Michael, Sermon Audio is missing some Sunday school classes because some nut forgets to turn on the microphone. All right. So a particular author, we're looking at that right now and we're considering the fact that when we study the Bible, let me remind you again, when we deal with this level of context, these levels of context and all the rules of Scripture, this is not so much a step by step process you're doing in the study. Remember the quote that I gave you at the very beginning of the study that the interpreter of the Bible is doing many things, thinking many things at the same time. This is just a way in which we're sort of breaking it down in our minds to look at them individually because in many senses they overlap one another. But this is just a way that we can sort of look into this thing and dissect it and consider all the various factors that play a part. And we've considered the fact that we need to recognize that what an author means by word or expression depends upon the context in which he writes. We looked at a couple of examples. We looked at the word righteousness in the Bible and we considered last week in some detail and we brought up many things concerning how James uses the word temptation in James chapter one and how that it is possible that we that an author can sometimes use a word where both concepts can be spoken of and be brought into the same word. And we saw an example of that. So we have to always recognize context and that determines how an author is using the word. But then last week we started to look at the other two divisions under recognizing the particular author when we're studying the scriptures. And number two, under C, particular author, is different use of words or expressions does not mean different theologies. Different words or expressions does not mean different theologies. Now, what do I mean by that? What am I saying by that? And also that the same theology doesn't mean the same use of words or expressions, Brother Kevin. OK, well, the grossest form of this would be when someone would say, OK, Paul has his theology. John has his. Peter has his. They're opposed. Peter was right under his influences. Paul's under his. I have a different theology. We're not really so much susceptible to that, I trust. I mean, that's not really our issue. We believe in the infallibility and inspiration of the Bible. But there is a sense in which we have to be careful that just because authors do use different terms and different expressions, that those different expressions do not always mean that they're saying something different. They can express the same truth in different ways. For example, Apostle Paul is the only one to use the term adoption in the New Testament scripture, but he's certainly not the only writer that refers to that truth. John, when he writes under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, speaks of that truth in a little bit different terminology. In other words, he doesn't. at least in his writings, use the term adoption. But that doesn't mean that the Apostle Paul is the only one. Obviously, John is referring to that truth as well. Then we gave the example of what Brother Kevin is talking about, that there are cases where Christians who believe in the inspiration of Scripture can think that different terminology that's used by other writers is sometimes expressing different truths. And so they make unwarranted distinctions in the Bible, such as A distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God in the Gospels and we considered that that's not really that there really is really the same kingdom. But Matthew had a reason as to why he used that phrase 32 out of the 35 times he mentions the kingdom due to the fact that the Jews who had a superstition about using the name God would sometimes many times replace it with the word heaven. Thus the kingdom of heaven and Then last week, we ended sort of quickly by considering the fact that just because a doctrine is known by a particular word does not mean that every time that word is used, that that doctrine is being expressed. We considered the term. Does anyone remember the term we were considering last week when we closed? The one word description, that's one of the one word descriptions that's used throughout the New Testament described the Christian as opposed to the unbeliever. The call, referring to that effectual call that we receive through the gospel. The gospel comes, God sovereignly summons us to faith in Jesus. That call which never fails to produce the desired result, namely our being converted to the Lord Jesus Christ. And we see that throughout Scripture. But in Matthew, we gave an example where Matthew speaks about the wedding feast And you remember, Jesus at the end of that story says, many are called, but few are chosen. And certainly, Matthew's not using the word called in the same fashion that Jesus is not using that word in that fashion. We would err if we were to say, well, you see, Scripture interpreting Scripture, Matthew's use of that term offsets the way Paul uses it. So there are some cases in which a person can be called by God in that way and not respond. That effectual call is really not always effectual. But certainly, when Matthew does recognize