← Back to sermon library

We finish the book of Leviticus. uh, a buffer message. We look at second Timothy chapter 
three, but tonight I thought we'd look at chapter one in our 
confession, specifically, uh, paragraphs five to 10, basically 
some hermeneutical principles and hermeneutics simply as the 
science of biblical interpretation. More on that in just a moment. 
So I've got, I think three Wednesdays, including this one until we go 
to Kenya. So I thought the next couple 
Wednesdays, if anybody has any recommended topic or subject 
that we should look at, then please email me by Tuesday. And 
I'll look at the pile of it and sift through it and try to make 
a conscientious decision. Just kidding. If there's anything 
that you're interested in that perhaps would be by way of review 
or something that we need to spend a little bit of time on, 
then just, as I said, email me by Tuesday. And we'll try and 
do that next Wednesday night and then the following Wednesday 
night. So here in Chapter 1 in our Confession of Faith, if you 
don't have a copy of the confession, does everybody have one? You 
can turn to page 920 in your Trinity Psalter hymnal. There 
you have the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 1 is pretty 
similar in both these confessions. But I want to read beginning 
in paragraph 5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony 
of the Church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy 
Scriptures, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of 
the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of 
all the parts, the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory 
to God, the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's 
salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections 
thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself 
to be the Word of God. Yet notwithstanding, our full 
persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority 
thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness 
by and with the Word in our hearts. The whole counsel of God concerning 
all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, 
and life is either expressly set down or necessarily contained 
in the Holy Scripture. unto which nothing at any time 
is to be added, whether by new revelation of the spirit or traditions 
of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge 
the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary 
for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed 
in the Word. and that there are some circumstances concerning 
the worship of God and government of the church common to human 
actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light 
of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules 
of the word, which are always to be observed. All things in 
Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear 
unto all. Yet those things which are necessary 
to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly 
propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, 
that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of 
ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of 
them. The Old Testament in Hebrew, which was the native language 
of the people of God of old, and the New Testament in Greek, 
which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known 
to the nations, being immediately inspired by God and by His singular 
care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic. So as in all controversies of 
religion, the Church is finally to appeal to them. But because 
these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, 
who have a right unto and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded 
in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are 
to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto 
which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in 
all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through 
patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope. The infallible 
rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself. And 
therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense 
of any scripture, which is not manifold but one, it must be 
searched by other places that speak more clearly. the supreme 
judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, 
and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, 
doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined, and 
in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy 
Scripture, delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, 
our faith is finally resolved. Amen. Well, a wonderful statement 
concerning of the Holy Scriptures or the doctrine of Scripture 
here in our confession of faith. Now, the paragraph that deals 
specifically with interpretation is paragraph 9. You'll notice 
it says, the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture 
is the Scripture itself. That's one of the primary components 
when it comes to interpreting the Bible. The Bible is its best 
interpreter. But as well, as we look from 
paragraphs 5 to 10, there are things in there, in each of these 
particular paragraphs, that help us in terms of the interpretation 
of Scripture. So I want to look first at the 
scope of Scripture in paragraph 5. Secondly, the sufficiency 
of Scripture in paragraph 6. Third, the perspicuity, which 
simply means clarity, the clarity of Scripture in paragraph 7. 
Fourth, the translation of Scripture, paragraph 8. 5, the interpretation 
of scripture in paragraph 9, and then the finality of scripture 
in paragraph 10. So as I said, the word hermeneutics, 
it's a word that simply means interpretation. Birkhoff defines 
it this way, the science that teaches us the principles, laws, 
and methods of interpretation. Now, this isn't confined to scripture. There is a general hermeneutical 
sort of system, or general hermeneutics rather applies to all kinds of 
writing. There's particular rules that 
you use when you read Shakespeare, when you read poetry, when you 
read other literature. But as well, we have, in fact, 
Plato was the first to use it as a technical term, but special 
hermeneutics applies to certain definite kinds of writing, and 
then sacred or biblical hermeneutics obviously applies to scripture. Now, hermeneutics provides the 
principles by which we engage in exegesis. So it's kind of 
a connection between theory and application. So the architect 
draws up the plans in his office and then sends those out, and 
then they are executed in the actual building that they convey. So the same sort of thing. We 
take these principles, and there's not a chapter in the Bible that 
has 15 principles. Just abide by these, and you'll 
always interpret the scripture properly. That isn't in the Bible. There's also not that list in 
the Reformed tradition. You hear about principles of 
interpretation and hermeneutics, and you think there's probably 
some book out there somewhere that fell out of heaven that 
tells us how to interpret the Word of God. No, it's not quite 
like that. It's just stuff that when you 
read through Scripture, and then when you read through the gifts 
of Christ given to the church, and how they interpret Scripture, 
things along the way, principles along the way have been codified 
to help interpreters of Scripture in the exegetical task. So the 
word exegesis simply means to take out of the text the meaning 
that the Holy Spirit intended to be in there. So exegesis is 
the practical application of a hermeneutical system. So we've 
got principles of interpretation, we've got a method, we've got 
strategy, but when we go to interpret, we're taking that and applying 
it. And then the importance of hermeneutics. 
