It may seem that we've actually covered a lot of material in our Sunday School class. We're studying, for those of you who don't know, how to study the Bible or principles of interpreting Scripture. And it may seem that we've covered a large amount of ground and territory because in this class we've had some discussion and questions and so forth. It's not just been straight lecturing. And one of the things that could happen with that is perhaps you could get confused as to exactly where we are, where we've been. And so today, guess what I've got for you? A little outline. An outline, not of the entire course, but an outline of where we've been, where we are now, and just a little bit ahead so you can kind of see where we're going. And then I'm going to write up just an outline for the course on the board so you can see where we're going. You can see where we've been, and when discussion gets going, you've got some kind of reference here. These are not extremely detailed notes, so if you're one that takes notes, this is not going to replace you taking notes, but it does give you an idea. It does have some scriptural references with some of the points and so forth. And so, if I can have someone to help me pass these out, there should be enough for pretty much everyone to get one. Maybe a couple of you guys or one of you guys can help pass those out. Bring the extra copies back up here. And just to write on the board where we are and where we're going as far as this class is concerned. And that'll help you, I think, hopefully not to, because when we do a discussion, I'm going to have to go steal a marker from someone. You got a marker? Do you need it? You sure? OK. Sorry about that, folks. Because discussion can make it sound like there's more information to take in than there really is sometimes, and so hopefully this will help. We've had the introduction, as you can see. We've had the legitimacy of this study. All right. foundation of interpretation. All right. And the third point, qualifications. The fourth point is what we're dealing with now, historical, grammatical, All right, I'll start up here and do this, too. All right. And then the fifth point is going to be theological interpretation. And then number six will be practical application. All right. So we're here and then after this, we've got two more major headings to cover. So we're taking our time. So don't make that, maybe that'll help you get a perspective on what we've covered and we don't get lost in the shuffle and all the discussion. So you have some reference points. Think that'll help? All right, good. Good deal. So we've got that. So let's start now. Does anybody remember where we are in the outline here? Well, we ended last week, or I should say Pastor Gonzales ended last week, right? Appreciate his help last week. He helped us. Well, to refresh your memory, we're in the part of this study that we're dealing, we're dividing up historical grammatical interpretation into those two words, historical grammatical, dealing with grammatical first, which means we're dealing with the what of the text. the grammar of the text, right? The words, the sentences, and the thoughts that are expressly set down in the text of Scripture. And then under that, we've started dealing with the original languages. And of course, I stress to you that if I was a seasoned pastor and I was teaching men for the ministry, I probably would approach this subject a little bit differently than I would in a context like this. And so I ask the question, what should be Your mentality, what should be our mentality if we're sitting in the pew each week? We're not pastors, teachers, most of us. You're going about your daily routine, having your devotions, studying the Word of God. How should you feel? What should be your mentality about the original languages when it comes to your own understanding of Scripture? And there are basically four statements that I hope are balanced statements. By the time you take them all together, I hope is a balanced view. of how we should approach that subject. One was, at least say small letter A, we should not downplay their importance. And I brought out the point that translations are the Word of God insofar as they accurately reflect the original. We don't believe that the act of translation itself is inspired. Alright, it is God inspired in His providence. He had good reason and we trust good purposes for having the Bible inspired in the languages that they were originally written in. And so the buck stops with the original languages. OK, so it is important. We never want to hold on to any particular translation and translations and throw the original languages out the window. That's a very dangerous thing. We talked about that. We also brought up the point, if you see that was number one under small letter A and then number two. As a general rule, with some exceptions, we should seek to be under ministries where the teacher has a working knowledge of the original languages. That is that in most cases, where possible, we try to require and try to push a man in a direction of learning the original languages, at least a working knowledge when he's studying for the ministry. And then last week we started and started talking about, and I used Pastor Gonzales as one of my guns last week, we need to seek to pay careful attention to references in the teaching of God's Word to the original languages. This can enhance your own personal study of Scripture. And you remember, I gave one illustration in the Greek language in