that doctrine in Scripture, that's certainly bound up in that term chosen that he uses in the text. That certainly all of those that are chosen by God from eternity will respond to the general call of the gospel at some time. And so, we ended there last week. Now, there's one more Before we move on, there's one more famous example of this in church history where a man actually stumbled at a particular text because a particular word by which he knew a certain doctrine was in another place in Scripture which seemed to contradict all that he had learned about that doctrine. I know you know. Let me ask somebody else. Does anybody know what I'm talking about? Martin Luther. What word was it? He called it the epistle of straw, right? And why? Because, does anyone know why? You can answer now if you want. Well, he is referring to the text where In James chapter 2, you can turn there if you like, and James is arguing the fact that faith without works is dead. That faith without works is no better than the faith that the devils have. The devils believe and they tremble. Even the devils believe certain things. Well, they believe everything that God has revealed. They know these things. There's a type of faith that even demons and the devil himself has. So James arguing, he goes on in verse 20, But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. And he was called the friend of God. You see, then, that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Now, as you look at that in a surface way and you're a new Christian, you've just learned the doctrine of justification by faith alone. What's the problem you run into in this? in this text, at least very quickly, as soon as you read it. But the mistake of someone like Martin Luther, at least when he originally read this text, was that he poured into this word that James is using, the way Paul, exactly the way Paul was using the word, say, in the book of Romans or in the book of Galatians, right? What is James actually teaching here? How is he using the term justified? That's exactly what James is doing. That's the way he's using this whole concept of being justified, right? He's not talking about... Right. So, I mean, when you actually study this text and you study it in light of what Paul teaches in Romans, it's in no way contradictory to what Paul is teaching, because Paul teaches, as the Puritans used to say, that faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies is never alone, and that works justifies a man. The way James is using the term, the works justifies a man in the sense that they are the evidence and the inevitable result of justifying faith. Right? The way that we know and the way that it is proven that our faith is real and that we have a faith that is better and beyond a devil kind of faith is that true, genuine, saving faith always inevitably produces good works. And so James is not using the term justified in exactly the same way that Paul is using it. And so just a recognition of the context and the doctrine as a whole allows us to realize that such would be a mistake to take justification by faith and the way that term is used and then bring it over to James 1 and pour all of that meaning into the way James is using the term here. So those are just some examples of how we have to be careful and pay attention to the way an author may be using a particular word according to its context. That they may use different words to express the same truth. They may use the same word and the same type of word, same similar concept or word to express a different concept. And so we must always be aware of that when we're studying the Word of God. Now then, the fourth level of context that we want to move on to this morning and talk about is what? What's the fourth level of context? Well, I've actually combined the last two. We could say there's five levels, but I've combined particular testament and in the entire Bible as a whole. Now, there's various ways that we can break this down and look at it, but I broke it down in what I hope to be somewhat of an easy way to understand different ways to look at this and to apply it. But we must interpret passages in light of particular testament that it is in. and in light of the entire context of the whole Bible. Now, the first thing that I have listed under here as a subheading, under this heading, is to compare parallel accounts of the same event. When you study the Word of God as a whole, either in the particular testament that something is in or in the entire Bible, God, His word is sometimes often like watching a football game on television, right? And usually they may have three or four or five cameras from different angles capturing all the action. Now, I don't know what sport you're in, but whatever sport you may like, if you watch sports, what happens when there's a play that's a questionable play? What do the announcers and the people that are in the box do with that which is being recorded? What do they do? You know, somebody did that man step out of bounds before he caught the pass. You know, the live action was being filmed from one direction. Instant replay, maybe from two or three different directions, all right? And they'll look at it from over here. Well, John, that's not clear. Let's look at it from this angle. And they're capturing the entire action of that particular play. And God's Word is like that often. When we study the entire Word of God and we see particular accounts, In the Bible, sometimes God, in order to give us a fuller picture of what was going on, gives us more than one account of the insane event, okay? And I want to give you an example of this in the Old Testament. I want you to turn with me to 2 Samuel chapter 24 and verse 1. 