech and other patterns. and put that together and look at why Paul did that. So we have formerly and walk are two areas where there's great consistency in scripture.

So as you're reading, others might look at it and say, what's this walk thing? It's ordering one's life individually. And then when Paul talks about how we live together, As unbelievers or as believers, he uses a different word, not walk. For the Jews, how do I walk individually?

And so, depending on the context, like in Ephesians, he uses another word, we'll take a look at that. Galatians, he uses walk in the spirit. Later on in the passage, he uses another word for walk, but it's not the Individual walking. Okay, so anyway, we'll take a look at those things. Okay.

There's another Point for us to take a look at here Okay So at the top of page four avoid reliance upon theological systems by using comparison and contrast One of the things that happens is you've probably noticed that there are different kinds of churches around, right? And lots of different kinds, right?

And they'll have different ideas about what the Bible says. Sometimes radically different ideas about what the Bible says. And one of the reasons that that's the case is it is very common for people to have a theological system and minimize their observation. They'll say, I'll grab at this and this and this, use my theological system, and off I am interpreting. Rather than continuing to observe, observe, observe, observe. Grab a few things, put it in my theological system, and crank out an interpretation. Quick and dirty. Happens all the time.

The problem is, because it's not based on good sound observation, observation, observation, careful observation, and it's a heavy reliance upon the theological system, then you end up cranking up all sorts of different theologies and theological, you know, different doctrines. And a lot of them have people's names attached to them, right? That's so similar to the general mode of life, because that's how we live.

You're a Republican, you're a Democrat, you're a Theta Chi or Delta, whatever. So you belong to all these groups, and you assume and accept the values and the principles of that group, and you exclude anything else that may enter in that might be... Blinders, right? Yeah.

Ever heard of double predestination Calvinism? In double predestination Calvinism, God chooses and elects those who are saved and excludes those, intentionally excludes those who are not going to be saved. God chose these to go to hell. So that's double predestination Calvinism.

Yeah? I didn't know that that was a title, but I've known of that mindset. Yeah. There are people, you know, God chose these to be saved, and these others he didn't choose to be saved. Matter of fact, he deliberately chose that they're just going to go to hell. So is that kind of a form of Gnosticism where the Gnostics had this extra knowledge and they were a little bit smarter than everyone else? Well, it's very heady because, and we're kind of getting off on a rabbit trail that I won't spend too much time on, but essentially, yes.

Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism all have the same assumption, although they're at loggerheads with each other. They all have the same assumption, that is, I as a human being can understand how God pulls off salvation. And so they're at loggerheads with one another and arguing and, you know, the debate's been going on for years. The reason I bring it up is because they had the same problem back in the New Testament era.

The Essenes were double-predestination Calvinists. And so what they said is God loves us and is going to save us. But you Pharisees and Sadducees are going to hell and God picked you for that. And they were so certain of that that it was okay to hate the Pharisees and the Sadducees and that's why Jesus talked about, you know, you've heard that it was said, you know, hate your brother, you know, and that's who he's talking about is the Essenes. That they were so certain that God chose them and picked them and loved them and God hates the Pharisees and Sadducees and then therefore, you know, that's okay. E-S-S-E-N-E-S. So this is in Matthew 5, they're not mentioned by name, but in Matthew 5 where it talks about hate. They're the only ones that taught that, and that's why they taught that, is God chose us to go to heaven and to be saved, and he chose you guys to go to hell. You Pharisees and Sadducees and all you other guys.

Systems like that are very appealing because it makes you feel like you understand more. You understand more about God. It's so compartmentalized and I understand it, I see it all. The system tends to cause us, as we look at scripture, not to observe, but to actually insert meaning into scripture. That's the problem with the system. Instead of observing, observing, observing, and carefully observing, we end up inserting meaning in scripture. In fact, when you stand back and look at it, great conflict. I bring up the example, four times in John, believe is followed by life.

John 3.16 is one of those, right? But the Calvinist system is you get brought to life first and then you believe several steps later. In fact, it's in conflict with Scripture. Direct conflict with Scripture is rather absurd. Then you look at the identification truths, okay? Is resurrection first? First thing that happens is you're crucified with Christ, right? The identification truths are in complete conflict with the foundations of Calvinism. Okay, so let's take a look here. Yes? Well, it just occurred to me, so if you put a system such as... I'm going to call them the modern-day Essenes because the other one is... I can't. Yeah, double-predestination Calvinism? Yeah.

So if you get that wrong, then when you get to the part about walking, you're going to be completely blinded to how you are to walk and what the apostles are describing as what we look like when we walk. So everything is going to be skewed and dark and strange. So when they come to something like you have died to the law, they usually snip the law into little bits and say you've died to that part of it. You know, we've died to the civil aspects of the law, or we've died to the punishments of the law, but they have a hard time letting go of we've completely died in relationship to the law.

