00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
Our study this evening is in
the Westminster Confession, Chapter 1, Section 9, which deals with
hermeneutics. Hermeneutics means the interpretation
of a written text. The term comes from Greek mythology,
the god Hermes, who is the messenger of the gods. So hermeneutics
is the study of the message or how we should interpret a written
text to understand its message properly. And in the Westminster
Confession, chapter 1, section 9, we have a doctrinal statement
about hermeneutics which is very important for our consideration.
Let me read it for you. The infallible rule of interpretation
of scripture is the scripture itself, and therefore When there
is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture,
which is not manifold but one, it must be searched and known
by other places that speak more clearly. There are three basic theses
to be found in this statement about hermeneutics. It's not
a full discussion of hermeneutics. In fact, some of you may be aware
that last year I was asked to write a confessional statement
on hermeneutics to help combat modern heresies within the church. And that statement had 13 articles
and I think ran six or seven pages. And it didn't cover everything,
obviously, but it was just the main outline of things. But back in the days of the Westminster
Confession, the opposition to orthodox faith, which the Puritans
faced, could pretty much be answered by the three theses that we find
in this statement. The first thesis is that scripture
interprets scripture. The second thesis is that the
obscure should be interpreted by the more clear, And the third thesis is that
the sense or meaning of scripture is not manifold but one. That
scripture is unified in what it teaches us. Let's begin our
study by looking at 2 Timothy 2.15. Paul writes to the pastor Timothy
give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman
that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth." It's a moral obligation for us
to stand before God and have his approval because we have
not distorted his word or used it as a pretext for our own preconceived
ideas, but rather have properly handled it. The King James translation,
rightly dividing the word of truth, was wrongly divided by
Schofield and his followers. They thought that meant you should
recognize the proper dispensations that divide the Bible. Rightly
dividing the word of truth. I should have brought the proof
to you. I have the booklet that Schofield published. That's the
title and it's a discourse on the dispensations. But rightly
dividing has to do with handling properly, discerning, cutting
straight as you interpret the Bible. So the scripture tells
us that it's important that we interpreted it properly and that
we handled it in a correct way. If you think about it for a moment,
we have already studied the sufficiency of scripture and the clarity
of scripture and we've had occasion to reflect on the final authority
of scripture. So we believe the Bible to be
perspicuous or clear, we believe it to be sufficient for our needs
and to be our highest authority. But all three of those points
can be readily undermined by claiming that although whatever
the Bible says is infallible, the meaning of what the Bible
says must be determined by some other source than scripture itself.
So it's crucial to guard these doctrines of the faith about
scripture by supplementing them with a statement regarding hermeneutics. Because if we don't do that,
then some human authority intrudes between God's word and the child
of God, so that the word doesn't exercise final authority, but
the human interpreter exercises the final authority. The need for the statement that
we've read in the Westminster Confession, Chapter 1, Section
9 is obvious if I can give you just a couple examples. The Council
of Trent Roman Catholic Council that was designed to counteract
the Fascist Reformation. The Council of Trent declared
in the 16th century, and I quote, to check unbridled spirits, the
Council decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall in
matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of doctrine
disturbing the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,
presumed to interpret them contrary to that sense which Holy Mother
Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and
interpretation, has held, or holds, or even contrary to the
unanimous teaching of the Fathers." That's rather plain, isn't it?
The Roman Catholic Church says Holy Mother Church interprets
the Bible and no one dare disagree with the interpretation of the
church. Of course there is a rather humorous
and I think obnoxious triviality in this statement. If I read
it again perhaps you'll pick it up. What is forbidden is that
anyone should distort the scriptures. To check unbridled spirits, the
Council decrees that no one, relying on his own judgment,
shall on matters of faith and morals pertain to the edification
of doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with
his own conceptions, presumed to interpret them contrary to
the sense which Holy Mother Church brings to the Scripture. Well,
in that sense, I agree with the Council that no one has the right
to follow his own conceptions and distort what the Bible says. But you notice that the Council
doesn't say distort what the Bible says on its own reading,
but distort what the Bible says on the reading of the Holy Mother
Church. In 1893, Pope Leo XIII declared
that the Church is, quote, the perfectly trustworthy guide and
teacher. In which case, he went on to
say, the proper meaning of Scripture is, and I quote, that sense which
has been and is held by our Holy Mother, the Church, whose is
the judgment of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy
Scriptures, so that nobody is allowed to explain Holy Scripture
contrary to that sense or to the unanimous opinion of the
Fathers." So these two quotations will
show you, I think, vividly what the object of the Puritan disdain
was when they wrote section 9 of chapter 1. It's the Roman Catholic
Church pretending that everybody's got to bow the knee to what it
says the interpretation of the Bible is. But according to our confession
of faith, no human interpreter needs to come between God's word
and God's child. No human interpreter has the
right to stand as a screen, as it were, between me and the ultimate
authority of scripture, telling me, well, this is what scripture
means and you must bow to it. Now, when I say this, that no
one has the right to intrude between the child of God and
the word of God, notice that what I mean is no one has the
right to intrude as a judge, as someone who binds the conscience.