Ephesians 1 about the sealing of the Spirit. I won't go through that again. Pastor Gonzales gave several illustrations or several examples of Hebrew, since he knows Hebrew a lot better than I do. He gave some examples of how, in some cases, perhaps the English translation doesn't necessarily fully capture what's going on in the original language. And I trust that you saw that the examples he gave, at least especially one or two of them, were not just extraneous or perfluous kinds of things, but that they actually carry personal application by knowing what's in the original. Now, that's not to... we didn't do that and try to say everybody needs to go out and learn the original languages, but it can enhance your personal Bible study in that from the next time you go to that passage, when you're sitting under a ministry like that or something like that's brought out, every time you go to that passage from now on, maybe you've got notes from the sermon or you remember what the pastor said, then that enhances your own personal study sitting under a ministry like that. I know that happens for me if I'm in a module or something and I take a class on tape or whatever and something's brought out about a passage, perhaps about the original language that I've never considered, It seems like from then on, every time I think of that passage, that point comes back to mind. And so when you're cross-referencing in your Bible study, you may remember, I remember when Pastor Gonzales preached on Abraham and he brought that point out of the original. And I understand that passage better. I see more clearly what has happened. Okay? So it can enhance your personal study. So when the pastor gets up in the pulpit and he starts making references to the original languages, hopefully he's not just flaunting his knowledge. We trust he's got a good reason for it in most cases, and so don't just tune that out and say, well, I'll tune back in when he gets through with that point, because it can really help and enhance your own personal study of Scripture. So we won't say any more about that this morning. But then small letter B, in relationship to the original languages, how we should view, what our mentality should be toward the original languages, we should not be suspicious, intimidated, or discouraged. Now, without looking at your outline, so it won't give it away, what do you think I mean by we shouldn't be suspicious as God's people when it comes to the original languages? Everybody look down because I'm looking at you. What do you think I mean by we shouldn't be suspicious? Yeah, well what I'm trying to get out here was anybody else got a guess at what I'm Trying to get out without look because the notes kind of give it away. That's all I don't like about passing out an outline is it kind of gives away maybe what I'm thinking. Well, for example, let's just say a person begins to recognize the importance of the original languages. All right. And they say, OK, the original language that that's God's word. When we think of God's word, ultimately, we go back to the original. All right. So let's go back to what the original says. Upon investigation of getting more acquainted with original languages, they may also learn something else in that course of study and knowledge that may cause them to be a little suspicious. What might that be? We're going to go back to the originals. What's the problem with that? Well, there are no original autographs any longer, right? We've got copies. So a person might begin to think, well, we don't have God's Word any longer. How do we know for sure that we have God's Word? Now, I don't want to open up that whole subject this morning, and I'm sure that is a profitable study. That is a subject that I am far from being an expert on. But there are a couple of things. Let me just say that we can be sure and have assurance that we possess God's Word in our translations. We do have sufficient translations. Now, again, of course, the question all comes up about what are good translations, okay? That's another whole subject that we could talk about, but that we're not going to open up that can of worms as well. But we can be assured that we do possess God's Word in our translations of the copies that we have, okay? Now, there's two reasons why, just briefly, that we know that. Number one is because of our faith in God, all right? What do I mean by that? What do you think I mean by our faith in God that we possess God's Word? We trust in a God who is sovereign and king. He's given His revelation. The Church of Christ is the pillar and ground of the truth. One of our functions in this world is to help preserve the truth. And that has happened. God has overseen that process. We can trust in a God who is going to empower us to do that. I think this is probably the strongest argument we should have regarding our faith in the scriptures as a sure guide. Because every philosophical system begins with certain presuppositions. Ours are God and His revelation to us. That's not something we should be embarrassed by. A system of thought that says, that presupposes That's right. In other words, we start from the standpoint of trusting in a God who is going to preserve His Word. And secondly, the fact is, is there's ample evidence that God has done just that. Even in the copies that we have, even in the worst copies that we have, no doctrine or no duty has been so changed to lose that article of faith or duty. And that's a verifiable among, without getting into all of them, let me just state it and