Ron Dunn Podcast - Interpreting The Bible For Yourself Part 2

Episode Date: May 5, 2022

Ron Dunn brings part two of his series on interpreting the Bible

Ah, good, you're still there. I was afraid I might have bored you so much you didn't stay with me. Well, now that we're all here, let's move on to the third rule of interpretation. Number three, the revelation of God is progressive, or perhaps better said, culminative. The revelation of God is a progressive revelation. Now, the two words that provide the key to understanding what we call progressive revelation, accommodation and apprehension.

In other words, the accommodation of God to the apprehension of man. Now, by this, we mean that when God revealed Himself, He spoke in language that you and I could understand. You don't talk to a three-year-old the same way you talk to a 30-year-old. And when we speak to a child, we have to accommodate ourselves to that child's ability to understand what we're saying. Bernard Ramm said the Bible represents a movement of God with the initiative coming from God and not man, in which God brings man up through the infancy of the Old Testament to the maturity

of the New Testament. Progressive revelation is man's growing apprehension of the redemptive purpose of God which culminated in the coming of Christ. It means that God revealed to us only that which we were able to comprehend. And in the infancy of the human race, he has led man slowly and carefully, step by step. I believe this is what Jesus was referring to when he said in Matthew 5, 17, Do not think that I am come to abolish the law or the prophets. I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. He did not come to know the law, Jesus is saying, but to bring it from a bud to a blossom.

The law was right and good as far as it went, but it didn't go far enough or high enough or deep enough. Remember in Galatians 4, Paul talks about the fullness of time. And you might picture it like this. The time before Christ was the kindergarten of the human race. And with Christ came the higher education. In the Old Testament, God was teaching the ABCs. In the New Testament, He is teaching the XYZs. You remember what the letter of Hebrews says, chapter 1, and in the first two verses, God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers and the prophets in many portions and in many ways in these last days has spoken to us in His Son.

And that Son is the full, final, complete revelation of the Lord God. And with Him, with Christ, all that we will ever need to know about God, at least in this world, was revealed to us in Jesus Christ. Now, there's something important to remember when we talk about progressive revelation. Progressive revelation does not mean extra-biblical revelations. It doesn't mean revelations additional to the outside the Scripture.

Nor does it mean that God evolved with His creatures, or that He grew less violent and more merciful in the New Testament period. God did not grow less violent or more merciful. God did not change from the Old Testament to the New Testament. The revelation of God progressed. It's not that what God revealed in the Old Testament was wrong or less good or less right. It was He revealed Himself as much as He could to man at that point in the education of the human race. But God has been the same from beginning. He is the first and the last. He's the same as He always has been and forever will be.

What has changed is His revelation of Himself, His manifestation of Himself, and our understanding and comprehension of that revelation. Progressive revelation doesn't mean that the Old Testament is incorrected or invalid or less inspired than the New Testament. Progressive revelation simply says that the final revelation is in the New Testament. The Old Testament, therefore, must be read and interpreted in the light of the New. Some speak of this as the actualization.

They call it the actualization of the Old Testament in the new, saying that the Old Testament could only be read as a book of ever-increasing anticipation. And it is a book in which expectation mounts with every turning of the page. The Old Testament, you might say, leans toward the New Testament. So progressive revelation simply means that God progressively revealed more and more of Himself as the human race was able to comprehend it. And so the beginning of the revelation, God is the same. At the end of the revelation, God is the same. What has changed is not God, but the extent to which he has revealed himself. Now this is extremely important because you have to realize

that the Old Testament is not the final revelation. The New Testament is. The final, full, complete revelation came with Jesus Christ. This means that everything in the Old Testament must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament.

Now this is extremely important because I would be willing to say that the vast majority of all the error and all the errors in false teaching is a result of interpreting the New Testament in the light of the Old, of forcing the Old Testament above the New. The Old Testament must be interpreted

in the light of the New Testament. Now, that leaves us, I acknowledge, with a problem. And the problem is, how should you and I behave towards the Old Testament? What should be our attitude towards it? Does the Old Testament speak with authority

to New Testament Christians? Does the Old Testament speak with authority to New Testament Christians? If the Old Testament is not the final and complete revelation, if it deals in shadows and symbols and pictures and previews, if it is not the last word,

then what part applies to us today? I mean, I pick up this Bible and open to the Old Testament where it speaks about the codes and ceremonial laws that were binding on the people of Israel. And I ask myself, are the commands and the codes and the ceremonial laws that were binding on Israel, are they binding on the church today?

