How to Study the Bible III – Using Commentaries the Right Way & Checking Them

We've been going through kind of miscellaneous topics in how to study the Bible. The approach that we took was to give you kind of tools in the first half of the year and then kind of take case studies. Our idea is that we focus in on different aspects of how to study the Bible. In some cases it's looking at how do I study a passage, how do I study a topic, and then looking more deeply at some of the tools that are out there. And so that's what today is. It's using commentaries and other Bible study resources the right way.

There's a joke attributed to Martin Luther. that says, when the angels want a good laugh, they read the commentaries, right? So now, the truth is, when I go and look at all these various commentaries, there are multiple interpretations of just about every verse and passage out there. Can you think of reasons why that would be? Why are there multiple interpretations of every passage, just about?

Yes? And why do we think differently? You're correct, but why do we think differently? Why isn't everybody going, that's it, we're all in sync. We come to different conclusions because of the process of the way we think, but because of what we've been taught.

Ah, okay, so part of it is someone has been taught something, and so the way they approach it is based on that, and this verse means this. that people like to take their own life experiences and shove it into Scripture. Very good. In other words, one principle, and I've seen it best stated in cautionary terms in major Bible themes, but one principle is that we use Scripture to interpret our experience rather than take our experience to interpret Scripture. Very important, right? And why would that be the case? Why would that be the case? Because we are so finite.

Okay, first of all, each of us has independent different experiences, right? So we have different experiences. The other thing is, God inspired the Bible. What did he intend to say? Right? And so if we take our experience as the interpretive tool, we're not asking the question, what did God intend to say? It was inspired, which means God had a deliberate intended message, not it's just inspiring. So a big difference between those. There are other reasons, can you think of other reasons why people come up with different interpretations?

Yeah? Not looking at the original text in which it was written, the language. Yeah, so somebody will zero in on a particular, sometimes a particular translation. Right? Paul in Romans asked several times, you know, do you not know? And then he'll ask something and say, and what's translated in the King James is God forbid. It's real interesting, King James, King James only people will often point out these other translations and say, see, it doesn't translate that way. Well, guess what? The words behind God forbid in the King James don't mean God or forbid.

May it never be is a better translation of that. So you get people with favorite translations. Something else we'll get into is people with their isms. And often, not always, often the isms have a person's name attached to it. Can you think of what some of those isms are with a person's name?

MacArthurism, right? Calvinism, named after this guy Calvin. And Calvin and Luther, by the way, did try to meet and resolve things and didn't. But that's another one, Lutheranism, right? I saw this morning as I was kind of getting ready, you know, here's this Lutheran study Bible.

It's very much full of isms, right? Instead of asking the question, what does the Bible say? And 2 Timothy? four, three, for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. Yeah, so the reality is you look at all these different interpretations, we've got some bullet points here on the top of page one that we're going to want to take a look at. One is observations regarding language, history, and culture, and all three of those need to be included, must be objective, true, and complete. Let's go through what each of those means. When we say about language, that can include everything from, is this a chiasm? to what does this word mean in this context, to do I have a Hebrew poetry pattern here? And what did that word mean in that culture?

And what does it mean in the Christian context? Grace was the standard greeting in the Greek language, charis, grace. And so when you said hi, bye, it would be Grace was also a favor you did for a friend or relative without any expectation of return. Is that what grace means in the Bible? No, neither of those fit the definition in the Bible. Grace is so huge and so massive that it will take forever for God to show us the extent of grace, which is infinite.

So that's language, and then history and culture. It matters whether Abraham or David came first, right? It makes a difference. And then culture, any cultural context. One of the things we've done in this elective is to point out things that are culturally substantial.

Just recently, for instance, we said In the Greek and Roman cultures, you did not directly say thank you to someone. That was calling down a curse from the gods upon them. If you said thank you directly to somebody, they would be livid and greatly offended. Which is, in our culture, what? But again, that's the cultural insight. Here's why the Apostle Paul would write a four chapter long thank you letter to the church at Philippi and never say thank you. Except, I thank my God for you.