Because God has, after all, given us servants of the word to help
his people. And we have the right to teach
God's word, to proclaim it from the pulpit. The church even has
the right to write the creeds and confessions of faith to help
people understand what the bible says. But no one has the right
to say that this is the interpretation of scripture and you do not have
the right to disagree with us by going directly to the scripture.
So no one has the right to intrude as a judge although everyone
has the right to help others and in that sense be a servant
of the word rather than a judge of the word in trying to help
other believers to understand it. To put it very simply, Protestants
hold to the right of private interpretation against the imperial
claims of Roman clericalism. The Roman Church wants to have
imperial authority and let its clerics tell us what the Bible
means, and to deprive us of the right of judging what its clerics
say by going directly to the Bible, whereas Protestants hold
to the right of private interpretation. So, you'll notice in the Confession
of Faith, going back there, that it begins by referring to the
infallible rule of interpretation. the infallible rule of interpretation,
the Roman Church teaches that the Roman Church itself authoritatively
determines what is canonical, we've already seen that in previous
studies, the Roman Church determines what traditions are the infallible
ones, and the Roman Church teaches what is the correct meaning of
scripture and tradition. So I mean, the ultimate authority
is obviously that of the Magisterium of Rome. It tells you what is
the Bible, it tells you what traditions are infallible, and
it tells you what the meaning of the Bible and tradition is.
But Protestant theology, by contrast, teaches that the canon is self-authenticating. It's not the result of the work
of the Church. Protestant theology teaches that
only Scripture is authoritative in the Church, not tradition
along with it. And now, as we see in tonight's
lesson, Protestant theology teaches that every individual believer
is permitted to interpret the meaning of scripture for himself
or herself. Remember, we believe the Bible
is perspicuous. And because the Bible is perspicuous,
it has no need for some human authority to intrude to tell
us what it means. It's not the church that clarifies
the scripture but God himself who clarifies the scripture and
its meaning. Now does this imply that every
individual can make scripture say just whatever he or she wishes
it to say? Sometimes people hear the right
of private interpretation And they take that to mean, well,
I can believe whatever I want. You know, I can make the Bible
like a wax nose to be pushed this way or pushed that to fit
the configuration of whatever I want it to be. No, we're not
at all talking about the right of distorting the Bible. We're
talking about the right of individual believers to interpret what it
says according to proper rules of interpretation. It doesn't
mean you can just turn the Bible into any kind of message you
want it to be. But the point is those rules
of interpretation are followed by individuals and they compare
notes with each other rather than the rule of interpretation
being the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Just to drop
on us as it were from above, this is what it means and you
have no right to question it. Can you all see the difference
between those two? Both want to avoid the idea that the Bible
can be made to say anything you want it to. But the Roman approach
is political. You have this body of men who
tell you what the Bible says and you dare not question it.
Whereas the Protestant approach is, and bear me out here, is
rational in the sense that rather than going to a political solution,
imposed meaning, one uses one's mind and the proper canons of
interpretation in order to understand what the Bible says. The scripture doesn't anywhere
authorize any body of men to tell other men what God's word
does and does not mean, thereby binding their consciences. In the end, we always stand before
God and answer only for His word to us. We don't answer for some
church council's word to us about God's word. God is going to hold
us accountable to what he said, not to what the Roman Catholic
Church said or even the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And for that reason, creeds and
elders in the Church can only bind those who voluntarily adopt
those creeds and submit to those elders. You don't believe in
political tyranny. is going to be subject to the
discipline of a church, it's only because they have voluntarily
chosen to submit to the discipline of that church. And on the best
reading, what they're supposed to do is to choose to submit
to a church because they have read the Bible and they see agreement
between the teaching of this church and what the Bible says.