2 Samuel 24 and verse 1. And the Bible says here again, the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel and he moved David against them to say, go number Israel and Judah. So the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel. And the Bible says that the Lord moved David against them to say, go number Israel and Judah. All right. So we've got At least some concept of what took place here, 1st Chronicles, Chapter 21. This is the same event, 1st Chronicles, Chapter 21. Someone read verse one for me. 2nd Chronicles, I mean, 1st Chronicles 21. Now Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to Numbers. Right now, this is exactly the same event. Now, does anyone see a problem here? So what options do we have here as we look at this verse? We don't have the option of saying that somehow someone made a mistake here, right? So they're parallel accounts. They both must be true at the same time. And this is a good example of how we need to work things like this out in our minds and in our study of the scripture. So we've got two parallel accounts. It's bringing one camera from one side, another camera from another side. We're looking at it in instant replay. One says that the Lord moved David to do this. The other says Satan stood up to do this, to move him to do this. So what we will say, George, I think it could be a misinterpretation of the word, a misunderstanding of what the word means, such as Lord or the word God, for instance, in the New Testament. That could be possible. In other words, when you first come to passage, you have to consider, wait a minute, maybe there's something textual here, something I need to consider. That's true. OK, let's just say that we look at the text and it's clear that it's the Lord who one text is the Lord who moved David and to do this and the other one is that Satan stood up against Israel to do this and moved him to do this. And we've considered that. What's one of the things that we can rule out? There's one thing that we can rule out that it's not teaching. God's not the author of sin. We know that, right? God is sovereign. Right. In other words, what he mentions about Job is a good example of this, where the devil was used in Job's life to accomplish his purpose in Job's life. And certainly, one of the doctrines we find in Scripture is that even the devil is subject and under the control of God. And if we can use the terminology, he allows the devil to do certain things in order to accomplish his own purpose. And even in his own decree, the devil is included and his activities is included in that. And ultimately, all of those factors are being used to accomplish the purpose of God. Now, there's a great sense of mystery in that. That doesn't mean we're going to be able to tie all the loose ends together. But it is certainly a passage which is viewing something from two different angles, which forces us to work this out in our minds, to consider what it can't be teaching, to consider what it does teach, and then maybe even rule out things that we can't even know for sure, certain things that blow up into mystery. But in some fashion, we've got to be able to hold to the fact that both of these verses are true. They don't contradict. And then in some way or the other, the devil was being used to accomplish the purpose of God. Now, in the New Testament, for example, just one I want to mention to you. I don't know if you remember. It's been a few years ago, but maybe he can elaborate a little bit upon it. But I remember Pastor Gonzales preached a message on the call of the disciples in Matthew chapter four. I believe it was. And you just have Jesus sort of walking by. And he just says, come follow me. All right. And so they just get up and follow him. All right. I mean, just that's all he said to him. Come follow me. That's all that's recorded. They get up and they follow him. OK. And that seems like that that with hardly no information about this person that said, follow me, that they just get up and almost in a robotic type way and start following Jesus Christ. But in that sermon, I remember Pastor Gonzalez actually taking us through the parallel accounts of the gospel. And I don't remember what all they are, but just to remind you that as he takes us through the gospel, he proves to us that I believe that was actually the third time that the disciples had been called by the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostle. Pastor Gonzales began to work out for us some very practical implications about that call, such as we can't take from that text that it's OK to preach a truncated gospel. or that we shouldn't have a shallow view of the ministry, that it's just some call with no basic knowledge, with no kind of requirements being met, but that these people, that