Well, I think we can be fairly certain that God doesn't expect us to offer animal sacrifices today, nor stone adulterers or chop off the hands of thieves. And so we immediately acknowledge that there are certain portions of the Old Testament that do not apply to us today. And yet at the same time, there is much in the Old Testament that is ethically, morally, spiritually, theologically relevant. So how do we know what part was for the child and what part is for the adult? What part of the Old Testament

is binding upon me today, upon you today? And I said a moment ago, these questions are important for their own sake, but especially so because so much of the, for instance, the health and wealth theology that you're hearing about today is based on Old Testament passages, and it has a strong Old Testament flavor to it.

First of all, let's make it clear, understand that the Old Testament is relevant for 20th century Christians. It does speak with authority to the church. It does speak with authority to the church. Now, there have always been attempts to get rid of the Old Testament, if not as a fact, then as a force in the church. But the New Testament, you see, is rooted in the earth of the old. And actually, the truth is, neither can exist without the other.

You cannot have the New Testament without the Old Testament. And the Old Testament is the foundation of the New Testament. The Old Testament is incomplete as it is without the New. And the New, in a sense, is incomplete without the Old because the Old is the foundation upon which the New is based and built. And so, we cannot understand one without the other. They are both essential to the existence of each other. The question is, in what way, then, is the Old Testament relevant?

The Old Testament's relevancy does not lie in its ancient forms and institutions, not in its legal codes and ceremonial rights. Those belong to an ancient culture of an ancient world. They're not binding upon us today. The Old Testament's forms of belief and practice are not our forms, or they're not the model for our forms. As a matter of fact, as you read the Old Testament, in many of its texts, it seems in its plain meaning to have little to say to us as Christians. But if we examine the Old Testament and those ancient forms and texts,

and if we lay hold of the theological truths and concerns that are relevant to us today we see what they are in the light of the New Testament you see that's how we come to the authoritative word now let me run back over that again the relevance of the Old Testament is not found in the time-bound forms of that ancient day, but it's in the theology of those forms. For example, the sacrificial system of the Old Testament is out of date,

but not its message. And the message is that man has sinned and atonement must be made. The theology is still relevant. The message is still relevant. The message is still relevant. The forms, the methods are not. We do not offer the sacrifices, but we understand that sacrifice is required.

And in Jesus Christ, that sacrifice has been made. The New Testament faith didn't break with the Old Testament or deny its validity, you see. What the New Testament does is to bring the Old Testament or deny its validity, you see. What the New Testament does is to bring the Old Testament to its fulfillment.

And when that happens, it takes over all the great theological truths of the Old Testament faith, reinterprets them, and gives them a new depth of meaning in Jesus Christ, you see. So here is a rule in interpreting the Old Testament. Only those words of the

Old Testament, the moral, ethical, and religious teachings that are reiterated in the New Testament are relevant and authoritative for us today. I'm going to repeat that. Only those words of the Old Testament, the moral, ethical, religious teachings that are reiterated, repeated, redefined in the New Testament are relevant and authoritative for the church. Our guide must be the Old Testament.

You might say the Old Testament, you might say, excuse me, our guide must be the New Testament. And you might say that the New Testament is the Christianized version of the Old. So in determining the relevancy of any Old Testament word or passage, we must ask, does this reappear in the New Testament?

Is this part of the revelation of God that Christ brought with Him into the New Testament? Or is it a part of that which He left behind because it had served its purpose and was no longer needed? And if the particular word, teaching, from that Old Testament passage

does not appear in the New Testament, then it does not have its relevance to us today. The Old Testament, for example, is more physical and material in its approach to salvation. It speaks largely in terms of physical deliverance. The concept of a hereafter of eternal life was barely formed in the minds of the Israelites. Righteousness in the Old Testament days was pictured as outward obedience

and external observance of rules and rituals. For instance, the prevailing philosophy of that period said that physical and material blessings were evidences of God's favor. And it was really very simple. If you were right with God, you would be healthy and wealthy. And if you were not right with God,

you would be sick and bankrupt. And this is why Job's three friends accused him of harboring sin. You see, Job's plight, Job's situation was a threat to these friends of his because his experience, what was happening to Job, challenged and contradicted

their own cut and dried theology. Their theology said that if a man is right with God, then he's going to be healthy and wealthy. And here is Job, a man that we've always thought was perfect and upright, and he's going to be healthy and wealthy. And here is Job, a man that we've always thought was perfect and upright, and he's lost everything, his family, and he's filled with this loathsome disease. It must be, not that our theology was wrong, but it

must be that Job has sinned. And what really scared his friends were that if their theology was wrong, it meant that what had happened to Job could happen to them. No matter how holy and righteous they were, bad things could still come upon them and they didn't want to acknowledge that. They were not interested in Job as a hurting person.

Their major concern was in Job as a problem to be solved, you see. The same philosophy flourishes today. I remembered not long ago I received a newsletter from a certain ministry and the lead article revolved around these words from one of their teachers. He said, and I quote, Your financial condition is a reflection of your spiritual condition. Job's friends would have loved that.