keep it there, all right? Even in the worst copies, we still have God's Word, all right? God didn't see fit to necessarily keep it from all types of corruptions or mistakes, but at the end of the day, we still possess God's Word in our translations. Did you have something, sister? God's word still abides, and we still have his word. Does anyone else have a comment or question, brother? Another way to say that, what you're saying is that, in a real colloquial way, it's not hardly a hillbilly's difference between the translations. That's right. Between the texts. I mean, there are differences. Some of the texts have been handed down to us, but not any differences. Right. Sometimes, for example, without getting into it, Pastor Gonzales, let me just say, Pastor Gonzales, I guess about two years ago now, he dealt with the whole issue of translations two or three years ago, and those should be on tape or CD. So if you're interested in getting into some more of that, I just don't feel like, I don't want to get down that rabbit trail, okay? But, and he knows a whole lot more about it. But we do have sufficient translations and it's true that when it comes to the text, people can say, oh, well, somebody's trying to take the blood out of the book or whatever, all right? Well, that may not be true. It might be a textual variant because later on in the same text, the blood is there and they translate it, okay? We don't need to have a suspicious attitude like, how in the world can we even know we have God's Word? Folks, we have God's Word. He has preserved it. There's ample evidence to prove that. And even in the worst copies, we still possess the Word of the living God. And Jesus used translation. The apostles used the translation, okay? Jesus could get up in the synagogue and say, today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears. And no doubt he was reading from a copy, okay? So we do possess the Word of God, he has overseen it. So we can have assurance that we possess the Word of God. The Christian can take the quote by Frederick Kenyon, the Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries. But then secondly, Notice B again, we should not be suspicious, but we should also be, we shouldn't be intimidated or discouraged. And if you notice number two under B, stated most of the time, by applying the other principles of interpretation, you can usually come to a sound conclusion, that is a sound conclusion about a passage or text or verse, without knowing or having a working knowledge of the original languages. One of the things that can happen when you sit under a ministry where there's references to the original language, you become familiar with their importance, you might get intimidated. You might begin to be discouraged and think, well, I really can't know the Word of God then. If I don't have a knowledge of the original languages, then I might as well just listen to what Pastor Smith says, Pastor Gonzales says, or Pastor so-and-so, Or just read good commentaries that deal with the original language because that's the only way I'm going to know the Word of God. Now, that's just simply not the case. In most cases, alright, with that qualification, most cases, if you apply the rest of the rules that we're talking about and we'll be talking about, you can usually come to a sound conclusion. And even when you can't come to a sound conclusion, many times you can at least come to the realization of what the passage is not saying. or even disagree with someone who knows the original languages. You know, this guy doesn't this guy's missing the mark, OK? And so most of the time now, I want to give some illustrations of this, OK? One of the things that I'm concerned about is I just don't want to throw these, you know, these principles to you in these statements and you go away. Well, that's good. And most of the time, if I apply the rules, I'll come up with the right interpretation. I want us to see some hands on illustrations just to show you how this can actually work. Now, turn in your Bibles with me to 2 Corinthians chapter 5 for a moment. 2 Corinthians chapter 5. Folks, I don't have an eraser. Brother Joseph, run your errand as you did last week, please. 2 Corinthians chapter 5, and we'll do this on the board, and I'm going to have you to help me, okay? 2 Corinthians 5, verse 18, says this, Now all things are of God who has reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation. That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing or crediting their trespasses to them, not counting them against them. And He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." Thanks, Joseph. Let's say you're sitting under a preaching ministry. a man that you consider to be a sound preacher. He really is a good fellow, a good preacher of the Word of God. He comes to this passage of Scripture, and he's going to preach to you on the doctrine of reconciliation, that God through Christ has accomplished reconciliation on the behalf of His people. Okay? He comes to this text, and he brings out the point that in this text, that God is the subject. And that the people or the world, the people that he's reconciling, they're the object of the reconciliation. Okay? So you've got, he brings out the point that God is the subject, and that's true in the Greek language. Let's just say he makes a reference to the Greek language, the world, or us, that's the object. And he even makes the point that in all the other places in the New Testament, It's always God doing the reconciling and we're