They don't submit to the authority of the church to tell them what
the Bible means. Moreover, even those creeds and
the decisions of elders within a church are binding only so
far as they agree with scripture. So this section of the confession
does not rule out the very thing in which it appears, a confession
of faith. The church can write a confession of faith. But no
one is bound to that confession unless they voluntarily submit.
And they are only bound to it to the degree that it is true
to the scriptures. I recently, when I was in England,
presented an interpretation of 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 on
the man of sin. That's a notoriously difficult
passage. There's a lot of different opinions
on it, and I offered what I thought was the best that our scholarship
can come up with on that. And I was challenged in the question
period by a free Presbyterian minister who asked how dare I
disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith since it
offers its own interpretation of that text at one point. Now we have to understand it's
one thing to respect the Westminster Confession. I think anybody who's
been in this class knows that I hold it in very high regard
when I believe that it is the authority within my denomination
and should be enforced and that sort of thing. However, the Confession
itself teaches us not to make the Confession our primary standard.
The Confession tells us that we're only to follow it to the
extent that it itself follows the Scripture. Clearly the people
who wrote the confession felt that it followed the scripture
at every point or they wouldn't have written what they did. But
the fact is the writers of our confession grant the right of
private interpretation and so I cannot be bound to the confession
to the exclusion of comparing it to the scripture as my final
authority. Okay, so the infallible rule
of interpretation according to the Puritans is rational, not
political. Rational in the sense that every
individual is to use canons of truth and interpretation of what
a body of men have determined by a vote to interpret the Bible. Now, the infallible rule of interpretation
of scripture... What is the best source What
is the best judge for explaining what you meant by saying something? Yeah, you yourself, am I right?
Let's say, I've had this happen a number of times, especially
when people have ill will towards you and they want to find some
reason to criticize you. You say something and you find
out, oh, it was interpreted in a particular way which Okay,
the words may have been open to that, but that isn't what
you meant. But then when you go to, sometimes when I've tried
to tell people, now that's not what I meant, but those words
also could be taken this way. And it's like, oh no, that isn't
what those things mean. Those words mean this, and therefore
you're wrong. Well, you know, apart from, you
know, being part of a gang that wants to mistreat you, I think
everybody can see that the best judge of what you meant by what
you said is you yourself. That doesn't exclude the possibility
that somebody might lie because they're embarrassed later, but
the fact is, if words can be taken in different ways, the
best thing you can do is to go to the speaker and ask him or
her, do you mean it this way or do you mean it that way? That same common sense rule should
be applied to the scripture. The person is the best source
and judge for explaining what he meant by saying something,
So the Holy Spirit is the adequate expounder of what he inspired
to be written in the Bible. Okay, so we pick up the Bible
and read it over what the meaning of some text is. The best interpreter
of what the Holy Spirit meant is the Holy Spirit himself. Now, where do we find what the
Holy Spirit says? Well, it's in the Scripture.
And so, I'm just trying to show that this is a very natural unfolding
that should be commonsensical to us, that the Bible must be
its own interpreter. Therefore, according to the Confession,
when there is in question about the true and full sense of anything,
it must be searched and known by other places that speak more
clearly. This teaches us that no sense
can be given to any particular text which is out of harmony
with other texts. If somebody is interpreting the
Bible for you and says this verse means the following, but you
know other verses that contradict that interpretation, that immediately
disqualifies this alleged interpretation of the Bible. No sense or meaning
can be given to any text which is contradicted elsewhere in
the Bible. It means also that other portions of scripture can
help make the meaning of a difficult text more readily understandable. So we have a rule that the Bible
is not to be made to contradict itself, and also a guideline,
a help to us, that if you're unclear about some passage, you
need to study more of scripture so the difficult text will become
more readily understandable. Now that being the case, obviously
we are to reason from the clear teaching of scripture to the
obscure teaching of scripture. You don't begin with an obscure
difficult text and then go to other texts and make them conform
with it. But you start with the clear
text and then you go to the ones that are more difficult. Let
me see if I can give you, I think, outrageous illustration of the
violation of this rule in our own day and age in evangelical
circles. Sometimes we have dispensationalists
go to prophetic portions of scripture, or especially the book of Revelation,
and they work out what they think these things mean. And then they
go to other passages of scripture that are more didactic or epistolary,
you know, like the works of Paul or something like that, and they
have to make those texts conform to their interpretation of the
prophetic text. Now that's got it backwards.