It must be objective. Why do we say objective? Observations need to be objective. They need to be observations that any of us could make. Otherwise, if it's subjective, and that's in reference to what we had earlier about feelings, If it's subjective, then you'll see this, and I can't say, well, do you see that? No, I don't see it. I'm not feeling it. So, objective.

You could check it out. I could check it out. One of the biggest favors that the seminary president passed along, where I went to seminary, was he said, don't believe anything I tell you. Check everything out for yourself. Check everything out for yourself. Don't believe anything. So it made me a skeptic. Check everything out. Don't believe anything.

Alright, so then objective, and then true, and we'll take a look at some things that aren't true, that get passed along regularly. And then finally, complete. What difference does it make that my observations are complete? That I really looked at everything. Well, if they're incomplete, you can come up with a different conclusion. Yes, that is why.

Here's a for instance, just real quickly. The wages of sin is death, and the free gift of God is eternal life. Right? So does that get used as an evangelism verse? Yes. Yes. Is it written to unbelievers? No. Oh, okay. So that's one. Okay, this is written to believers. So how do believers understand that verse? Next.

Here's the wages of sin is death, the free gift of God is eternal life, written to believers in a Christian context, not an evangelistic context. So, written to believers, and then, when I look at it, I say the wages of sin is death. And even guys with doctorate degrees, and they understand all the Greek, will interpret that passage as the wages of sinning is death. and overlook that it's got a definite article in front of sin.

It's the sin, and in the context from Romans 5.12 to chapter 8, the sin refers to the sin's nature. The wages the sin's nature pays is death. What is death?

It's separation. So that's another mistake. that people have, right? And the free gift of God is eternal life. So guess what? It turns out, culturally, the entire chapter is written to Roman soldiers. And who did the crucifixions? The Roman soldiers, and so the first ten verses about being crucified with Christ, right? is written to Roman soldiers, and then you talk about yielding your members, that's military instruments. So you are making yourself a military instrument to the sin nature or to God, right?

So when you start looking at this thing, oh, well this means something entirely different from what a lot of people use it as and see it as. Okay, so we have objective, true, and complete observation. Next one. There's one intended meaning for any passage of Scripture.

So if I were to call one of you up and say, hey, Nancy and I would like to have you over for dinner this next Tuesday night at 6, can you make it? You don't hang up the phone saying, boy, what day did he meet? Is that 6 a.m.? 6 p.m. I wonder, you know, and do you mean me?

Maybe he's called, you know, so yeah, so anyway, you know, there was one intended meaning, okay? So, so instead of inserting things, bringing my ism, oh, when Vernon invites somebody over for Tuesday night and he says next Tuesday night, it's always the following one, right? What? Okay, so one intended meaning for any passage of Scripture.

So if there are six different interpretations, how many of them are wrong? At least five. At least five are wrong. So most of the people who understand this verse understand it wrongly. If there are six different interpretations, they're not all correct.

There's one intended set of doctrines intended by God who inspired Scripture. We will see as we go through the book of Acts. De-faith begins in Acts chapter 6. And that term de-faith continues on in the New Testament all the way into the book of Revelation. What is de-faith?

It's the entirety of doctrines. It's the set of doctrines that the apostles taught. that were given to them by God. Right. And so that's the faith. That's the total definition. And when Paul wrote the truth, guess what he intended? The truth is equal to the faith.

And when you look at a great many of those New Testament letters, a lot of ink was put down to correct error. to correct error, even during apostolic times, even to the point of fake letters. The Apostle Paul writes to the Thessalonians, he says, even if somebody comes up with a letter supposedly by us, right? Fake letters. Paul, in writing to the Colossians, mentions a letter to the Laodiceans. We don't have it, but somebody came up with it later. It's a fake, right?

Okay, one intended set of doctrines and use literal interpretation consistently. Consistently, it includes the understanding of, of course, figures of speech, symbols, and things of that sort. And in fact, a symbol is a kind of figure of speech, right? Parables, poetry, poetic writing, all these things are understood. But consistent literal interpretation is the key. That presses out the isms. And we're going to see that here shortly. So those four points are critical. All right, so now we've got point one here in the middle of page one.