being the ones that are being reconciled, okay? We're being reconciled to Him. So he says, according to the language, it's very clear that, you know, he brings out what reconciliation means. What does reconciliation mean? All right, it's the reestablishment of peace or friendly relations, right? Between two parties. So that's what's happening. And he says God is the one doing the reconciling and we're the ones being reconciled. Now, what might he conclude from that structure? What if he makes the point that the language proves that what happened at the cross is that God dealt with our enmity toward God? We're the ones that need to be reconciled, so something needs to happen to our enmity toward God. That might be what he might conclude, right? Exactly. Right. So something has to be done about our hatred to God, right? The point I'm making is, he may try to support that by the language of the text. In fact, if you read Richard Linsky's commentary, he makes the exact same point. He says, see, God never changes. God's love, and so he's always felt that way toward man, and that what really happens is us being changed toward God. So that can even be supported by the language, so to speak. All right? So you get my point. You see what's happening here. And they refer to the language. God's the subject. We're the object. And so, therefore, we're the ones being reconciled, so something's happening to us. God never changes. He's always the same. He's always had open arms. He doesn't feel hostility toward men. It's nothing about His enmity whatsoever. It's all about us. Okay? Now, it seems like, even when you read the text, that that might very well be the case, right? Now, should you just go, well, you know, that preacher knows the original language? Now, that's nothing in depth with the original language, but let's just say, you know, he knows what he's talking about, and I read Linsky, and he agrees, and so I should just accept that interpretation. Should that be what you do? Right? It sounds right when you read the text. But is there anything, are there any things in the text that would cause us to believe otherwise? Verse 21, that plays a part. Brother Joseph? Well, I was just going to say that I don't know if this is more systematic theology than exegesis, Pastor, but the reality of the matter is that it puts a great deal of emphasis on the work of Jesus Christ. All right, tell me why. Everybody besides me want to answer that? Well, first of all, in the text, reconciliation is presented as an accomplished fact, right? And is there anything in the text that indicates when that accomplished fact happened or took place? In verse 21, the cross work of Christ mentioned again, He made him to be sin who knew no sin. He was made sin on our behalf that we might be made the righteousness of God or constituted of the righteousness of God in Him. So it's an accomplished fact in the past. It was through Christ on the cross. That's when the reconciliation was accomplished. Now, what could you conclude from that so far? At least in my opinion. Did sinners lay down their enmity at the cross 2,000 years ago? Did we lay all our enmity aside? If this happened in the past and it happened on the cross, then it must be God's enmity that's laid down. Would you agree with that? Does anybody else want to throw any kinks in it? Verse 20. Can you elaborate? All right, let's get to that in just a second. Patches also teaches us what needed to happen for reconciliation to take place, right? What was that? Verse 19 and 21. There had to be the forgiveness of sins. Our sins had to be taken away from us, not counted against us. You read verse 21, our sins had to be paid for and our substitute the Lord Jesus, but we needed something else too. End of verse 21. We need a positive righteousness, right? We need both to happen. So we need to be forgiven, have our sins not counted against us, paid for by the blood of Christ, and we need a positive righteousness imputed to us. Now, what can you draw from that? about whose enmity that needs to be removed? What is the emphasis of all of Scripture on that whole subject? Do our sins need to be paid for and we need a positive righteousness to let God back in our favor? Or do we need it to be able to get back into His favor? What people do is, there's a theory of the atonement. It's called the moral influence theory. They argue that there's no wrath in God. And really, we talk about God's wrath. We're talking about a judicial. It's not that he doesn't love the sinner, his people, but there's also his judicial wrath at rest. That what the cross does is we see God's love demonstrated on the cross. And as we look at the cross, it changes our feelings about God and causes us to love God. And so there's. In that view of the atonement, there's a denial that there's any actual substitution, that Christ is actually being punished in our place, and that God's wrath is being poured out upon him on the cross. No, the cross is only and solely a demonstration of this is how much God loves you, that Jesus was willing to suffer unjustly at the hands of wicked men, and then that's Matthew five. is to look at how the word reconcile and reconciliation is used in the Bible and in other places. And in the beginning you can find that when it speaks of someone being reconciled, the person that's the subject is the one who is reconciled. Turn over there for a moment. That's a good point. In other words, Pastor Smith, of course, he holds the view that we hold about the passage. He said he threw a little