these men had already been around Jesus, had already spent some time serving Christ, already had a basic knowledge of who He was and so forth. And that was the pastor in the study just working out parallel accounts of the same events, recognizing where Jesus was in His ministry at the time and so forth. And those are the things that have to be worked out when we compare parallel accounts in Scripture. Now, there's a particular one in the Gospels I want you to look at with me. Turn to Luke chapter 23. Luke 23. A very familiar text of Scripture as Jesus was dying upon the cross. You remember the account that He was crucified between two criminals. And in verse 39, the Bible says, Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed him, saying, If you are the Christ, save yourself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due rewards of our deeds, that this man has done nothing wrong. Then he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom. And then Jesus said to him, assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise. OK, so we have the account. One of the criminals is railing on Christ. He's blaspheming. The other criminal seems to understand the gravity of the situation, understands that he's justly condemned before God, not just man. And he cries out to Christ for mercy. He sees him as the son of God, as the savior of sinners, and he is saved there. just in the very throes of death itself. Now turn to Matthew chapter 27. Matthew chapter 27. Now here we have the same account, the same event, the two robbers, verse 38, were crucified with Christ, one on the right, The other on the left, Jesus here right in the midst of them. There were many that were passing by that were blaspheming, that were wagging their heads, taunting Him. You who destroyed the temple and will build it in three days, save yourself. You are the Son of God. If you are who you say that you are and you are the one that you claim to be, then come down from the cross. He saved others Himself. He cannot save. If He be the King of Israel, Let Him come down from the cross and we will believe Him. Then at verse 44, at the end of this account, notice what the Bible says. Verse 44, even the robbers, plural, even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing. Now, when you piece these two things together, In your personal Bible study, what do you come away with? One says, one account says, one of the robbers recognized his own sin. He trusted in Jesus Christ. Matthew's account says that the robbers, both of the robbers, were reviling Christ and saying the same thing that everyone else was saying. Jesus, if you are who you say you are, bring us down from the cross. Bring yourself down. Save us as well. As we piece these two together and bring them side by side, what's one of the practical implications of this text? What's one of the things we learn about that event? Right. In other words, as you piece them together at first, both of them were railing and reviling the Lord Jesus Christ, right? If I was preaching on that text, I'd bring this out. That at the very beginning, both were the same. Both were hardened criminals, hard-hearted sinners. And as I piece it together, I don't say that Matthew is contradicting Luke, obviously. What I conclude is that somewhere in the midst of those hours, God did a work of grace in the heart of one of these criminals. Something that he saw about Jesus that the Spirit owned to his own soul. He was born again. The Spirit softened his heart, gave him eyes to see and ears to hear the gospel, and in the very last hours of his life, he laid hold of the Lord Jesus Christ. One of the practical implications, if I was preaching this, is that it doesn't matter how hardened a person is, no matter how close to hell, they may be on the very precipice and brink of the fiery deluge and ready to go into hell itself, and yet God can intervene, even in the very last hours, and save that sinner. And you see, that's what you get when you when you piece these things together, brother. I think another thing is, is that teaching the new birth is instantaneous. Mm hmm. Amen. And so that certainly God means to teach us something by giving us parallel accounts. He doesn't just do it to take up space. They give us pieces of information as we piece these things together. You can get a harmony of the Gospels or maybe other helps to help you piece these things together. in your own study of Scripture. Now, this is not always just true within each Testament. Sometimes, particularly actually the New Testament, gives us information about Old Testament events and people that the Old Testament does not supply us with. Okay, for example, turn to the book of Jude. The book of Jude. We've got actually two examples of this in the book of Jude. One is concerning Moses. Notice in verse number 9, it says, Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke you. James, I mean, Jude is not trying to open up here for us the story and the life of Moses. He's just using an event that happened actually post-mortem to illustrate and to drive home a particular point here in this chapter, in this portion of Scripture. But in this, by using this as a point, he actually gives us more information about what happened