The commentary of Bible study resource is most useful when it gives a great number of observations concerning the elements of language, history, and or culture regarding a passage. A number of commentaries will do what? They will just say, here's the interpretation. Good luck with that. And so the problem is that if they go, here's what it means, and that's all you get, is that's all you know is that's what they think it means.

So a key thing, it's going to be most useful when a commentary goes and makes all these different observations and tells you the basis on which they're then going to move towards an interpretation. What often happens is that a commentary will be written with very little in the way of observations, but a lot in the way of isms. Now, here is a Calvinist commentary, and what you're getting is the interpretation that's the ism, not the observations. So a commentary is going to be most useful when it gives lots of observations.

So that's the first step. That's not the only principle regarding usefulness. Here's an example, a positive example. This is an Ephesians commentary by Harold Hohner. So this is on six chapters. He's got 930 pages. But it's very thorough. He lays out all the observations. all the observations.

In just, I noted here because in the women's study we paid some attention to it, in Ephesians 5.18 which Craig had touched on here not too long ago, he goes through almost four pages on just but be filled by the Spirit. So he's looking at lots and lots and lots of observations And then he goes through the different interpretations.

We'll talk about that in a minute. And, you know, we reject this one, we reject that one. Setting them aside. So that in the end, you've got a good understanding of what did he observe and why did he arrive at this conclusion as opposed to the others. That's a key one.

Thomas Constable, and I give a link down here, has written a commentary on every book of the Bible. They're in Adobe Acrobat or PDF format. They're available free and he updates them annually and you can go to the link or do what I do You can go to Google and put in constable Bible and it'll take you right there And so anyway, and so you can update you know those and download them and get the whole Bible, you know for free They're not perfect, but they're actually quite good. And in fact that they're free and updated regularly and He is a professor emeritus from Dallas, and he makes these available for free, and they're quite well done.

So, that's another one, the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary is one that we've had before. That's available in print in four volumes, and they do a fair amount of detail. It's essentially in Biblical order so Matthew Mark Luke and just goes through and in scripture order so So lots of detail.

Yes Not just available in print form. It's also available in olive tree and a cross link So yeah, I'm looking at a verse on this side right so you can switch over there. Yeah Yeah, and so that's one thing it is available in software form as well, which is really great. I Of course, the Constables is available as software only, and then I think the Hohner's commentary on Ephesians, which I would call it the best commentary, as far as I know, ever written. That's available, I believe, in a Kindle version, is that correct?

So, at any rate, those would be examples. The Zondervan-Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary is pretty good. It's not perfect. There would be one example I'll point out shortly where I think they just fell off a cliff. But anyway, so then here are some negative examples, and this is not to speak ill of anyone. But yes, I noticed that you did not put down the Old Testament of the Zonderman's Illustrated Bible. And that would be that would be another one.

OK, but it's not to exclude anything. These are examples, not an exhaustive listing. Thank you. Zondervan also has a five-volume Old Testament version, which is generally recommendable. Again, it's not perfect, but a good resource. Negative examples, and when I say negative example, I don't always mean this is thumbs down, but just a caution.

Schofield, and then Schaefer, who was kind of a disciple of Schofield, and others following them have said that dispensation is a period of time. There's actually no basis for that assertion. So what that is, is essentially an ism read into scripture, and so that creates a problem. The four times that the word dispensation occurs in the King James, and it's not in, like, say, the New American Standard, It is translated three times as stewardship in the New American Standard, and one time as administration.

But neither of those is a period of time. Now, time is an element. Time is an element in it, but not defined as a period of time. Okay. So then N.T. Wright, who is Anglican, he's pretty prolific. He's written a lot of books. He's amillennial, so in one of his books he wrote, Jesus intended those who responded to him to see themselves as the true restored Israel.