wrench in the works because in verse 20 of 2 Corinthians 5, we're told to be reconciled to God. All right. That's the call of the gospel. Be reconciled to God. That may sound like Okay, that we need to remove our enmity toward God. Now, that does happen in the gospel. When we get converted, our enmity is removed. That's not the doctrine of reconciliation. But we need to be careful that we don't impose upon a text of Scripture a modern-day conception of something. Perhaps when we say, be reconciled to someone, you might think, and the way we use it sometimes, perhaps, is that means for you to lay aside your enmity toward someone. We always want to know how is the concept used in Scripture. In Matthew chapter 5, you may remember the context here, Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is talking about making sure that we have a clear conscience not only toward God but toward man when we come to worship. And that before we can engage ourselves in an act of worship, we need to be right with our fellow man, okay? You'll notice in verse 23 and 24. Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother and then come and offer your gift. Now here you've got a person, here's one brother. Wait a minute. It's not a good picture. More like it, right? Now, what's the picture? Here's the guy that's at the altar, okay? He remembers that his brother's got something against him. And he's told before he offers his gift to be reconciled to his brother. Now, in this case, who has something against the other? Whose enmity needs to be dealt with? This guy, right? So the call for the Apostle, when the Apostle Paul says, be reconciled to God, He's talking about getting back into God's favor, not getting God back into our favor. And so that's just an example of another place in Scripture. Now, I know that's kind of a lot to look at all of a sudden, but I just want to give you an example of how that you don't just have to take something because someone might make a reference to the original and say, well, God's the subject and he's always the subject and the reconciliation and we're always the object. And so then conclude from that that it is our enmity that needs to be removed. OK. I want you to turn with me to first Timothy chapter three. Give another example, and sometimes knowing a definition of a word, even in the Greek and so forth, is not going to be enough to really help you understand what's being said. All right. Never make the mistake of thinking that all interpretation rests upon of the original language. All you need to know is definitions and the original languages and you're going to be set. It's just not true. You have to consider context and all these other things. Let's say you've got a man or a young man that's desirous to be in the gospel ministry. He desires to be in the ministry and he's in a context where he knows that there are qualifications that need to be met. Someone has in turn or he turns in his devotions to 1 Timothy chapter 3. He reads verse 1 that anyone that desires that position, that work, that office of an elder or bishop, he desires a good work. So there's no flaming swords to the office as far as desire goes. It's a good thing to desire to do. He reads on, though, there are qualifications. And then he reads here, as it is here in the New King James Version, a bishop then must be blameless. Now, let's just say he's a fairly new Christian to some degree. All right. And he reads this text blameless and he reads this qualification. What might he what conclusion might he draw from that after he reads it? You know, he might say, well, man, goodness gracious, I'm certainly not blameless. And to be honest, that's something a lot of People that have desires for the ministry, they kind of wrestle through that text. Blameless, my goodness. I don't fit that qualification. In fact, I never will. I'm certainly not blameless. Well, before he ever even learns what the term means, what can he already know? Now, this is just simple, I know. But what can he already know that it doesn't mean? It doesn't mean sinless perfection. Can anybody give me a text that's very clear, that underscores that it can't be sinless perfection? There's a few. I thought there was only one. I'm just kidding. First, John. The Apostle John includes himself. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. Even the Apostle, aged Apostle, with all of his experience, If that's the meaning of the word, he wouldn't qualify, okay? In fact, no one would qualify. The Apostle Paul wouldn't qualify. We can certainly think of the days of when he persecuted the church, all right? So that's just a very simple thing that very quickly may enter into his mind and go, well, it can't be sinless perfection. Well, then he gets out a Greek lexicon or someone tells him the definition that, strictly speaking, it means not to be able to be laid hold of. It's irreproachable. All right. You can't be laid hold of. Or in this particular case, you can even say it not being accused. All right. Not being accused. Well, that still don't help him a whole lot. He knows that it's he knows that it's not sinless perfection, but understand that it means not being accused or not being able to put a finger upon, as it were, that still doesn't help him a whole lot. Right. Why? In other words, you can know from the rest of scripture that it must be justly accused. Can anybody think of any scriptures that may come to mind that would support that? There's actually a text in this very book. There's a principle embedded in the text in