Right? So they've got to, you know, pull part of it back. So working back, they had no walking, and there was no family. Yeah. There was a friend of mine from many years back who moved from Nevada to Colorado. Actually, before we did, I was sitting down talking with this friend, and he was talking about John Stott's commentary on Romans. And I said, the problem is that John Stott doesn't understand Romans. It just completely threw him.

But the point being that we in fact need to continue to observe, observe, observe scripture and look at it carefully and not take our system and superimpose it or we'll end up contradicting the very contents of scripture and we'll end up frequently having to add little snippets into different things. For God so loved the world of the elect that he gave his only begotten son only for the elect that whosoever believes which will only be of the elect will have everlasting life. And the life, however, was given before he actually believed.

All right, so let's take a look. We have Hebrews 3, 1 through 6, and we could actually spend an entire time, and we might get to do that, on Hebrews 3, 1 through 6. But this is a very critical passage on stewardships. And rather than sitting there, well, I agree with this dispensational system, or no, I don't agree with the dispensational, I like this covenant reform thing over here. Hey, let's just look at what it says, right? Let's look at what it says, and forget our isms, right?

Alright, so, Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession. He was faithful to him who appointed him, as Moses also was in all his house. for he has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone but the builder of all things is God. Now Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later. But Christ was faithful as a Son over His house, whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and boast of our hope firm until the end.

So let's take this apart. How many houses do we have? We have two houses. So what's one house? One, we've got Moses has a stewardship over his house, and Christ has a stewardship over his house. And was Moses faithful? Does it say? Was Christ faithful in his stewardship? So the stewardship, as they were initially launched, nobody messed up. Both Moses and Christ were faithful. Which house are we in? Christ, right? And what is the principle of the house that Moses was a steward over? Law, right? And what is the principle of the house that Christ is a steward over? Grace, right?

And so you start to see these and it's laying it out. Have I got any isms so far? No. I am simply observing what those things say. I've got no isms. I see them. That's what it says. So as I start looking at it, then the builder of all things is God. So God is the one who is over these things. He has particular assignments to different houses, and both from the beginning and the end of that passage, we find that we're of the house of Christ.

So then, Do I need anything out of Moses' house? Well, that would be stealing. Yeah, and so a lot of dispensationalists will sit there, well, you've got to keep this separate from that. Well, let's forget dispensationalism. What does the Bible say? And it identifies, and I've got some differences here. What compares? I've got somebody who's been given a stewardship to establish these things, right?

What compares is these guys are both faithful, they each have a house, and it's clear from the beginning and the end of the passage which house we're in. So I don't need to go looking over to the other one for the house that I'm in, except for one thing. What we find is that very often, and even the Apostle Paul, the Apostle of Grace, will talk about things from the house of Moses. So are there things to be learned from that house?

Yes. So as we look at this, we don't need an ism. I don't need an ism. What I need to do is just simply observe. What does the Bible say? And not try to lay something over the top of it. I don't need a system. Just what does the Bible say? That's what I need.

So, and we will later on, I'm hoping to go through this in much more system and detail, but the initial point that we want to make is there are things that compare, they're both Moses and Christ have a house, right? And we're of Christ's house. And so those things are clear. And there are other details that we'll take a look at later. I don't need a system, and I don't want to superimpose a system on top of the passage. I don't need to. I simply observe what's there.

All right, now let's take a look below that, Matthew 6, 14 and 15, about forgiving in Israel under the law of Moses. So Jesus said, and this is the Sermon on the Mount, if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. So that's under principle of law. So I forgive in order to be forgiven, under law. And that was the law of Moses. When you're looking at it, that's his house. So here's Jesus speaking to Jews in the land of Israel, and let's ask this question, were they to forgive? Yes, and their forgiveness was conditioned upon their forgiving.

So now let's take a look, here's the Apostle Paul, Ephesians 4.32, about forgiving in the church under the principle of grace. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

Have you been forgiven as a believer in Christ? Done deal, right? You're not forgiving in order to be forgiven. This is what's even in the Lord's Prayer, you know, as people say it, you know, forgive us our debts as we forgive, you know. Let's ask this, do you need to ask God for forgiveness? No, you are already forgiven, right? So grace-based forgiveness says forgive because you've been forgiven. Law-based forgiveness says forgive in order to be forgiven. Do you forgive in each case? The moral, the ethics, is to forgive. But the basis and motivation for doing so is quite different. I'm just going back one step, God.

He knows the heart. He knows the heart of people. He cares more about the heart of people. So regardless, whether you're in law or grace, even under law, it's the heart of the matter that he is looking at, not the I being dotted, the T being crossed, the O's being just right, and the words being just right. It's where's your heart landing on this? I mean, different process, but same principle. Does that make sense? Okay, thank you.

So, now we're going to shift over on page five to another different principle, the principle of cross checks. In mathematics, engineering, and other fields of applied science, in which the primary method of arriving at a solution is cross-checked by using a different method of hopefully arriving at the same answer. That's one of the things I taught in engineering school.