Obviously we ought to go to those clear statements where figurative
language, poetic expression is not being used, and gain an understanding
and let that understanding be the stepping stone for getting
at what the prophetic or the apocalyptic text have to mean. For instance, if you have read
Old Testament prophecy to teach the rebuilding of the temple
in Jerusalem, the reinstitution of animal sacrifices, yet the
book of Hebrews clearly declares that's an abomination to continue
the animal sacrifices, you should think that obviously you go back
and change your reading of the prophetic text in Ezekiel or
what have you. That's the obscure, the clear
declaration in the epistle to the Hebrews should guide us.
But I have seen numerous times in my own life, people say, well,
the book of Hebrews must be qualified by what Ezekiel says. It is wrong
for the Jews in that day and age to follow the animal sacrifices,
but when they are reinstituted they will be a memorial of the
sacrifice of Christ. So we can still hold on to our
interpretation of the prophetic text in Ezekiel. You see, that
has it all backwards. The Puritans knew better than
that. You work from the clear to the controversial or the obscure
text and not the other way around. This is a really obvious rule
of interpretation. It's the way you would want to
be interpreted. If someone picked up your writings or something
you'd said, you'd want to start with what is obvious and clear
and then let it be a guide to resolving ambiguities or obscurity
in things that you had said elsewhere. I say this is an obvious rule
of interpretation, but it's not a very helpful rule. Well, it's not helpful in resolving
a dispute between two believers about the meaning of a particular
text. You stop and think about it. The reason it's not going
to be helpful is that usually, not always, but usually when
two believers are in a life and death struggle over how you interpret
some text, they're also going to dispute over what is more
clear and what is less clear. Both could say, of course, we
go to the clear first and then we take the controversial in
light of what is clear. But if push comes to shove, they're
going to disagree also over which is the more clear and what is
the less clear. Now, I don't happen to think
that Jehovah's Witnesses are believers, and so it's not as
good an illustration as what happens when we talk to our brothers
and sisters in the church. But I can give you an illustration
of this sort of thing. Jehovah's Witnesses sitting in
my front room one day, and wanting to prove that Jesus is not fully
and eternally God, goes to the text in Colossians 2, where Jesus
is called the firstborn of all creation. It's there. It's obvious then, Jesus is the
first created thing. I say, well as a matter of fact,
that expression, firstborn, can be taken in different ways. It's
not only a reference, in some cases, to literal birth, first
in the series, but it also is a legal position, the one who
inherits all things from the Father. So the firstborn of all
creation could mean the one who owns all of creation in virtue
of the Father's decree to him, and it does not have to mean
the first in the series of things created. And in fact, other texts
that I can go to show that Jesus was not created, so he could
not be the first born in the literal sense of creation, the
first created thing. And so the Jehovah's Witness
tells me that I'm wrong because this text clearly teaches that
Jesus is the first created thing. And I say, well, but as a rule
of interpretation we should start We've got a controversy on this
verse. Let's go to the other verses of scripture where there's
a straight out statement that Jesus is eternal or whatever
it may be, and we'll see that your interpretation cannot be
accepted. To which the Jehovah's Witness says to me, this verse
is more clear than the verses you're going to. So that's what I'm getting
at. This is an obvious rule of interpretation,
but I think you need to expect a sense of frustration or disappointment
when you try to apply it in the case of a tough dispute with
somebody because what will happen is the dispute will change from
what this verse means to what is clear and what is not clear.
When people have their minds made up in advance, you see,
you're not going to be able with this one rule to shape them,
not in all cases, although in some cases you can. Anyway, the
confession has taught us that the infallible rule, that standard
of interpretation is not political, it's rational. And that specifically
scripture interprets scripture, so that where there's a question
about the true and the full sense of any scripture, it must be
searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. And I'm going to try to illustrate
for you four different ways in which the Bible interprets itself. Sometimes scripture offers its
own explicit commentary on something that was revealed earlier. Let
me pass out some text for you all to be prepared to read. Dave Acts 2 verses 25 to 31. Nathan are you ready here? Can you help us with Romans 9
24 to 26? And Brendan Revelation 17 verse 7. Barbara, Romans 4, 13. Rob, Hebrews 10, verses 1 and
2. Glenn, John 1, 14. And Vicki, John 2, verse 21.
So if we all look those up and we can
go through these illustrations expeditiously. Romans 9, excuse me, Romans 9,
24-26. Okay, I'm going to give four
different ways, probably others could be added, but four ways
that should be clear to us where Scripture helps interpret Scripture. Sometimes, Scripture offers its
own explicit commentary on something revealed earlier, Acts 2, 25-31.