this book that actually underscores that, especially in regards to someone starting a ministry. Right? Now, of course, that's somebody that's already in the ministry, but Paul is saying, if someone comes to me in the church and they said, you hear what Pastor Schmitt, and I'm supposed to do this right here, right? Unless there's two or three witnesses. It needs to be substantiated. It needs to be verifiable. I don't just listen to gossip. Well, of course, there's a principle there that would apply really generally to everybody to some degree, that we don't just take things that are flying around and run with it, right? So it can't just mean being accused in general altogether. There must be some qualifiers. So it must mean justly accused because Jesus said that rejoice when men say all manner of evil against you falsely. Jesus said beware when all men speak well of you. So they spoke of, so they did of the false prophets. So it must mean being justly accused. Well, that still may not help him a whole lot. Why? And now he knows it's not sinless perfection. He knows it means being justly accused. Because he can be accused of a lot of things, right? I mean, anybody that knows the guy well knows he's got all kinds of sinful infirmities and imperfections and failures and shortcomings. And so that means he's just disqualified because People can accuse him all around. In fact, he finds out in Titus 1 that the word he uses in Titus 1 means unaccusable. Not just not being accused, but he has nothing to be accused of or justly accused of. Blame the same Christ. Nope. Nope. Right. That means you just have to be a Christian in your exercise of faith in Christ. Now, obviously, that's a qualification. In general, you need to be a Christian. But that's not specifically what Paul's talking about, OK? It's not being just. He knows it's not sinless perfection. He knows it's not just being accused in any way. But he finds out in Titus it means he's not accusable. He knows all these. He's got all these things he's aware of. He's got all kinds of things that he knows people know of. So he must be out. What about the text itself? Is there any indicators that qualify what Paul is talking about? Is Paul just talking about shortcomings? Is there anything in the text that indicates what Paul is talking about? So he knows blameless doesn't mean selfless perfection. Selfless perfection. On the other hand, then Paul has the list. Look at the list here, down to 7th, verse 7, of the craft that this man can have or the person this man can be. Husband of one wife, and children, and children, and 50, 80, all these items. So, it seems this text is as complete as it sounds. And there's no real mystery as to what Paul is pointing out here to Timothy about this man. Exactly. That was a great observation. You hit the nail on the head. Paul doesn't leave us in any doubt as to what, once you understand what the word doesn't mean, because blameless, a lot of times we hear that, we may think blameless in a literal, complete sense, no, nothing to blame the person of whatsoever. Once you find out the definition, you realize that he's actually got a list under that. He doesn't leave us in doubt. There needs to be an absence of certain debilitating vices, the presence of certain virtues. He's to be an example to the believers in these things. He has a proven ability to rule and to manage. Paul makes the point, how can he take care of the church with all its affairs if his home's a mess, right? He needs to have a good reputation among the unbelievers. So Paul gives us a list here. He's not just talking about the man can't be accused of any kinds of sinful infirmities whatsoever. All right. Because if that were true or he's not accusable of any of those things. All right. Or there's something else that we need to understand about this passage in the qualifications themselves. What I mean, but let me tell you what I mean by that. He knows it's not sinless perfection and that Paul has in mind certain areas of. Of being blameless or not being accused. Now, does that mean that he's got all these areas there is shining and is complete as if they possibly could be. Now, there's nothing necessarily in this text that's going to indicate the answer to that, but there is our view of a particular doctrine that will help temper our view of that. In other words, if these qualifications, does it mean he's got these things absolutely shined and polished without any type of flaw in them whatsoever? Well, our understanding of other passages of Scripture that teach us of the reality of remaining sin and all the leaders. Because even our best deeds are still tainted, right? He might be hospitable and he's enough that he actually passes the qualification but doesn't You know, 20 years from now, hopefully, he's going to be even more so. All right? He's going to be more so in some of these other areas as he tidies up and as he, in some senses, gets even more qualified. And since he meets these things even better, become clearer. Did you have a comment, sister? Exactly. So it doesn't mean that he's got these things down where there's absolutely no sin whatsoever. There's no flaw that, you know, the Bible speaks of a man being a righteous man. And this is another example, if you go to, you go to other texts where you have the word blameless. And I immediately, you know, I think about Zachariah and Elizabeth and how it says that they were righteous and blameless in their generation. And that there is, sometimes the Bible speaks of righteousness as