That would have been right down their alley. Of course, the thing that was really fascinating to me about that newsletter was this. On the same day I received the newsletter, I also received a letter from the head of that ministry, a letter that was appealing for money because of their debts and their needs. And I thought to myself, surely I'm not the only one who sees this as a glaring inconsistency. On the one hand, they're saying your financial condition is a reflection of your spiritual condition, and at the same time, they're asking for money because they have needs and debts.

We still have that philosophy with us. As Job's friends posited, it's still there. That if a person is right with God, then everything is going to be swell in his life, you see. And that's the Old Testament view. That was the Old Testament view, to be sure. But the perspective of the Old Testament differs from that of the New Testament. And you have to reinterpret that with the New Testament

in mind, you see. I mean, the New Testament is the capstone of revelation and it has to be taken as the chief source of biblical doctrine. Therefore, whatever is shadowed in the Old Testament is realized in the New, which in turn makes the New Testament the chief source of Christian theology.

The great doctrines of faith are all most clearly developed in the New Testament. A good example of how the all most clearly developed in the New Testament. A good example of how the Old Covenant telescopes into the New, I think, can be seen by comparing Habakkuk 2.3 with Hebrews 10.37. But in Habakkuk 2.3, you see a good example of shadow becoming substance, of the lesser advancing to and being absorbed by the greater. Let's read Habakkuk.

In a time of national emergency, God promised Habakkuk that deliverance would come. And here's the way it reads. For the vision is yet for the appointed time. It hastens towards the goal, and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it, for it the goal, and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it, for it will surely come, it will not delay. Now, centuries later, to encourage persecuted believers, the writer of Hebrews quotes Habakkuk using what I call the New Covenant Version. Here's what he says, For yet in a very little while, he who is coming will come and will not delay.

Now, let's compare those two statements. The Old Testament says that the vision is yet for the appointed time. It hastens towards the goal. It will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it, for it will surely come. It will not delay. But it tarries, wait for it, for it will surely come. It will not delay. But the writer of Hebrews says,

For yet is a very little while, he who is coming will come, and he will not delay. Notice that Habakkuk writes of it coming. Hebrews speaks of he who is coming. What is an it in the Old Testament is a he in the New Testament. Christ is the yes and amen of all God's promises, Paul tells us. In Him all the promises of God

are filled to the full. This is what is better about the better covenant of the book of Hebrews. He is better than it, you see. So when you come to the Old Testament, you have salvation depicted in physical and material terms of blessings.

But when you come to the New Testament, you don't see that. You read the letters of Paul, the thanksgiving prayers of Paul. He doesn't thank God for his double car garage or his big house or his bank account. He's thanking God for salvation, for mercy, for grace to bear

and to endure. The New Testament emphasis is upon the spiritual blessings. Old Testament's emphasis is upon the physical blessings. Because, you see, in the immaturity of the human race, in the immaturity, I say, of the human race,

man had to be appealed to on the basis of physical and material rewards. But as the human race matures, it comes or it should come to see that the spiritual is far greater than the physical. And that spiritual blessings are to be desired more than material blessings. That's progressive revelation. Old Testament emphasis upon the material and the physical. New Testament emphasis upon the spiritual and the eternal. So we must interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New. On the other hand, interpreting the New Testament

in the light of the Old is one of the chief causes of confusion about so much teaching today. For instance, let's take the issue of physical healing. It wasn't too long ago, a few years ago, a friend of mine and his wife came to me with a problem.

She had for some time been suffering severe migraine headaches. And she had been to a number of doctors and those of you who've had any dealings with that understand how terribly difficult it is to find a cure for that. And so she had been to several doctors and had suffered a great deal from it. And they attended a Bible conference.

A Bible conference led by two well-known Bible teachers, ministers. And one evening after the conference, they were all visiting together, and she happened to mention her headaches. Now, the two preachers questioned her at length about her background, her parents, her grandparents. And after all of that, they concluded that the headaches were the result of a curse passed on to her from her mother, who had played with a Ouija board as a child, which gave the devil a point

of entry and which said curse obviously had not been broken by her mother. And so after these men prayed for her and prayed for her healing and rebuked the devil and renounced the curse, they advised her to immediately stop taking the medication her doctor had prescribed because this would be her act of faith, you see, her positive confession. And this is how I got involved. Her doctor had warned her from the start of the treatment that any sudden withdrawal from the medicine could trigger a cardiac arrest. And so she asked me what I thought of that, of what the preachers had said. I told her I didn't think much of it, and if I were her, I'd stay on the medication. Now, the reason that I said that was the conference leaders, these two ministers, had based their actions on the passages in Deuteronomy 27 and 28,

which talks about curses. And I pointed out to my friend's wife that those words in Deuteronomy 27 and 28 were spoken in a different time and space situation from ours, that they were spoken to a specific people at a specific time, dealing with a specific situation peculiar to Israel at that time,

and those verses in Deuteronomy did not apply to Christians today. Now, why did I say that? Because no such thing is taught in the New Testament. You won't find that teaching about curses in the New Testament at all. I ran those verses through the filter

of the New Testament, and they didn't come out at the other end. And some of you I know are thinking about the passage in James 4 that talks about curses, but both exegetically and grammatically, the curses of which James speaks are not even remotely similar to a voodoo type of curse or hex. He's talking about cursing and blessing with your words. He's not talking about this kind of curse that's laid upon somebody and passed down through the generations.