So we went through that in lesson 39 and we showed that nobody from the time of the apostles and Christ on earth, nobody identifiable believed that until about 200 or so AD. So when it says Jesus intended, no, there's no way to connect that. There's no way to connect that. And we find out, how did it get into Christian thinking around 200 AD? It came from the Greek pagan philosophers who didn't believe their myths.

And so they allegorized, and this stands for that, and that stands for this, and that sort of thing. Okay point number two in the middle of page two commentaries or Bible study resources should be used as a cross-check against one another and So what I like to do even is to look at okay this guy got this idea from this guy and this guy got this idea from This guy and and a lot of times you'll find a genealogy of commentaries You know this guy always follows that one so A.T. Robertson, who was considered a great Greek scholar in his day, A.T. Robertson had this massive Greek grammar reference. I've got it in electronic format because the book form is like 1,500 pages long or something, so it's a massive text. He stated that the Aorist tense in the New Testament Greek conveyed once for all.

So you'd go to places like Romans, and offer yourself as a living sacrifice, Romans 12.1. And so offer yourself once for all, because it's Aristotelian. So you have, and we won't go through it in detail, you have as an appendix item, something you can pursue on your own. But if you go to different contexts, it just doesn't fit.

Here is the Jewish leaders. Jesus just said, tear down this temple, and in three days I'll build it back up again. And they said, well, wait a minute, this took 46 years to be built. They're as tense. Once for all? 46 years, once for all? That doesn't make sense. So anyway, it gives some examples of that kind of thing. And pretty clearly, without being a Greek scholar, you can say, no, it doesn't mean once for all. So you test it out. You get the idea. He didn't mean that. Okay, here's another one.

Written as well as oral sources will convey that the high priest had a rope tied around his ankle when he entered the Holy of Holies so that if he died and had any physical failure, he could be extracted without anyone else entering the Holy of Holies. Now, as it turns out, That's bogus.

It was a rumor that got started among both Jews and Christians during the Middle Ages and continues to this day. But there's no basis of it in scripture, there's no instructions to put a rope on the... And nobody from ancient times, not even like the Jewish authors or anything like that, wrote anything like that. It first showed up in the Middle Ages and It seems like it would be more useful to tie it around the waist? Well, and that's a variation on the rumor. The variation on the rumor is on the ankle or sometimes waist, but again it's rumor rather than something well-founded.

But here in this Torah class, online commentary, They're perpetuating the rumor, you know, going on with it. And so it goes on and on and on and on. So anyway, so using resources to cross-check is a recommendable idea. Top of page 3, we have this point, number 3.

A commentary is most useful when it explains why various other interpretations are set aside in favor of the one chosen by that author as the right interpretation. So, rather than telling you this is the interpretation, and then moving on with no observations and no, this is why this is right and this is why this is wrong, etc., that's not going to be useful. So just jumping at an interpretation and not telling you, okay, because every passage has different interpretations. Those who are amillennial will see the word Israel and replace it with church. What? Yes.

They'll replace it with church. Because the church fulfills Israel's commands. And then they go back into the Old Testament and do the same thing. The 1611 King James translation has in the Psalms Notes at the top that say church. Talk about the church. Whatever is in the psalm that talks about Israel at the top, it's the church.

So Israel doesn't get to be. It gets interpreted out. And even to the point that Christians in about the fourth century were saying, God hates the Jews. And if you're a good Christian, you will too. And that's where the teaching about the Church is the Kingdom of God and Christ is our King and all that. That's where it got started.

The God hates the Jews thing got set aside later. Luther wrote two whole books against the Jews. He was livid with them. And I think that's also something that people don't realize is Luther is held as this great church person. He was anti-Semitic. Very. Very much so. Very anti-Semitic. I've actually mentioned that to some people, and it's fighting words. Oh yeah, people get really upset.