Okay, here's how you arrive at the solution. Now, do it a different way. Do you get the same or a similar kind of answer, or are you way out of the ballpark? Similarly, it's done, say, in accounting. Things are cross-checked so that you have those systems in place. We can have something similar as we look at how do I study the Bible. If I study something out and find, wait a minute, I'd go about it different ways and end up with a different answer. Now wait a minute.

So here for example, let me take in the middle of that page, this is Titus 2.11, For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men. Does everybody get saved? If I end up with that interpretation, Okay? Everybody get safe. Can I cross-check that? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. And so essentially, similar to what I would have in accounting or engineering or mathematics, where I look at, okay, how do I cross-check this? How do I use a different method to arrive?

My conclusion right and so I can look at for example John 3 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life Okay, so does everybody get saved? No those who believe are saved right and so that What what that tells us I go back to Titus 2 11 for the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation to all men and By the way, does that sound Calvinist? No, in other words, if you look at it, Christ died, and Calvinists often would have a different answer, especially a five-pointer, as they call them. Limited atonement would say Christ died only for those who are elect, and he didn't die for the others.

But what the Bible actually communicates, and it's consistent with Titus 2.11, everybody is savable in the sense that Christ died for the sins of every single person on the planet. So the Apostle Paul, when the Philippian jailer asked, you know, what must I do to be saved, and Paul didn't come up and say, well, you know, I don't know if you're elect, and I don't know whether Christ died for your sins, and sorry, I just can't tell you, you know. And if God's not elected you, it doesn't do any good for me to tell you the gospel, because you're not going to believe it anyway, and he didn't die for your sins. I can't tell you Christ died for your sins, right?

So what this is telling us here, He's bringing salvation to all men. It's available to everyone. It's those who believe who are saved. So it isn't communicating universal salvation, but simply singing, on God's part, He's done it all for everyone. Could Adolf Hitler have been saved? He could have been saved. I've done horrible, horrible things and, you know, believed and have been saved. Can you imagine that? Did Christ die for the sins of Judas? Yes. Yeah. Was Judas savable? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Verne's savable, right?

So you look at it here, this makes sense, bringing salvation to all men, that doesn't mean everyone will believe. The next one down, John 20, 30-31, therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." Another one of those passages is belief and then life. Whereas Calvinism says first you get life because you're elect and chosen, and then you get given the gift of faith, and then you believe, and then you're saved.

So, how is one saved? Is one saved just because you're elect and chosen? No, just by belief. Belief, right? By belief. By belief in what God says belief is. Yeah. So, as we look at this, the cross-check is, if I'm going to look at that as bring salvation to all men, and say, okay, I'm going to look at other passages that talk about salvation, right? And is that just universal? Does everybody get saved? No. We find that belief is necessary.

As a matter of fact, here's John writing about belief multiple times in this. Multiple times in this Gospel of John. Because he realizes people need to believe. Here's Jesus talking to the Jewish leaders. Unless you believe, you're going to die in your sins. And that's not good. So here he is talking to the Jewish leaders. Before long, I'm going to die, and I'm going to die for your sins too.

And you could be saved. And a few of them were. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea. A few of them were. But they have to believe. Page 6. Another example of a cross-check. The sin nature in a believer. We won't have time to go over this in any detail. But let me summarize it and leave it to you to pursue the rest of it.

Since the end of World War II, and largely starting in the reformed camp, there has been the teaching that the believer does not have a remaining sin nature. The believer does not have a remaining sin nature. And so that belief has become propagated, not just in the reform camp where it started, but also among those who like to integrate Christian psychology with secular thinking and all that, secular models, and also among charismatics. And so the reformed folks will say, well, you don't have a sin nature as a believer, it's just habits. that need to be dealt with. The Christian psychology folks will say, well, you just need more counseling. And the charismatic folks, you know, it's the devil made me do it.

So they're always binding Satan and rebuking him and things of that sort. So you have different reactions. Why is it that Christians still sin? And so they've got different answers. But that got started. Romans 5 12 on into chapter 8 The sin is the way Paul writes the sin and it progressively does more and more things, right? And so that's why we will call it and teach it, you know these sin nature It's an inclination to think and to act according to to the sin that's described in Romans 5 12 on into chapter 8 So that cross-check then is, if I don't believe about the sin and what it describes, then I've got to come up with some answer external to scripture as to why a believer sins.

Okay, we've run way out of time. Any other thoughts, questions, inspirations, exasperations? Okay, let's pray. Lord, we do thank you for your word, we thank you for the clarity that we in fact can have, and we thank you for the understandings that we can have looking at your word consistently. We just pray as we move forward here into some, what I think are some pretty exciting passages and topics. We just look to you to guide and lead us as we continue to study your word. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.