There is nowhere in the New Testament that is taught. As a matter of fact, the opposite is taught that Christ has broken all those powers and broken all those curses and we are delivered from all those curses. I guess what grieves me most

and angers me to a point and I trust it is righteous anger, the most about this incident is that these two preachers recklessly endangered the life of this friend with their reckless theology. When you tell someone to stop taking medication and the stopping of that medication

could have a cardiac arrest, cause that heart attack, then you'd better have a cardiac arrest, cause that heart attack, then you'd better have a good reason for saying what you say. And these men, I felt, were careless and reckless. If they were physicians, you could have sued them for malpractice. only those teachings of the Old Testament which are reiterated either in form or theology in the New Testament

apply to us today only those teachings of the Old Testament which are reiterated either in form or theology in the New Testament apply to us today God promised healing and prosperity to Israel, but He never gave that same promise

to the New Testament church. You won't find it. Israel was in the infancy of their nationhood, and like all children, they had to learn primarily through rewards and punishments. But there comes a time when children must learn to obey,

not because obedience is profitable, but because obedience is right. And the trouble with some of the health and wealth theology, and it's not my intention in doing these studies on interpretation to hammer on this, but this is the most relevant illustration of these things that I know anything about. And the health and wealth theology,

and all of its excess baggage, such as curses, drag believers back into the Old Testament to the shadows of the Old Covenant and the uncertainty of immaturity. Progressive revelation is one of the important keys in interpreting the Bible.

The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament. The full final revelation is in the New Testament. The last word to those who know Christ, to the church today, is found in the New Testament. All of those teachings in the Old Testament

which are reiterated in the New Testament are relevant for us today. All right. Number four. We must distinguish between the picture and the frame. We must distinguish between the picture and the frame.

Hanging over the fireplace in our home is a beautiful painting of the hymn, How Firm a Foundation. That hymn has special meaning for Kay and myself. When our oldest son died in 1975, Miss Bertha Smith, who was a retired missionary to China, called us from her home in South Carolina. When I answered the phone, she asked Kay to pick up the extension, and then without any preamble,

Ms. Bertha began to sing that great hymn over the telephone. During World War II, when Japanese planes were bombing the hospital that Ms. Bertha Smith was attached to, she has told us a number of times, and told us a number of times about crawling under the hospital beds and dragging some of the nurses with her. They were terrified because of the bombing, and the only way she could calm the nurses and herself was that she sang all seven verses of that How Firm a Foundation over and over and over. And the hymn had been such a source of strength to her in her hour of crisis that she thought it might be the same for us. And it was, and it is, How Firm a Foundation.

And the hymn, the picture that is hanging over our fireplace, was painted for us by a gifted young woman in our church who knew of the hymn's significance to us. Now later, though, when we redecorated the den, we replaced the original frame with a new one that blended in with the color and decor of the room. We didn't get a new picture. We got a new frame. The picture is permanent,

but the frame is temporary. Now, in much the same way, when God revealed Himself to man, He did so within a specific time frame, an age with particular cultural backgrounds and settings. The Bible, you see, is rooted in history. It is a collection of books and letters

with addresses and dates and it possesses a historical, geographical, and cultural setting, the frame. Now, you take this historical setting at a certain time in history, certain geographical location, with certain cultural patterns,

and in that position, God placed spiritual and eternal truths, which is the picture. The historical, geographical, cultural situation is the frame. The truth, the revelation, is the picture. Let me put it this way. God dressed eternal truth in period costumes. But He does not expect us to wear the clothes and adopt the customs of that ancient age in which the Bible was given. You have to distinguish between the frame and the picture,

that which is temporal and that which is eternal. You see, when we open the Bible, we are A.D. people reading B.C. documents, documents that were written hundreds, even thousands of years ago in different languages from diverse settings and cultures. It's the Word of God, but it is also a historical document.

One of Augustine's famous sayings was this, Distinguish the times and you will harmonize Scripture. So our first task in interpreting a passage of Scripture is to discover what it meant to the original readers. We cannot know what it means to us until we know what it meant to them. And there is a very important statement. We cannot know what the Bible means to us until, first of all, we know what it meant to the original readers. Unless we recognize that there are cultural and historical and geographical positions that separate us from the text being studied,

we will overlook the differences, you see, and we'll find ourselves in great confusion. If we're not careful, we will read their words, but with our definitions. Now, for instance, I see some puzzle looks. Let me illustrate it like this. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, the Corinthian church, concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols.