For David says of him, I was always beholding the Lord
in my presence, for he is at my right hand that I may not
be shaken. Therefore my heart was glad and
my tongue exulted. However, my flesh also will abide
in hope, because thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades or allow
my Holy One to undergo decay. Thou hast made known to me the
ways of life. Thou wilt make me full of gladness
with thy presence. Brethren, I may confidently say
to you regarding the patriarch David, that he both died and
was buried and his tomb is with us today. And so because he was
a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to
set one of his descendants upon the throne, he looked ahead and
spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that he was neither abandoned
to Hades nor did his flesh suffer decay. So here, Peter quotes
a section from Psalm 16, and he goes on to say, David looked
ahead and spoke of the resurrection by these words. So here's one
portion of scripture, Acts 2, that tells us the meaning of
another portion of scripture, Acts 16. So this is the most
obvious way in which scripture interprets scripture, when it
comes right out and says, here's the meaning of what that text
is. Another one, Romans 9, 24 to 26. even as whom he also called,
not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. As he says also in Hosea, I will
call those who were not my people, my people, and who were not beloved,
beloved. And it shall be that in a place
where it was said to them, you are not my people, their faith
shall be called servitude unto God. And I bear Christ as His
individual. That's okay, we can stop at that
point. He goes on to Isaiah here, that here Paul is trying to prove
that God's intention was to save the Gentiles as well as the Jews,
and he quotes Hosea, so that we might understand that when
God declared through Hosea, those who are not called my people
will be called my people, that that text meant that the Gentiles
would be included along with the Jews. Revelation 17 verse 7 is another
illustration of how scripture interprets something previously
revealed. And the angel said to him, why do you wonder, I have heard
of the mystery of the Lord and of the Jews,
that through the Holy Shadow of the Son of God Here the angel
says to John, why are you in confusion about this vision that
you have? God has revealed the woman across
the seven heads of the beast and so forth, and John wonders
what great wonder, to use the King James, and the angel says,
I will tell you the meaning of the mystery. So scripture here
offers an interpretation of what has already been revealed. That's
one of the four ways that I can think of that scripture interprets
scripture. Another, secondly, sometimes scripture shows us
that the meaning was broader than the original explicit words,
that the meaning was broader than what might have appeared
in the original explicit words taken out of context. Romans
4.13. The reason I had Barbara read
this is because Paul says that the promise to Abraham was that
he'd be heir of the world. The difficulty is you won't find
that in the Old Testament. The promise to Abraham was that
he'd be heir of Palestine, the promised land. And so Paul, in using these words,
referring to things said to Abraham in the Old Testament, shows us
that in the Old Testament what God promised Abraham was only
a token, part for whole as we say. God showed part of what
he intended by promising in Palestine, but Palestine was a symbol or
a picture for the whole world being given to God's people.
And so here scripture helps us to understand what was being
said in the Old Testament scriptures. Thirdly, sometimes the Bible
draws out the implications of what was originally said. Just
a second ago I said that the Bible sometimes shows a broader
meaning or application than what you might have thought when you
just read that Abraham has promised Palestine. It turns out that
that had a broader application that scripture now shows us,
Abraham was promised the world. But now in this third illustration
what I'm getting at is that the Bible draws out the implications
of something that was said, not just broadens the application
but shows us the implications of what was said. Hebrews 10
verses 1 and 2. For the law, since it has only a shadow to
give things to come, and not the very form of things, can
never but some sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually,
make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have
ceased to be offered, because the worshippers, having once
been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of things. Here the author of Hebrews says,
that if you think about it, you could have known from the Old
Testament itself that the sacrifices were inadequate. Why? Because
they continued to be offered. If an adequate sacrifice had
been made, that would have ended everything right then. So this
is not something like reading between the lines. It's rather
stopping to say now, what is the implication of the continuation
of the sacrifices that we read about in the Old Testament? So
here's Scripture, is interpreting Scripture, by helping us see
the logical implication of it. And then fourthly, sometimes
the Bible provides further information on the same or similar subject,
and therefore interprets itself. This is not a case of the Bible
saying, okay, here's what this verse means, or here's a broader
application of this verse, or here's an implication of this
verse for teaching. Sometimes we can go to the Bible
and learn more things about the subject of a verse or a text
or a similar subject and thereby gain help in understanding the
text that confused us. The illustration I've chosen
here is John 1.14 with John 2.21. Why don't we begin with John
2.21? That he was speaking of the temple
of his body. In this particular context, Jesus
has said, if you destroy this temple, I will raise it in three
days. The Jews are all in a huff over this. The leaders are really
angry about Jesus talking that way. Then, John tells us, by
the way, here's a case where the Bible interprets the Bible.