But the truth is, it goes back to rejecting literal interpretation. So if that says Israel and I can make it the church, and all of a sudden, all the promises to Israel, the church gets. OK, so a positive example, again, I would say Harold Hohner's commentary on Ephesians is great for saying, OK, there's these four interpretations of this passage, and these are set aside for these reasons, and we will choose this one for this reason, and giving you the reasons why ones are accepted or rejected. And so you not only know then observations that are the basis, But based on those observations, here's the interpretations of the rejected and why, and here's the one that's embraced as the truth and why.

Yes? Practically, so I'm trying to get, or I am slowly getting through the Ephesians. Commentary is extremely slow going so you just have to be patient because was it Dr. Horner? He read in depth over a hundred books, 120 something books. And so when you say, you're saying why you reject, he goes into some pretty small but critical information. So it takes a while to get through it. Just so people realize that when they open that book, you're not going to scream through 25 pages in a day. Well, and that's one of the things I think, instead of having patience, people tend to just grab at a few things, take their ism, and then run, right?

And so, whereas I look at it, I, you know, on not a full-time basis, but over a period of nine years, I've looked in order to determine which teaching of relationship between the Church and In Israel's New Covenant, which teaching is the correct one? I studied for nine years before I drew a conclusion. There's four of them, by the way. Four different teachings, and so after looking at this for nine years, this is it.

Here's a negative example out of a guy who I think is otherwise excellent, so I'm not speaking ill of commentary. We're going to be going on December 11th over who are the sons of God in Genesis 6. Just that question, who are they? And by the way, there's three main views on that one. The view that I believe is correct has one side view that I believe is incorrect. But anyway, the term Sons of God, as it occurs here in Hebrew, refers only to angels in the Old Testament, and he rejects that. He says, angels do not reproduce, and he quotes Matthew 2230.

So, and that's this one, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. This is to the Sadducees, you know, question of here is a woman and she marries, you know, seven brothers, and which one is she married to in heaven? Jesus' response is, no, there's no human beings being married. Much of the disappointment of the Mormons, right? No human beings being married in heaven. And so they are asexual beings like the angels. That's what Jesus is saying here. However, Jesus didn't say the angels do not marry. He said angels what? Angels in heaven. Ah, that's different. Angels in heaven do not marry and are asexual beings.

So that's different, especially when I look at their equivalent terms of angels in heaven, angels of heaven, his angels, his mighty angels, Michael and his angels. There's all these terms which distinguish the angels in heaven from those who are where? On earth, right?

Okay, so And quite a few passages all the way from the Gospels on into Revelation make that distinction of angels which are in heaven. So we'll take a look at that, but that's where I think Constable made an interpretive distinction without looking at, wait a minute, angels in heaven, that might mean something different.

So it's just an instance where, okay, Constable, ordinarily I think he's just very good, and to have his commentaries on the entire Bible available for free is just quite a gift. But that's one area where I would say, wait a minute, you made a decision here based on incomplete observations. Angels of heaven, angels in heaven, God's angels, His angels, all those terms are referring to a different principle than just angels, period.

Okay, so let's move on to page four, and we have point number four. A commentary will be less useful when it invokes an interpretive system that is external to the text of Scripture. Okay, so I give a list here, and I list Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, Covenant Theology, and Dispensationalism that is not directly derived from Scripture. All five of those. Now, have I gotten all of the isms? No. There are some other isms. Which one have I missed?

Mormonism. Catholicism is going to have another interpretive approach to Scripture. Any others? Methodism, yeah. If you look at a lot of these isms... But also philosophical frameworks for interpreting like Hegel's dialectical reasoning and things like that. Right, okay. So you may have not just a religious one, but a philosophical approach to scripture, right? If I just start with the mindset, hey, this stuff is all a bunch of mythology, and it's been edited and edited and edited over the years, and if I have an evolutionary set of assumptions, I'm going to come to an entirely different conclusion. So yeah, I can have not just a religious system, but a philosophical system that is external to Scripture, that's going to greatly impact how I view it.

Let's look at Calvinist John 3.16. For God so loved the world of the elect that he gave his only begotten son only for the elect, that whoever believes in him which will only be the elect shall not perish but have eternal life because they are elect. Got it?