Remember 1 Corinthians chapter 8. Now, it was a big issue back in those days because here is a man or a woman, a family who goes down to a pagan temple to worship a pagan god. because here is a man or a woman, a family who goes down to a pagan temple to worship a pagan god. And they take with them an animal to sacrifice. And so they sacrifice that animal on the altar to their pagan god.

Now, afterwards, the priests, the pagan priests would take the remainder of that animal that had been sacrificed and sell it in the marketplace. And so it became a hotly debated issue in Paul's day of whether it was right for a Christian to eat meat that had been offered to idols. And so when you went to the marketplace before you'd buy a slab of meat, you'd say, I want to know, first of all, was this meat offered to idols? And if it was, then there were those who said, oh, you can't eat meat offered to idols.

There are other Christians who said, oh, it doesn't matter. An idol is not anything. It doesn't matter whether it's offered to an idol or anything. And so this was a great controversy. And in Paul's day, it was a big deal among Christians. Now, I must admit to you that I have no problem with that. I can't remember the last time the subject came up. When I go to the supermarket, I almost never ask the butcher if that hamburger was offered to idols, first of all. No, and you don't either. You see, the historical

situation has no relevance in our day. That is no argument today. That has absolutely no relevance today. It was simply the frame into which was placed a picture of a lasting truth and an eternally relevant principle. You know what Paul's conclusion was? Well, Paul basically said there's not anything wrong eating meat offered to idols because an idol is nothing and so it doesn't matter. I mean, there's not anything wrong with it. But he said, here is the principle,

but if eating meat offends my brother, causes my brother to sin, I will eat no meat as long as the world stands. So here is the issue of meat being offered to idols and should that meat be eaten by Christians. Now that's the frame, folks. The picture is you don't do anything that makes yourself a stumbling block

to weaker Christians. That's the picture. That's the eternal truth. That's the lasting truth. Set down, fitted into the frame of a historical, cultural situation. I remember a few years ago at the Keswick Convention in England,

a woman asked me if I thought we ought to obey the Bible. Now, when somebody comes up and says, do you think we ought to obey the Bible? There's only one answer to that question, of course. Yes, we ought to obey the Bible. And I said, yes, we ought to obey the Bible. Then she said,

okay, if we ought to obey the Bible, then why don't we greet the brethren with a holy kiss like the Bible says? Well, I assume she was referring to one of Paul's statements or Peter's, like in Romans 16 and 1 Peter 5, where we're told to greet one another with a holy kiss. That's what she was referring to. And so I said to her, well, in the first place, the emphasis in those words is on holy, not kiss.

In the second place, greeting one another with a kiss was the customary greeting of that day in culture and still is. As a matter of fact, just a few days before that, I had seen on television Arafat greeting the president of Jordan by kissing him on both cheeks and on the nose. I'd never seen that before. And so when Paul and Peter were telling their readers to greet one another with a holy kiss, they weren't telling them to greet one another with a kiss. They were already doing that. They were to make sure that it was a holy kiss, you see. By the way, you know the difference between a holy kiss and unholy kiss?

About two minutes. Anyway, Paul was not telling them to greet one another with a kiss because they were already doing that. They were to make sure that it was a holy kiss. The gesture of kissing, I said to the woman, was the same as a handshake for us. If Paul were writing these words to us, he would say something like this, greet one another with a holy handshake. The frame is the act of kissing. The picture is a holy kiss. And according to 1 Peter chapter 5, a loving greeting, not just a greeting,

but a lovely greeting. Now, I think because it is receiving so much attention nowadays that I will mention one other example of this frame versus the picture principle. And that has to do with the matter of lifting up hands in praise and worship. And in some places this is a controversy.

Some people say we ought not to do it. Others say we ought to do it. Some say you're not really worshiping God unless you're raising your hands in worship. And so let's deal with that for just a moment. What was once practiced almost exclusively in Pentecostal churches has now become a common and popular expression of worship in many evangelical churches. And for many, it is a wonderful way to express their praise to God. For some, it has become a spiritual status symbol, the sign of liberty

and life in public worship. I've heard some go so far as to say that we cannot truly worship God without it, and that those who don't raise their hands at the most sin against God, and at the least do not really and truly praise him. Churches that don't practice this are often accused of being dead and dry and stuffy, bound by the shackles of denominational tradition, and have not yet learned how to worship. I have a friend who was a guest speaker at a local church, and during the song service he was standing next to the pastor, and the pastor, like most of the people present, had their hands raised up in worship, and the pastor like most of the people present had their hands raised up in worship and the pastor said to my friend you know you're free to raise your hands in this church

and my friend said am i free not to raise my hands that's a good question now lifting up the hands was customary of jewish worship It was one of the three postures of prayer, kneeling, lying prostrate, and standing with the hands lifted towards heaven. Those were the three common positions of prayer. Being a part of their culture, it is mentioned often in the Old Testament, this raising of hands, especially in the Psalms. Now remember the third guideline of interpretation. What does the New Testament say? It's not enough to go back to the Old Testament and find it in the Old Testament. What does the New Testament say about this? Are we as New Testament believers commanded to raise our hands in worship and praise?