The Bible reports Jesus saying, destroy this temple. John says
he was referring to his body, not to the building over here.
But now, what does that mean, that he's referring to his body?
How could Jesus be referring to his body? Destroy this temple,
and I'll raise it in three days. Now granted, you all know the
answer, because you know the three days, you know, resurrection
imagery means that he's going to rise from the dead. But why
would Jesus talk that way? Why does he call his body the
temple? Well, as far as I know, there's
no text where The Bible says this is what this verse means.
But there's plenty of other information that bears on this. So as one
example, John 1.14. And the word became flesh and
dwelt among us. And we beheld its glory, glory
as if it only had gotten from the Father, full of grace and
truth. Okay, now in English we're not helped as much as we would
if you knew Greek. I'm sorry about that. But I think
most of you probably heard that when John says and the word became
flesh and dwelt among us. The word dwelt means tabernacled
among us. So Jesus takes on, I mean Jesus
is the son of God incarnate, enfleshed and his flesh then
is the tabernacle of God among us. That helps us to understand
how in the second chapter of John he can say destroy this
temple or tabernacle and I'll raise it up. I'm the temple of
God, I'm going to raise it up in three days after you kill
me. And then if we don't have the time to do this, I have tapes
on it if you'd like to pursue it. If you look at the Old Testament,
there's a great deal of teaching about the significance of the
tabernacle and the temple. And I'll boil it all down for
you that the tabernacle is where God dwells in the midst of his
people. So Jesus comes into this world
and tabernacles among us. He is incarnate God dwelling
in the midst of his people. He is God in our very midst.
And so Jesus says, you destroy me, you reject me, but I will
raise up this temple, God in the midst of his people, in three
days. Okay, so here's where the Bible helps interpret the Bible,
but not by it pointing explicitly to something but by our drawn
together texts that have a similar theme or talk about the same
subject. Sometimes this rule of the Bible
interpreting the Bible is called the analogy of faith. The analogy
of faith. And I wish I could give you a
good explanation of the source of that phraseology. I've never run into anything
that's either stuck with me or convinced me. That's a strange
expression, I realize, but I've gotten used to using it. You
will too. The analogy of faith simply means that there's a general
scheme of divine truth so that different sections of scripture
mutually supplement each other and explain each other. The analogy
of faith means when one text, you know, leaves you kind of
bewildered or confused, there's other texts of scripture that
will supplement and I throw light on it to help you understand
it. The analogy of faith assumes the coherence of God's revelation. That there's nothing in the Bible
that is contradictory with anything else in the Bible. So that the
meaning of a text, if you hold to the analogy of faith, the
meaning of a text is to be sought in the light of scripture as
a whole, not in the light of tradition or speculation or church
opinion. So what we do is to find what
this text means, we go to something that's analogous to it and we
look at the statement of the faith, the analogy of faith,
not church tradition, not philosophical speculation or any human opinion. There's one other aspect of this
section of the confession before we get done tonight that we should
stop and reflect on. We're told the infallible rule
of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself, that's
the analogy of faith. And therefore when there's a
question about the true and full sense of any scripture, notice
the parentheses, which is not manifold but one. It must be
searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. Here
the writers of the confession reject the medieval approach
to interpretation. that said there was a three or
a four-fold sense to the Bible. Depends on which medieval writer
you're following here. And these different senses can
have completely separate meanings and applications. You have the
literal sense, the plain meaning of the text. You have the moral
sense of the text. And then you have the spiritual
sense of the text. And in some writers you have
the apagogical meaning, which is the heavenly meaning of the
text, what it will mean for the future. So to take a common illustration,
if you read a text that speaks of Jerusalem, there are three
or four meanings to this text. First, there's the historical
meaning, the city in Palestine that we call Jerusalem. But there's
the moral sense too, whatever it says about Jerusalem applies
to the capital of man's soul, because Jerusalem was the capital
of God's people. But then there's also the spiritual
sense, which teaches us something about doctrine, something about
God. And then there's also the heavenly
Jerusalem sense that teaches us about heaven. You know, what
it will be like once we leave this world and transcend time
and space. So you can imagine all the fanciful
and ridiculous and worthless things that can be done when
you approach the Bible and say, well now, do you want to take
it literally or morally or analogically? Do you want to take it spiritually
or apagogically? The Puritans said, forget all
that. The meaning of Scripture is not
manifold. It's not two, three, four different
ways of interpreting. It's one. Now, does this mean
that scripture cannot have a complex meaning? Complex meaning two
things related to each other, but there's more to it than what
might first meet the eye. No, it doesn't rule that out.