imputed righteousness, and sometimes it speaks of a man being righteous. subjectively, he's a righteous man. And so we're talking about righteous insofar as it's consistent with the reality of remaining sin and all believers. A man is blameless in these areas. He can't just be accused of having a chronic problem in one of these areas. But that blamelessness is consistent with the recognition of the reality of remaining sin and all believers. Like you said, you don't have to know the original language to know that. You know what the rest is about. You know your Bible. You know what it teaches about main sin and everything. You know that's not what the pastor said. And in that case, the original language helps you a little bit to understand the word, but it really doesn't define everything that's entailed of what Paul's meaning, right? Just knowing the rest. And that's my point, what Pastor Smith made. At that point, it's not like, man, if I could just know what blameless means in the original, I've got it nailed down. Well, it's just not going to help you a lot in some cases, OK? And that's just a very easy example, but I just wanted to give you some hands-on just to see that worked out. And I know that you guys are very conscious of those things. But also, not only most of the time, we have number two, most of the time applying the other principles of interpretation, you can usually come to a sound conclusion without knowing the original languages. I've got also number three, a careful use of other translations can be helpful. A careful use, or you might could write down A careful comparison of other translations can be helpful, okay, in this matter, original languages. You say, man, if I don't know the original languages, I can't know what God's Word says. Turn to Romans 1 for a moment. These are just some easy examples. No major doctrinal issues at stake here, but just an example of what can happen during preaching. Let's say that The pastor's preaching, he's using say the KJV, the old KJV in this case. It's a good translation and we read here in verse 18 of Romans 1, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. If I was preaching through this text and I was using this particular version, I would bring out that holding the truth there really contained, the idea contained is holding down or suppressing the truth. That's the picture. In sin, man in his sinfulness, he has God, the knowledge of God, but he tucks it away, he suppresses it, he holds it down, like that top on the jack-in-the-box, he holds it in. He doesn't want it to come out. But you don't necessarily need me to tell you that that's what is contained in that word and what it means. If you had, for example, you just did a comparison in translation, you could read say in the NAS, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and righteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Now that's just an easy example of how comparing translations can sometimes bring out the very thing that a pastor may bring out. Turn to Galatians chapter 5 for a moment. Using the same method here, starting with the KJV. Again, I'm not picking the KJV. I think it's a good translation. But just using this particular order of looking at the translations, let's just say you're starting out off with that version. And, you know, the context, Paul's dealing with the Judaizers. They're telling these Christians, you need to keep the Law of Moses to be saved. You need to be circumcised. If you're a male, you need to be circumcised in order to be saved. Faith in Christ alone, not enough. All right? You've got to become a Jew. You've got to be circumcised. Verse 12, Paul, or verse 11, start of verse 11, And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offense of the cross ceased. I would that they were even cut off, which trouble you. All right? Now, if I was preaching out of that version, I'd bring out the point that It may seem like Paul is just saying, well, I hope these people are judged by God. Now, certainly that's contained in the idea that Paul, that's part of the idea that Paul is trying to get across, OK? But I may bring out in preaching that it's actually in the middle voice, not just something that's happening to them, but something Paul wishes that they would do to themselves. They would cut themselves off. Now, I don't want to go into graphic detail, but in the context of that particular letter, You can only imagine what Paul means by that terminology, okay? And he's being very graphic here. And I might bring that out in a sermon to draw forth an application of how Paul felt about people who would pervert the gospel. He didn't join hand in hand with them. He didn't say they're brothers. No, he says, I wish they would do this to themselves. I wish they would emasculate themselves, castrate themselves. This is what I wish. Now, not literally, but he's showing there how he feels about them. about someone that would pervert the essential purity of the gospel. Now, would you need me necessarily to tell you that that's what's contained in that particular verse? Well, not necessarily. Again, you could go to verse 12 out of chapter 5 in the New American Standard Version. I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves. Okay? They would even mutilate themselves. So, you can get a picture just in cross-referencing the translations to get a little more picture in the color that Paul is actually, under the inspiration of God's Spirit, putting in the Word of God. Alright? So, you don't need necessarily, say, boy, if