The only passage that comes close to it is 1 Timothy 2, verse 8, where Paul says, Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without wrath and dissension. Now, here again, the emphasis is upon holy,

not the lifting up of hands. See, always in the New Testament worship, the central concern is not the mechanics or the motions of the body, but it is the attitude of the heart. Paul is primarily concerned that their prayers are offered in holiness and without anger and quarreling. As I mentioned earlier, lifting up the hands was and still is a regular posture of prayer. Paul is speaking in the language of the culture and custom. If he were writing to us today,

he could just as well say, kneeling on holy knees. Lifting up the hands is the frame. Holy prayer without wrath and dissension is the picture. Now, I think it's worthwhile to note that Paul here is referring to prayer, not praise and worship. And more significant are the words, the men. Now, when Paul uses that phrase, he's using the definite article with men, indicating that he is speaking to a specific group and that that group is the men as opposed to the women. The word Paul uses here for men is the word for men as opposed to women. Males contrasted with females. It's not men in the generic sense. When he says, I would that all men everywhere,

he's not talking about all Christians, men and women. He's talking about men as opposed to women, males as opposed to females. The men, the males in the church, you see. And again, it was the custom for the men only to pray aloud in public. Generally, the women kept silent. Of course, we don't accept that custom today. And we don't have to accept any of the customs today.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not against raising hands in worship. I think it is wonderful that believers in worship feel the freedom to express their praise to God in that way. I certainly want the right to do it if I so choose.

What I am saying is that from the viewpoint of the New Testament, the lifting up of hands carries no more spiritual weight than the saying, Amen. It is not the better or freer or more spiritual way to worship God.

Its value resides in what it means to the worshiper only. If it means something to you, if it enables you to worship the Lord, by all means do it. But we should not make it the sign of spiritual freedom in corporate worship. Christians are not commanded to do it.

They should be free to do it. They should be free not to do it. That's the difference between the picture and the frame. Number five. Scripture interprets Scripture. By this, I mean simply that the Bible is its own best interpreter. And every verse must be interpreted in the light of its immediate context

as well as in the total context of the Bible. The unity of the Scripture follows from the fact that God is the principal author of it and implies that the meaning of the parts agree with the meaning of the whole so that one passage sheds light on another passage because it comes from one divine author. Scripture is its own interpreter. The Bible is a collection of 66 books and letters written by different people separated by hundreds of years, and yet it is one book possessing one scheme of truth,

one consistent theology in which all the separate parts harmonize with one another. This is sometimes referred to as the analogy of faith. The analogy of faith which says that there is one and only one system of doctrine taught in the Bible. Therefore, the individual interpretation must conform to that one system.

In other words, the analogy of faith is the consistent and perpetual harmony of Scripture in the fundamental points of faith and practice. The theological unity of the Bible means that the interpretation of a specific passage must not contradict the total teaching of Scripture on a point.

There's an old maxim that says, a text without a context is a pretext. You see, when you isolate verses from their context, that is a careless and reckless and even dangerous way of establishing truth. Everybody has heard the old Saul. Judas went out and hanged himself. Go thou and do likewise,

and whatsoever thou doest, do quickly. You can take those three texts and take them out of context and put them together, and whatsoever thou doest, do quickly. You can take those three texts and take them out of context and put them together and that's what you have. Judas hanged himself. You do likewise and whatever you do,

do it quickly. When you and I neglect context in which a single verse is to be found, we are opening ourselves to gross misinterpretation of the Scripture. Now, I think this is a particular danger for evangelicals and conservatives.

I mean, if somebody can give us a proof text, why, it's just instinctive that we say, okay, you're right, because there's a proof text why it's just instinctive that we say, okay, you're right because there's a proof text. But you see, there must be a sound exegetical examination of every text.

I mean, if you pick a verse out of the fifth chapter of Isaiah, you must understand what that verse means in the fifth chapter of Isaiah. It must be interpreted in the light of its context, and if you simply lift it out and quote it out of context, what we're doing at that moment is we are guilty of very superficial treatment of the Scripture.