in the days of Moses after his death. Okay, and so we see, what do we see when we see this in Scripture in the book of Jude? And we piece this together in the Old Testament account about the life and the death of the prophet Moses. That's one of the surface things we see. Well, that's my point. It doesn't mean that the Old Testament writer goofed up and left something out by accident, right? It doesn't mean that. We know that. But we can see that there was something else going on behind the scenes in these Old Testament accounts, right? And that the devil himself, even in those days, was extremely active. And for some reason, he wanted possession of Moses' corpse. We don't know what he wanted to do with it. Maybe he wanted to pick it up, animate it, deceive God's people, we're not sure exactly. But for some reason or the other, he was disputing with Michael the archangel over the body of Moses, and certainly it brings out the sinister nature of the devil. We see that even in those days he was very active in seeking to lead God's people astray and to destroy the work of God. There's another example of this in the book of Jude. Do you know who it concerns? An Old Testament character that we do not have much information about at all, actually, in the Old Testament. Nope. We have a lot of information about Lot. Somebody just barely just mentioned in the Old Testament. Enoch. What are we told about Enoch in the Old Testament? Does anybody remember? It's just very brief. God took him, alright, and he's mentioned again in Hebrews 11. He pleased God. He was a man that walked by faith with God. God took him. But here we find out a little more about Enoch. It says in verse 14, Now Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesied about these men also, saying, Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints to execute... Now you've got to realize these Old Testament patriarchs didn't know anything about about Christ and his salvation. They just had a vague conception of God, right? Is that true? Certainly, this text destroys such a notion. Obviously, Enoch knew something about the Lord's coming. He says, "...comes with ten thousands of his saints to execute judgments on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way," and so forth. And so, when we study the life of Enoch, We don't want to just go to the Old Testament Scriptures. We can come to Hebrews 11. We can come to Jude and see and gain all the information that we can about this Old Testament man that we are confronted with in Scripture. Turn to Acts chapter 7 for a moment. Another example of this. Just imagine you're studying the life of Moses in the Old Testament Scriptures. We're given here What almost seems like an incidental detail when Stephen is standing before the religious crowd and the great preacher and apologist as he lays before them the history of God's people. Notice in verse 22, he starts to speak about Moses. Or as he's speaking about Moses, and as Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was mighty in words and deeds, now when he was forty years old, came into his heart to visit his brethren, the children of Israel. And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended and avenged him who was oppressed and struck down the Egyptians. For he supposed that his brethren would have understood that God would deliver them by his hand, but they did not understand. What in that particular account is not in the Old Testament account? Can anyone recognize it? If you're familiar with that account, the Old Testament, what did Stephen tell us that's not explicitly recorded in the Old Testament concerning this event that is recorded? Moses thought process, which included there's one thing that's very distinct in here that Stephen gives. He already had some sense somehow, some way, we're not told how exactly, that he already had a sense that he would be the deliverer. And that's what, as our sister says, that was going on in the mind of Moses. It wasn't just that he got hot under the collar when he saw this taking place, but he sort of took things, you know, OK, God's going to use me to deliver these people. So he sort of took it in his own hands and began to react, perhaps we could say, in a way that wasn't right. It created some problems. He thought these people ought to understand that I'm the one God's going to use to deliver me. Now, as you read on and as you study the life of Moses, it was many more years down the road before God actually used him. Now, as you're studying that, here's one of the practical things I would gain from that study, from the information that Stephen gives. Here you've got Moses, many years earlier. He's younger. He's full of zeal. He knows God's going to use him. And so he steps out in a lot of zeal, takes this man's life. But then as you meet Moses and he comes to the burning bush, is there any difference in the thought process of Moses those many years later? What's Moses like those many years later after being on the backside of a desert for 40 years, tending sheep and living an ordinary life, being in a part of the world nobody even knew his name? He's humble. Talk plain. Earlier, I'm the man. You can't recognize I'm God's gift. Right? I mean, I don't understand. All these