So here's the Arminian John 10.27-29. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give eternal life to them, and they may perish, deliberately or by negligence, and no one will snatch them out of my hand."

That's crazy, Macon. Okay, so external forces won't do it, but I could lose it myself, either deliberately, I don't believe anymore, or by negligence. That's the interpretation. The reality is, we looked at this a few weeks ago, and this is the ume, Word pair, which means it's not the slightest chance that they will perish, middle voice, of their own doing. I can't blow my salvation. Isn't that great? It doesn't depend on me. My salvation depends on who? And all I did was what? Believe. That's it. It's that simple and it's an absolute statement.

But Arminian interpretation and superimposed on that's going to wipe out ume and insert me and make it possible for me to lose my own salvation even though that's completely the opposite of what Jesus just said. So they change the ume and then they change the present tense? This is middle tense, middle voice. So this middle voice parish that is not perish of their own doing. They get the action of perishing as a result of their own doing, and he says it's not even possible. The ume means absolutely not, or not the slightest chance, or it's not even remotely possible. So here's open theism. Now let me explain.

With Calvinism, you can't lose your salvation, but you can prove that you never were saved by being unfaithful. In Arminianism, you can lose your salvation because it depends on you to keep saved. In open theism, by the way, Calvinism, Arminianism, and open theism all hinge on the same assumption.

I, as a human being, can understand how God does salvation in my human mind. They simply pin it on different things. Calvinism has God's sovereignty. Arminianism has man's will as sovereign. And Open Theism says, God doesn't know what's happening in the next moment. And God changes. They don't read their Bible today.

So here is Open Theism, Malachi 3.6. For I, the Lord, do not change. Therefore you, O sons of Jacob, might be consumed.

God works all things together for good. At least He tries. Right? And you are predestined to what? To be conformed to the image of His Son. But God will do His best. But He's not all-knowing and all-powerful. So He tries really hard because He loves you. But we'll see how it turns out. So that's open theism. Here's a good one to try to work out. We say that we're identified with Christ in what things?

His death. His burial. His resurrection. I'm not a tax kind of person, but if I were going to get taxed, that's what I'd have done. Is those five things. Will you put the symbols on your fingers? Maybe. But if you look at that, think of how God did that. Does God do that for unbelievers? No. How long ago did Christ die on the cross? Almost 2,000 years ago, right? And so what happened?

He knew in advance that you were going to believe. He, on that basis, knowing in advance you're going to believe, took you spiritually back to those five events, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and seeding, and made that happen back then, and then brought that forward to be effective to you now, from the moment you believe. But He chose you in Christ when? before the foundations of the world. So somehow this doesn't mix with open theism. Because God knows and God does regardless of time. God is not limited. So here's covenant theology. Covenant theology was something that was invented in the early 1600s. It kind of stacks on top of a lot of Calvinist theology.

Covenant reformed is kind of the way they'll often put themselves. Covenant theology will have the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption and that sort of thing, covenant of grace. And so they have these external covenants that they apply. And so those are the terms and they are very important. Covenant Theology, those are very important. So, Covenant Theology, Romans 9, 3-5 goes this way, For I wish that I myself were a curse, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption of sons, and the glory and the covenants, and I inserted there, which are not as important as the covenants we add to Scripture, and the giving of the law to Israel and the Church, And the temple service and the promises, those who are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God bless forever, Amen.

How do you like that? So their covenants, covenants of works, covenants of redemption, etc., covenants of grace, those covenants are more important than the covenants that are actually spelled out in Scripture. And you end up with Israel's laws too, most of them. Except for the ones about the temple sacrifice and all that. I didn't know the law was given to the church.

Oh, that's part of coming to theology. Right? Yep. You got the law. So that's what you'll find in the Westminster, shorter and longer catechism. It's what you'll find in the Heidelberg catechism. Is that what the Covenant Presbyterian Church follows? That's Covenant Theology. Next is dispensational, and this is a particular version where it's not directly derived from scripture, but here it is, "...studied to show thyself approving of God," and I particularly put in the King James, "...a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth into sequential periods of time."