The use of proof text is only as good as the exegesis that undergirds the quote. Now, this principle means two or three things. Number one, this means we must give attention to grammar, the meaning of words, and the relation to one another within a verse. Theology starts with grammar. Any doctrinal position is no better than the grammatical and exegetical foundation that underlines it. And Bible study that ignores the meaning of a word and its relation to other words within that verse is unreliable and careless and should not be regarded as serious Bible study. A second consideration.

Obscure passages must give way to clear passages. Now let me repeat that. Obscure passages must give way to clear passages. Let's face it. Some parts of the Bible are downright difficult to understand. You think you have a hard time understanding Paul? You're in good company because Peter himself had trouble with some of Paul's writings.

For instance, in 2 Peter 3, verses 15 and 16, here's what Peter says of Paul's writings. Our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which some things are hard to understand. Some of the things that Paul writes, even Peter acknowledged, are hard to understand.

Now, but everything that is essential to salvation and Christian living is clearly revealed in Scripture. Now, listen carefully. Essential truth is not tucked away in some incidental remark in Scripture. It is not found in some passage that remains ambiguous no matter how much you study it.

Any teaching that is built upon an obscure passage of Scripture is suspect. For instance, certain people have devised a doctrine of material and physical prosperity based on John's salutation to Gaius in 3 John 2. Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health just as your soul prospers. And some have taken that simple greeting and have built a complete doctrine upon it. Some have come away from 1 Peter 2.24 with a detailed theology of healing in the atonement by

superimposing upon the text something that's not there. The words in that verse, by the way, by whose stripes we are healed, are unmistakably metaphors referring to the spiritual healing from our sin. Neither Peter nor any other New Testament writer puts forth the idea of a theology of healing in the atonement. Number three, quoting verses and preaching the Word are not the same thing. Quoting verses and preaching the Word

are not the same thing. Some teachers bombard their listeners with verse after verse from every corner of the Bible and verses that bear no relation to one another. And there's rarely any attempt to reconcile one verse with the other or explain the meaning of that verse in its context. I've heard some preachers just inundate their listeners with hundreds of isolated texts, mostly from the Old Testament. And then they would say, don't analyze it, just believe it, you know. Don't question me about any verse I quote.

If you question somebody about one of those verses, then they accuse you of unbelief. I'll admit that quoting a steady stream of verses is impressive and can overwhelm an audience. And they will sometimes discourage scrutiny of those verses, but quoting verses and preaching the Word are not the same thing. And when somebody says,

don't question it, just believe it, they've got something to hide. That's a naive and shallow view of both faith and preaching. You see, faith doesn't fear facts. Truth doesn't resist questions. It welcomes them. Truth welcomes analysis.

And merely reciting verses, heaping one on top of the other, is not preaching the Word. For instance, Matthew chapter 10, verse 1, is a good example of interpreting scripture out of context. And having summoned his twelve disciples, he gave them authority over unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Some use this verse to support the claim that we have the same power and authority

Jesus gave to his disciples. We can do the works of Jesus just as Jesus did them. And since Jesus so clearly commanded his disciples to heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead, we can do the same. Now, this, of course, just isn't so.

It's just nonsense. Why do you say that? Because Jesus goes on to instruct his disciples to go only to the lost sheep of Israel, avoid the Gentiles and the Samaritans. In verses 9 and 10, Jesus instructs them further that they should not acquire gold or silver or copper for their money belts

or a bag for your journey or even two tunics or sandals or a staff for the worker is worthy of his hire. Now, folks, if we lay claim to verse 1, we must also claim the following verses. This would mean that we could minister only to the Jews, no preaching or healing among the Gentiles. We must raise the dead as well the Gentiles. We must raise the

dead as well as the sick. We must not acquire any money, carry only one suit and one pair of shoes. Now, I tell you folks, I've heard many claim verse 1, but I have never heard anybody make the same claim for the verses that follow. If anybody ever, if anyone ever struck out on the circuit with only one suit, one pair of shoes, and didn't acquire any gold or silver along the way, I missed him when he came to my town. Now, here is a powerful example of the rule of context, that Jesus meant this commission for the original twelve only, and that it was limited to a specific group in a specific time frame is made clear by verse 2. Jesus says he gave his disciples this authority. Verse 2 says,

Now the names of those twelve apostles are these, and then Jesus lists them. I remember reading years ago, J. Sidlow Baxter said, Dear brother, if your name is not among the list of the twelve, the commission was never given to you. So here is an example of interpreting verse out of context. And the fact of the matter is,

ignoring this rule of interpretation can lead to another common error, and that is superimposing Western culture and values upon the Bible. The doctrine of prosperity, the idea that God wants every Christian to be materially wealthy is a result of forcing our economic values upon the pages of the Bible. One religious speaker, this is good,

one religious speaker, one of these fellows, said that when Jesus rode in Jerusalem on a donkey, he established the doctrine of prosperity. Now let that sink in. That Jesus established the doctrine of prosperity when he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. Riding on a donkey, he said, was the equivalent of driving a luxurious limousine. Now, there's nothing wrong with driving a limousine, but to establish a biblical doctrine on that incident

defies reason and slaps common sense in the face. Anyway, the donkey was borrowed. Rather than the doctrine of prosperity, Jesus established the doctrine of rent-a-car. And that is one example of taking Western values, American values, and superimposing them upon the Bible.