years later, Lord, I need some help. I can't even fulfill the role you're calling me to because I need your help. There was a kind of an unsureness. There was a sense of his own frailty, a sense of his own weaknesses and shortcomings. And so he wasn't quite the young, strapping, full of zeal with no being with no harness upon that zeal whatsoever. And so you see, folks, comparing these accounts side by side and taking this extra information helps us to get a fuller picture of what's going on in the various accounts of the Word of God. Anyone else? Maybe there's some other examples of this that that I missed or didn't write down. Does anybody know of any or any other lessons that we can learn from this that may have come to your mind? Just as a practical example. I think I'm thinking right off that it may have been communicated some way in the Old Testament. Was it? Was it? Do you remember? So I can't remember what the wording was exact. A man whose heart corresponds to the heart of God is the language. Well, as he's looking for this, anybody? Go ahead. Not a novice, not a new, not a neophyte, newly planted, right? That could be a Certainly one of the implications that could flow from that. Well, even in the life of Moses, you go to Hebrews 11. He counted greater treasures. He counted the reproach of some vague idea of Jehovah. No, he counted the reproach of who? of Christ, he knew something about Jesus Christ. He counted that greater, the reproach of Christ, greater than the treasures in Egypt. So what made Moses choose to suffer affliction with the people of God rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season is because he had the truth, at least to some real measurable degree, about Christ. And that had been given to him and revealed to him by God. As we study the life of Moses, we want to try to bring in all of the information that the Scripture gives us about that person or event, and that helps us to round it out. And I trust I've just given you some examples of how practical that can be and some of the implications that we can draw from it. Okay? And so, we want to always compare parallel accounts of the same event. But then secondly, we want to recognize the nature and purpose of both the Old and New Testament. Recognize the nature and the purpose of the Old and the New Testament. Now, can anyone tell me any text or text in the Scripture that kind of help us have a proper view of the division in our Bibles that we know as the Old and New Testament? Anybody? That's a passage of Scripture, Jeremiah 31, where God promises. I think, if I'm not mistaken, Bob, that's the only place in the Old Testament where the term New Covenant is used. Is that right, Jeremiah 31? In explicit language. That's a passage of Scripture that certainly underscores the fact that it's legitimate to view our Bibles with these two distinct Testaments, the Old and New Testament. Can anyone else think of any other verses of Scripture that help us to, as we look at it, it helps us to see that this division is legitimate. It tells us something about the Old and the New Testament. That could be legitimate as well. Brother? That's certainly one of the texts that certainly proves to us that the writings of the apostle are on the same level as the Old Testament scriptures. That's true as well. There's one particular text that I have in mind that really Sets us forth in great clarity. It's in the book of Hebrews, but it's not chapter 9. That's the book of Romans chapter 11. That's not the one I'm thinking about. Hebrews chapter 1. Now, I'm not going to open this text up, so don't be, oh boy, we're going to be here two hours. Look at this. But it's just a text of Scripture. When I think about the division of our Bible, this is one of the verses that comes to mind. It says, God, who at various times, in various ways, various portions, various ways, spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he's appointed heir of all things, to whom he's also made the worlds. of being the brightness of his glory, and to express the image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high." Now, without getting into all the particulars of this text, I do believe this is a verse that helps kind of divide up in our minds, or at least presents us with the legitimacy of considering our Bibles as Old and New Testaments. This text tells us fundamentally that God has spoken to men, right? The God of heaven has broken into time and He has revealed Himself, alright? But it also tells us that God has spoken to us, how? How has God spoken to us? He has spoken to us in two different times, at two different times, and He has spoken to us in two different ways, right? The times that he lays out in these verses are what? Time past. All right. Could we not say that's a reference to the Old Testament revelation? That's what he's speaking of. And these last days, which is referring to the days in which Christ came back in Genesis 49 when it speaks of Shallow that was to come. He mentions that that would happen in the last days. And we've been in what the Bible calls the last days since the coming of our Savior. A reference to these New Testament days inaugurated by the first coming of the Lord Jesus. And then he's spoken to us in two