And so what will happen in that approach, rightly dividing the word into sequential periods of time, is you've got, here's Adam and Eve in the garden, and that's one time, and then you've got conscience, and then you've got on through, and seven dispensations all the way, ending with the Millennial Kingdom. So you've got these seven dispensations, and everything's split up. Now let's ask this question. So the time in the garden, the first dispensation that was in the garden, when did that start?

That's the creation of Adam. Yeah, the creation of Adam, and he gave Adam instructions, you're not supposed to do what? Eat. Don't eat from that tree. Anything else, help yourself, but not that one. And then, when did it stop? When they ate. And specifically, when who ate? When Adam ate, then that stopped it.

What started then is the next one, right? This is conscience, right? And supposedly, the way the story goes, supposedly then, you'll have the end of that dispensation and it'll end up with judgment and or failure, right? And then the next dispensation starts. But Romans 2 spells out that this law of conscience being judged by conscience is for all people of all time who are apart from the law to be judged by conscience. And so does the dispensation stop when the next one starts?

No. Let's ask this one. Here is Noah. God has a covenant with Noah at the end of the flood. And what does God tell Noah? He's not going to destroy the earth. And how long does that last until the next start of the next dispensation? As long as there's the earth, right? And he also had, it's called the dispensation of government, typically, right? And he said, why was that? That gave the government the right to take a life if a life is taken, right? How long does that last?

As long as this present heavens and earth is around, it doesn't stop at the start of the next dispensation. And here's one more thing. Judgment and failure at the end of each dispensation, there's judgment and failure all over the place. Not just at the end of each one, all kinds of judgment, all kinds of failure, all over the place. Why? To segment it like that, Your eyes are off how mind-blowingly gracious and loving God is throughout all of it.

Assume we are going to completely and utterly fail. Assume God has this in control and loves us and has it wrapped up. So we'll look at this and we'll go into this more, but the point being that it doesn't hold up. It doesn't hold up, and so that's what dispensationalists will easily get fired upon and criticized because they've come up with something that's really artificial. It's not extracted from scripture.

All right, so now, next one, page 5, point 5. A commentary would be more useful when the principle of comparison and contrast is properly applied. Now, that is a huge principle. We can use it throughout the Bible. But the big tendency for some is they approach scripture and see all the scripture is flat. That is, they don't distinguish between one group or another, or one time and another. That is the tendency with covenant theology. Because you'll have one covenant that will last the whole thing. Instead of looking at scripture and saying, Here's the Jews, and they're under the law, and here is the church, and we're not under even one law. So, that's why you'll have guys who ought to know better. Here's John Stott, for example.

He wrote a commentary on Romans. When it's all said and done, he still believes in the Ten Commandments, and he doesn't believe in hell. So it's in scripture. So how can you write a commentary on Romans? 6.14, we're not under law, we're under grace. 6.15, we're not under law, we're under grace. 7.1-6, we're joined to Christ in order to die to the law.

But I still want some of it. I love the law so much. Okay, so you have that. Now, so one group sees everything as flat, and then you get things mushed. It puts the church under law, and it has, you know, the Jews being in Christ, and just all sorts of confusion.

So then there's the other extreme, and dispensationalists can easily go this direction. If it was written and said to Israel, then it's largely irrelevant to us who are in the church. In fact, you can just ignore it. I don't even want to study that stuff. The fact is, we can look at what's similar and what's different. And scripture will confirm what's similar and what's different. I give this example.

Jesus speaking to the Jews, who were all under the law of Moses, said, and this is Matthew 6, 14 and 15, if you forgive others for their transgressions, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. That's right after what's called the Lord's Prayer. Forgive us our debts as we forgive So under the law, you must forgive in order to be forgiven.