the preacher didn't tell me that, I could never know it. So, careful cross-references of translations can be helpful in that, maybe not necessarily every single time, but they can enrich it to some degree. Now you may not like every particular translation they have in them, okay, but you can still, even some of the ones you wouldn't necessarily like the most, some of them can even sometimes nail it on the head, okay? Can at least illustrate it or bring it out more of its fullness, and this has got the NIV amplified, KJV, and the NASB. in here, and I'll pick this up, and you can make use of that, okay? A careful cross-reference. It can help, just something very simple, not very hard to do, right? And then, fourthly, I said, or I have in the outline, a careful use of sound commentaries can be helpful. Now, this is where having a good library or building a good library can help you in this area, all right? It's always good that when you build a library to study the Bible, to have a good balance on your shelves, okay? And what I mean by that is there's different kinds of commentaries you can get a hold of. There are what I call devotional commentaries, and I like those kinds. I like those kinds of study to preach because sometimes I have good practical applications in them, good illustrations to use, and so forth, and certainly I wouldn't knock those because they have their place. There's one particular man that puts out commentaries that I think some of the things are actually based on some of his sermons. I don't really use it much for the technical approach, but it is helpful sometimes. There's some good illustrations or some good thoughts that's contained in it. It's good to have those, but it's also good to have some technical commentaries in your library, all right? Now, there's different depths of Difficulty in some of these as far as reading is concerned, and I'm not suggesting go out and getting something that's, you know, if you're not used to original languages and so forth, to go put steep yourself in. But there are some that are fairly decent that get into some of that to some degree without going in too much depth. But if you do that, let me just say, first of all, you want to be very selective, all right? You may want to get some advice. from your pastors or from others who've had experience in that that can help recommend some good commentaries that may help you with the language and grammar of the text. All right. Secondly, is to have a variety. I think of the proverb that says a man that's first in his cause seems right until someone else comes along and challenges it. I don't know if that strictly applies in this particular case, but it reminds me of the fact that sometimes you can read somebody And man, their view of something sounds really convincing. All right, man, this is good. But then you read somebody else, you go, I don't know, that's pretty convincing. And then you read somebody else and you might think, well, and be even more confused by the time it's over. All right. So having a variety helps. You don't want to find like somebody that he's a man, he's a trusted guy because commentators are fallible. OK, as one has said, inspiration or infallibility escapes or eludes the grasp of our commentators. That's true. They're not, they are fallible. Okay. So having variety helps you. But then thirdly, don't be, don't develop some kind of blind crippling dependence upon commentators. All right. Especially if you don't have a working knowledge of the language, you can think, well, I always need to go to a commentator because they're going to know the original language that's going to help me. I just refer you back to what we've seen so far. Okay. That Even as you use commentators, don't use them in the sense of, I just want to find out what they say and I'm going to pick one. You still want to apply all the other principles. But they can be helpful to use in your study. And also when you use commentators, beware of fine distinctions. Sometimes you're going to find that when you're studying a passage of Scripture, that they're going to make some fine distinctions that really, at the end of the day, is going to pretty much be saying the same thing. The same point is going to come across. So don't rack your brain for five hours trying to figure out. If you use all the other principles of interpretation, you can usually come to a sound conclusion. But commentators can be helpful, and so you can make good use of them. Well, we're out of time. Let me just say this. I'm not going to come back to the original languages next week. Be careful. I had some things I wanted to say. Be careful when handling the original languages. A little Greek or Hebrew can be a very dangerous thing. So be very careful. And studying the original languages is a worthy pursuit even for all of God's people. And we've even thought about having a class sometime. We're opening up to all of you if you would like to familiarize yourself with it. So next week we'll move on to the next point, context. Okay? Let's pray. Father, we thank You for this day and we thank You for Your Word. It is our desire, Lord, even in this class, that we're sharing these things. We trust that they're not extraneous. It is because we want to handle Your Word aright by the help of Your Spirit. But Lord, we know that leaning on Your Spirit does not negate or cancel out our diligent efforts to, as our own confession says, by the use of ordinary means. And we pray that we might make use of all that we can that helps us pry open