different ways. What's the two different ways that he lays out in these verses? In various portions and various ways through the prophets. And then in these last days, the New Testament days, he has spoken to us. All right. It's spoken. It's complete. He's not continually speaking, but he has spoken to us by his son, that being the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, what does this these verses tell us about our Bibles? Just very just to sum it up, what does it tell us about our about the Bible that we possess? So certainly we have inscripturated for us now this speaking, God speaking through his son. We have it in our New Testament. What does this what does this tell us about our Bibles? What is this? Well, for example, what does this tell us about the New Testament revelation as opposed to the Old Testament revelation? It's superior because it's more inspired. Because it's the final stage of God's revelation, but they're both equally inspired. Could you? I don't put you on spot, but if you can't, can you elaborate a little bit? Actually, he might be saying the point he's making that it's superior. In what way? In other words, the whole purpose that God was giving His revelation was moving toward a goal to speak and finally and totally through the Lord Jesus Christ. And this revelation is superior, not that it's more God's Word or more inspired, but that it is superior in that it's full, it's final, and it's complete. The Old Testament was various portions, various ways, was given, I think, somewhere over about a 1,500-year period of time. It was a long, drawn-out period of time. It didn't happen all at one time, but the New Testament revelation through Christ and mediated through His apostles happened very quickly, happened within less than a century. And it's full, and it's final, and it's complete, and it's also superior in that even though the Old Testament was God's Word, it's just as inspired, that revelation came through sinful prophets. But this came through the Lord Jesus Christ, who Himself is the Word of God. He Himself is the revelation. That's what Paul, I mean, the writer is referring to in verse 3 when he talks about this prophet being the very brightness of God's glory and express image of His person. It wasn't just what came out of His mouth that was the revelation. He was the revelation. He that's seen Me has seen the Father. And so there's a fullness, there's a finality, and there's a completeness in the New Testament revelation, which means that the Old Testament is what? Incomplete. It was incomplete. And it was preparation. All right? It was preparation for the New Testament Scriptures, okay? Now, we need to always keep that in mind when we study the Word of God. The Old Testament was still the Word of God. It's authoritative, but it was incomplete, and it was preparatory, and it was progressive over a long period of time in various portions and various ways. The New Testament, it came very quickly. It came through Christ and His apostles, and it's full, and it's final, and it's complete. Now, can anyone tell me what might be some of the principles that flow out of this view of our Bibles that ought to regulate our interpretation of the Scripture? The New Testament should be used to interpret the Old Testament. Can you elaborate? In other words, one of the statements that a couple of statements that's good to remember when you when you're thinking about the way our Bibles The way God has given us His truth is that the new is in the old concealed and the old is in the new revealed. Or the new is latent in the old and the old is patent in the new. OK. If since the old was preparing and progressively revealing God's mind and the new completes it, then certainly We don't reverse that order when we study the Scriptures. The New Testament, since it's fuller, finer, complete, and it's clearer in many fashions, then we need to take the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament Scriptures. Now, again, Brother Budd brings up the point that our dispensationalist brethren often fail to recognize this important principle when they interpret the Holy Scriptures. And we get accused often of what? What do we get accused of when we're interpreting the scripture this way, spiritualizing a text? OK, now turn with me to Amos, chapter nine and verse eleven very quickly. This is a text we'll look at a little later when we deal with how to study, interpret prophecy of scripture. But it's just a good example of of this. Now, as we. Amos chapter 9 and verse 11. All right. Amos 9 verse 11. Someone read that for me. Amos 9 verse 11. In verse 12, he goes on to say that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who does this thing. So what's God going to do on this day that he is speaking of? He's going to raise up the temple. He's going to raise up the tabernacle of David. Now, what does the New Testament, is there anything in the New Testament which looking back at this passage interprets for us at least one of the things that God meant to reveal in this passage of Scripture. I mean, if you just look at this passage of Scripture alone, without going to the New Testament, and say, I've just got to stay right into Amos, I've got to stay right in the midst of