In fact, if you look at the statement of the confession, we're told
right before the parenthesis Therefore, when there is a question
about the true, noticed, and full sense of any scripture. So the writers of the Confession
grant that the sense of scripture can be a full and complex matter. Let's remember the example from
Romans chapter 4 where Paul tells us the promises to Abraham about
Palestine were real promises about the earth. Now does that
mean that they were not promises about Palestine? No, they were,
but there's more to it than that. And these two meanings are not
separate, certainly not in conflict, one's the extension of the other.
So there's a fuller sense than just thinking about the sand
of Palestine when you read those promises, a fuller sense. But
that's different from the medieval approach that says, well now
what's Generally speaking, the Protestant
approach to interpretation is known as literal interpretation. But in our day and age, literal
interpretation is not understood properly. Literal means according
to the letter. And when you do literal interpretation,
that means you're going to interpret the Bible according to what it
says, rather than reading what the Holy Spirit is telling you
between the lines. There's no spiritual or mystical
interpretation of the Bible. Literal had nothing to do with
whether figures of speech are used or not used in the Bible.
Today when people say, I interpret the Bible literally, they often
mean, I don't take it as a figure of speech. Well, when John writes
that there's going to be a seven-headed monster that comes out of the
Mediterranean Sea, That is a figure of speech and no one, even people
who claim with all their heart that they are literalists, no
one takes that literally. If you mean by literally, just
as it is described and not as a figure for something else.
But even the figures of speech are to be, quote, literally interpreted,
meaning we understand them by looking at the letter, at what
is actually written rather than consulting the mystical sense
that the Holy Spirit gives me when I encounter this text. So
we believe in literal interpretation, we believe in grammatical-historical
interpretation. That's another expression we'll
sometimes run into. Grammatical-historical means
the literal meaning in its historical setting. Gramma here doesn't
mean grammatical so much technically as English grammar is studied. the gramma meaning letter, the
grammatical or the written philological sense in its historical setting.
Because it doesn't do any good to take the meaning of words
from say the 17th century and then try to plow them back into
the scripture when it was written back in the first century. So
you look at the meaning of the text in light of its historical
setting. So we believe in literal interpretation,
which simply means you go by the written word, not by the
mystical sense. And we believe in grammatical
historical interpretation, reading the Bible in its own historical
setting, according to what is actually in the text. And when
we do not clearly understand or have trouble with what the
Bible says at some point, we go to what the Bible says elsewhere
to understand it. We don't go to the political
decrees of some church hierarchy. So that, in essence, is what
we have in this short section of the confession. Would you
like to ask any questions on tonight's lesson? You identified
the four-layered approach as being other than just the plain,
the moral, lastly, the apagogical, or heavenly, or mystical approach. What was the third? is the spiritual
and mystical, which tells us about matters of doctrine and
faith. Is it a word of influence that
the glory is so departed from Israel that when It is said that God tabernacled
with us in Christ's person, that the Shekinah at the presence
tabernacled their own look and not in the temple at that point. The Shekinah glory
with God dwelt in the temple at that time. When John tells
us that Jesus tabernacled among us and that the glory of the
only begotten was there, I think he intends for us to say that
the Shekinah glory of God is found in Christ. So when Christ
is crucified and the barrel of the temple is torn in two, then
the glory of God is no longer found there, but rather on the
cross. Jesus said that if he were raised
up from the earth, that God would there glorify him, and all men
would see his glory. So Jesus on the cross is the
Shekinah glory of God, and it's no longer found in the tabernacle.
All of this is fascinating and can be pursued, The point is
that we have to let scripture control what we say about these
things, and not just let our imaginations run away with us. In our day and age, we have some
very clever teachers, and I don't mean that necessarily in a derogatory
way, clever teachers, who have artistic imagination, and they
say all sorts of things, and as they say, they like to maximize
the interpretation of what's found in the Bible. And that
scares me because I want to get the full sense of scripture.