You see, only an affluent society could generate such a doctrine. Let's face it, where else but in America can you buy low-calorie dog food for overweight canines? Speaking just only in America. low-calorie dog food for overweight canines. Speaking, you just,

only in America, only in America could that happen. The claim to wealth and health may sound plausible when it's spoken by some wealthy banker in a hotel ballroom, but you take that same message to the villages in India

or Bangladesh or some other drought-ridden part of Africa and try to preach it over there. All right, last. Number six. Sixth rule of interpretation. We must take into account the literary character of the book.

We must take into account the literary character of the book. We must take into account the literary character of the book. Now, while the Bible is one book, it's more than one book. It is a collection of books. And the full range, you'll find the full range of literary forms in Scripture.

Historical narratives, poetry, proverbs, hymns, allegory, law, prose. And this is an important factor in understanding the Bible because the approach to each literary style must be different.

You don't interpret Acts the same way you would interpret Ezekiel because that would lead to a great deal of confusion. The Psalms are largely poetic writings filled with vivid images.

I really don't believe God has wings like it says in Psalm 17 8 and I don't believe that he really has feathers as it says in 91 4. That's poetic imagery and we understand it as such. The four Gospels in the book of Acts are cast largely as historical narratives and this should influence our approach to them. I remember early in my ministry, I wondered if churches should meet in homes like they did in the book of Acts. And I'd heard some that suggest we should. They said because the church in the book of Acts met in homes, we are to meet in homes also.

But I suspect the reason the people met in homes is because they had no other place together. Whatever the reason, we are not instructed to meet in homes. And by the way,

this is a very important point. Our doctrine comes not from what the apostles did or what the apostles experienced, but from what they taught. Our doctrine does not come from what the apostles did or what they experienced,

but it comes from what they taught. John Phillips, who is the author of the Exploring series of commentaries, said it is an axiom that you don't get your doctrine from the book of Acts. You see, in one way, the Gospels and the Acts

present the same question as does the Old Testament. Since they are historical documents, how do we separate the picture from the frame? Much of the Gospel record is clearly universal and eternal in its application, such as the ethical and moral teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, the Upper Room Discord, and the truths that are expressed in the parables and such like that.

But what about foot washing? What about baptism? What about communion? What about healing? On matters like these, we turn to the epistles, don't we? What are we supposed to do about the matter of baptism, communion?

We turn to the epistles. It is in the epistles where church doctrine is established. We interpret the gospels and the acts in the light of the epistles, you see. We interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. We interpret the gospels and the acts in the light of the epistles as far as finding out what our church doctrine is to be. What teachings, commands, and precepts

are reiterated in the epistles. This is why most churches don't observe foot washing as an ordinance of the church. Why? Jesus washed feet, and He said in John 13, commanded the disciples to wash feet,

but hardly any churches do that today. Why? Because there is no evidence whatsoever that the early church practiced it as such, and it is never taught in the epistles to be a part of the ordinances of the church. You won't find it taught in the epistles, and you won't find it mentioned in the epistles that it's something we're supposed to do. And you can apply the same to any other question that you have. For instance, we've been talking a lot about healing.

Do the epistles teach it? Read through the epistles. Is there anywhere they exhort us to apostolic healing? Now, what is interesting is that in view of the prominent place that healing occupies in the Gospels and the Acts, I'm surprised to find almost nothing about it in the rest of the New Testament. If a church is supposed to believe in and practice apostolic healing, it should be taught

in the epistles. But it isn't. Nowhere is it taught or even suggested that we have the divine right to be healed of any or all sicknesses and maladies. To me, the conclusion is obvious. If the emphasis of our ministry is to be the same as that of the apostles' teaching, we cannot justify the excessive accent on physical

healing and deliverance or on material prosperity. Now, I said at the beginning of these messages that these principles of interpretation, while they're not exhaustive, they are basic and sufficient.

And observing these six guidelines can safeguard us against doctrinal error. They can enable us to recognize false teaching and equip us to handle accurately the word of truth. God bless you. It is managed and operated by Sherwood Baptist Church. If you would like to listen to additional Ron Dunn messages, visit sherwoodbaptist.net slash bookstore and search Ron Dunn. For more Ron Dunn materials, including sermon outlines, devotions, and scanned pages from a study Bible, please visit rondunn.com.