Old Testament revelation, you may conclude what? A new tabernacle will be built. Now again, I'm not getting into all the details of this text. I'm just trying to prove this point. Well, there is a sense in which Jesus tabernacled among us. And if you'll hold on to that when we get to prophecy, we'll talk about sometimes what can be multiple fulfillments of a truth. that he is both dead and buried, and he stood with us today, therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God is one and good to him, and that as the fruit of his body, according to the flag, he would raise up to Christ, and to sit on his throne, he foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of Christ, and the soul was not left in Hades to break, or do destruction, or rupture, and then saying that we raised up, and they were pricked in the heart, because those Jews knew who he meant, and Acts chapter 15, In other words, no longer was it just the Jewish people. What what though? How is James applying it here in this verse? The house is he? He's not talking about a literal, physical temple or building that he's going to be raising up. Brother Greg? Bringing in the Gentiles. And who is? Go ahead, I'm sorry. Well, I was just going to add, I think that most commentators would see the booth, the reference to the booth of David as a reference to his dynasty, sometimes in the Old Testament, one's house. speaks I mean speaks especially in the context of royalty and one's royal line or lineage. And so since in the Old Testament the gathering in of the Gentiles was connected with God's promise to David of building him a dynasty, one who would always rule on the throne, then what James is doing is connecting what's happening with the Gentiles with Christ being seated on the throne as the King of David. Do they do they apply it in any way to the new the church being the New Testament temple? Is there any application you think from that? Commentators would say that Christ is ruling upon the throne, that the church is the expression of his kingdom. We are a holy nation. And so they would connect it that way, although more dispensationalists would say, well, it has yet to happen. Right. Right. Yeah. So we are we that that that Prophecy in Amos is being fulfilled. We're not just waiting for it to be fulfilled somewhere down the road in Palestine, but God is presently doing that. Go ahead. point, the interpretive point, that Pastor Johnson was making is that I think that there's a balance. On the one hand, obviously, there's a lot more in the Amos passage than many Jewish people were seeing. They were thinking in very literal, political terms, almost exclusively. And their idea of the gemstone piles being included in any blessing that came to them was only in a very secondary sense. They would get to rule over the Gentiles, and they would get to oppress their oppressors. That's how many of the Jews looked at it, in a very carnal, political, strictly political kind of a sense. But I think a more pious Jew would have seen more than that. He would have understood, especially if he read Genesis, that God's plan of redemption was not going to terminate on the Jewish nation the Jewish nation was just going to be a mediator as it were and I could bring salvation to the entire world and the Gentiles would share in the very same blessings that the Jews would enjoy at least those whose hearts have been circumcised. That's how a pious Jew should have interpreted Amos. However there still are aspects to the fulfillment of that when we come to the New Testament that even the pious Jew really didn't fully I'm. The way in which he brought the Gentiles in, the way in which he ascended to the throne by way of the cross, that's the part that was even surprising, and that's the part that wasn't fully disclosed in the Old Testament. It was hinted at, it was referred to, you know, the suffering sermon of Isaiah 53. But we do need to remember, though, that the light of the Old New Testament, as Pastor Johnson is saying, is much more brighter than the Old Testament saying at the very best. He should have seen them. They're there, but he couldn't see them as clearly as the New Testament was saying. And there's even a sense in which it wasn't that promise fulfilled literally to a certain degree later, the Amos promise. to the Israel. Was that not what they're not. Right. Yeah. What would you say there was a certain. There was something of what might be called you know a sort of a partial fulfillment there. But the fact that in those in those books it emphasizes that the temple the second temple was nothing like the Solomonic temple was kind of a sort of a let down. And also, when you see the continuing sins of the people and the lack of faith, which Malachi denounces and Ezra denounces, you quickly begin to see that there's got to be something more. The very letdown of the books of Nehemiah and Ezra and Malachi and so forth, they point to pride. Well, brethren, we'll continue this next week. I hope that you're But I've made a little sense here when we talk about the division of our Bibles and how this affects, or at least we begin to lay out some of these principles, and we'll continue this next week. Let's pray. Father, we thank you for your holy word.