I want scripture to control what its full sense is and not human
imagination. Other questions? In the Council
of Trentland they say consensus of the church fathers. pretty vague in itself because
they counter-dictate themselves so much on a lot of areas, or
even some that you would consider general. Actually, I would strengthen
your criticism. It's not that it's vague, it's
just downright bogus. There was no consensus among
the Church Fathers. Peter Abelard wrote a book that
got him in a lot of trouble entitled Sic et Non, in Latin, Yes and
No, in which he pitted the Church Fathers against one another on
a number of key doctrinal points. And so he said, when the church
appeals to the consensus of the church fathers, he says, you're
appealing to something that doesn't exist. They disagreed with one
another. Does anyone have a copy of this book? Oh, I would imagine,
yeah. I don't happen to have one. I'm
not sure if it's printed, but I should be able to put our hands
on it. Let me ask Mike. Has a test piece to help categorize
four different types of ways that scripture interprets itself.
What would you put the passage where Paul talks about the odds,
not muzzling the odds, would you put that under the expansion
and Paul bringing out the broader meaning, or was he teasing out
implications from the previous version? If any, the choices,
that would be the one that he's showing the implications. But
I wouldn't call it that. By implications, I mean drawing
logical extensions that are not there, you know, obvious in the
text or drawn out for us in the original text. In the case that
you brought up about Paul applying, not muscling the ox to the preacher,
I think he's taking the figure of speech in the way that it
was originally meant by God, and just says, remember, God
says, and God gives the illustration of the ox, and even back then
they knew it applied beyond oxen. So I don't see that so much as
scripture interpreting scripture, I think that's just an application
of scripture. But now some people would say,
well, all the law meant was you have to take care of your oxen.
But then see, Paul says right in the text, you appeal to, God
doesn't care about oxen, does he? I think in the sense that
Paul meant it. God doesn't care merely about
oxen. It's just a wooden and mistaken
reading of scripture to think that the law didn't apply to
things beyond oxen. The oxen was just the illustration
of a general principle. In the text where that appears,
isn't it so isolated, the reference to oxen is so isolated that it
appears that he's using metaphor even in that text. in 1 Corinthians 9 in the citation
in the law? Oh, well, like I said, there
are some people who really abuse the scripture and they say that's
all God cared about I guess. But if you read the law broadly,
you'll see that God uses concrete illustrations for moral principles. And I don't think a sensitive
reading of the law would ever have led anybody to think he
was only talking about optimism. Or think about the flying axe
head. Are we to believe that God doesn't
want that principle applied to flying sickle blades? If a sickle
blade comes out of its handle and kills somebody? Well, the
principle is being illustrated, and so what Paul does here in
1 Corinthians 9 is he just takes the illustration and applies
it the way it would have been even in the original case, I
think. Good questions. Do you have any
other ones you want to ask? Barbara? You know, this is kind
of an academic exercise. We talk about education and there
are people who lost their lives over this that we take for granted. Oh, yeah. And I'm sure it's great
knowledge, but it's good to be reminded that it's good for me
that this is a great doctrine that we have the freedom to believe
in. We don't have the freedom to
believe anything we want, but we have the freedom to go directly
to the Bible and not through the agency of the Church. There
were plenty of people who disagreed with the Roman Catholic interpretation
of Jesus' words, this is my body. And because they disagreed with
the magisterial interpretation of Rome, the doctrine of transubstantiation,
the Inquisition killed these people. Where has it been fought
over the right of individuals to go to the Bible and interpret
it directly with the guidance of the Holy Spirit rather than
the conscience-binding authority of the Church? So I appreciate
you bringing that out for us, and let's remember, because it's
being lost again in our day, I'm afraid. The Protestant doctrine
of private interpretation is not being respected or understood
how important it is. We will lose our own ecclesiastical
and eventually political liberties if we don't hold to it.
09 - Holy Scripture Ch. 1, Sec 9 (9 of 46)
Series Westminster Confession Faith
9 of 46
GB1508
| Sermon ID | 102920317191365 |
| Duration | 57:24 |
| Date | |
| Category | Teaching |
| Bible Text | Acts 15:15; John 5:46 |
| Language | English |
Documents
Add a Comment
Comments
No Comments
© Copyright
2026 SermonAudio.