Then the Apostle Paul, a Pharisee, writing to the church at Ephesus, wrote, Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Are you forgiven? Yes. He wrote in Ephesians 1.7 and Colossians 1.14, We have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Do we have it? Do you have to ask for forgiveness? No. We have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins. We have it as a spiritual possession. We've got it. So, let's ask this question. Under law and under grace, am I in both cases required to forgive? Yes. What is the difference between the two is under law it's forgive in order to be forgiven. Under grace it's forgive because you've been forgiven. See the difference there? So this is comparison and contrast.

So I don't read through the Sermon on the Mount and say well that was for the Jews and you know so I don't care what Jesus said there because that's for them. I also don't read the Sermon on the Mount and say, that's for me, just 100%. But I can see what Jesus said to the Jews, and I can take it. Either way, it is the believer's place to forgive. But the motive for forgiving, under grace, is the exact opposite of that under law. Here's one other thing.

For all time, for all dispensations, what's the means of salvation? How does it come? By faith. All time. For Adam, it was by faith. For the believers who will be in the middle of the tribulation period, it will be by faith. For those who are born in the middle of the coming millennial kingdom, it will be by faith. For all time. Salvation is always by grace through faith. Always. All time. There's no distinction between any of those. But now, as I look at this, I can look at different passages and there's always compare and contrast. What's the same? What's different?

Do I read Titus chapter 1? verses 5-9 where he said, Titus, I'm sending you to Crete to appoint elders, and here's the requirements for elders. Is that directed to me? Do I need to get on the next plane to Crete and go and appoint elders? Why not? This is written, and this is a church context letter.

Specifically, Titus. Okay, that's written to Titus, so what's the same? Titus, comma. Okay, what's the same and what's different? Can I use the qualifications that Paul gave to Titus in selection and appointment of elders. I can use that, right? But I don't take Paul's appointment of Titus as applying to me. I'm not on the next plane out to Crete. Are you saying that not all elders are Cretan? All elders are Cretans.

So the thing is that what you have to do is essentially nothing can be taken out as that's written to me directly. I always have to ask, even for things written in the church, what applies to me and what does not. What applies to me directly and what does not? I always have to ask that. Am I supposed to be on the next flight to Patmos?

I hope not. Yeah? It's the principle that we apply, not the exact situation. Ah, yes. So we want to look for principles that apply and what part of it applies. And let's ask this question. Why would God give the Jews the law and have us not under the law? Why do we do things two different ways? I mean, the law, that was pretty intense and severe. Why do that? Because it shows the completeness and totality of who God is. Okay, yeah. The law reflects God's holiness and righteousness, right? And so the law reflects that. What's the problem with the law? We can't pull it off. We're not up to it. Right? That's the problem.

So what happened is God said, OK, I'm going to give you guys this so that you'll see the need for grace. You'll see the need for grace because you won't be able to pull it off. Under the law of Moses, a person could be eternally saved by faith, but get stoned to death for picking up firewood at the wrong hour. Could the law ever save anybody? Could you get killed?

Yep. Then what's going to happen? It helps us recognize our human insufficiency. God answers for the Church in one way, and for the Jews in the Millennial Kingdom, our common need, but he answers it in an entirely different way. Here in the Church, how many laws apply? Zero. In the coming Millennial Kingdom, how many laws will apply? All 613 laws will apply, but for those living, those Jews living during the Millennial Kingdom, all the laws will apply. What's different? They will have the Holy Spirit and be empowered to know and live out the law completely.

God met the need for righteousness to be lived out in the human incapacity differently for the Jews in the Millennial Kingdom as He does for us in the Church. But the need is in common. None of us can pull it off. We can't pull off righteousness on our own. Human inability. But God answers it beautifully, but very differently for the Church and for Israel. And if I don't get that distinction, I won't see what He's doing. And you won't see Him. So radically different means we've run out of time.

But thoughts, questions, comments, inspirations? Exasperations Okay, let's pray Lord. We thank you for your word. We thank you for for these principles that can help us see things clearly and even to make sense out of what's a maze of interpretations and interpreters and commentators. Even to be able to see that and say, ah, you had a clear intended meaning and we have the tools to know what that is. So we just thank you for that and thank you for what you're doing in and among us. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.