If you think about theology, theology as a discipline of study 
can be subcategorized into four parts. First, you have what's 
called exegetical or biblical theology, stuff dealing specifically 
with the Bible. Secondly, you have historical 
theology. That's when you ask the question, 
what has the church said about the Bible throughout the history 
of the church? And then you have systematic 
theology, which basically takes the doctrines of the Bible and, 
as you might guess, systematizes it, looks at the logical relations 
between the doctrines, and seeks to present that as a collective 
whole. And then the last is practical theology. So building upon your 
exegesis, building upon what the church has said and spoken 
concerning specific texts, looking at systematic theology, we then 
engage in practical theology, the outworking of these things 
in the life of God's people. So, if our hermeneutic is incorrect, 
or if it's wrong, or if it's faulty, what we build upon is 
then, or the things that rather that we build upon them are going 
to be bad. In other words, what you put 
into Scripture is what you get out. If you bring a faulty hermeneutic, 
if you bring faulty principles, you're going to get bad doctrine 
out. So it's a good thing to try and be consistent, a good 
thing to listen to the church, because the church has spoken 
about these things throughout its ages. I don't mean this church 
in particular, but the church in general. Good men who have 
written that have done study on these particular things. In 
fact, Burkoff has a very helpful book, sort of an introductory 
book, called Principles of Biblical Interpretation, which might be 
a good place to start with reference to some of these things. But 
let's look first at the scope of Scripture in paragraph 5. 
The paragraph properly is on the authority of Scripture. But 
I want to just sort of hone in there on the scope of the whole. If you ask the question, what's 
the point of the Bible? Why is it there? What is its 
reason for existence? Now, there's a lot of people 
out there that will answer that question in a lot of different 
ways. I think I've referred to Rick 
Warren before. Rick Warren is the purpose-driven 
life, purpose-driven church guy, and that's not actually what 
I want to pick on him about. He's actually also the Daniel 
diet guy. He, you know, read the book of 
Daniel, and there Daniel, you know, abstains from the delicacies 
of Babylon, and, you know, he loses weight, he looks buffed, 
and, you know, therefore, let's write a book on the Daniel diet. Now, I'm not going to condemn 
Rick Warren about that. But that's not why Daniel and 
his diet are in the Bible. You'll oftentimes hear people 
talk about or psychoanalyze, you know, David and Goliath. 
Well, you know, that story exists to teach us how we're to deal 
with our giants. That's really not it at all. 
That's to miss it by a million miles. Some approach the Bible 
as simply a collection of sort of good sayings and helpful principles 
for a decent life. Now, there are that or there 
are those things in there, but that's not the focus. That's 
not the primary emphasis. If you look at paragraph five, 
it says we may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church 
of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures 
and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine 
and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts. 
And then this next clause I want to focus on the scope of the 
whole, which is to give all glory to God. the scope of the whole, 
which is to give all glory to God." Narrowly considered, this 
means specific texts and what they mean in specific contexts. But in the broader situation, 
look at what the Confession says. It's the glory of God. And when 
we ask the question of the Bible, how does God get glory? It is 
through the salvation of sinners by His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. So the scope of the whole is 
redemption by God's grace through our Lord Jesus Christ. Barcelos 
says for the 17th century Reformed Orthodox and their Reformed predecessors, 
Christ was the scope of scripture, being the primary means through 
which God gets glory for himself. So if we approach the Bible as 
simply a collection of maxims and principles and little nuggets 
of truth to guide us along the way, we're going to miss the 
point. And the point is the glory of 
God in the salvation of sinners by His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. 
That's the emphasis. And that's not just from the 
confession. We see it in the scriptures themselves. William Ames says the Old and 
New Testaments are reducible to these two primary heads. The 
Old promises Christ to come and the New testifies that He has 
come. Turn to the book of Ruth for 
a moment, Ruth chapter 4. Now, Ruth is that wonderful love 
story that we like to read and feel sentimental about and get 
warm fuzzies and all that sort of a thing. The primary emphasis 
in the book of Ruth is on the last section in Ruth chapter 
4. If you look specifically at verse 
17, it says, Also the neighbor women gave him a name, saying, 
There is a son born to Naomi. And they called his name Obed. 
He is the father of Jesse, the father of David. Now this is 
the genealogy of Perez. Perez begot Hetzron. Hetzron 
begot Ram, and Ram begot Aminadab. Aminadab begot Nashon, and Nashon 
begot Salmon. Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot 
Obed. Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot 
David. That's the purpose for the book 
of Ruth. Now, the love story is good. All that other stuff 
in there is definitely necessary and important. I'm not suggesting 
it is irrelevant, but it's moving to this presentation of genealogy. Gil says on the book of Ruth, 
the principal design of it is to give the genealogy of David, 
whom Samuel had anointed to be king of Israel, and from whom 
the Messiah was to come, and who therefore may be said to 
be the aim and scope of it, as he is all of scripture. and whereby 
it appears that He sprung both from Jews and Gentiles, and is 
the Savior of both, and there is a good foundation for both 
to hope in Him, and the call and conversion of Ruth the Moabitess 
may be considered as a shadow, emblem, and pledge of the conversion 
of the Gentiles." Turn over to the New Testament, where we see 
the scope of the whole, focusing primarily upon our Lord Jesus 
Christ. Luke's Gospel, Chapter 24. Luke 
chapter 24. Again, not that there aren't 
principles, not that there aren't, you know, nuggets of truth to 
help us along our way. The primary emphasis in Scripture 
is redemption by the blood of the Lamb, and that for the glory 
of God Most High. Notice in Luke 24, specifically 
at verse 25, then he said to them, O foolish ones and slow 
of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken, ought 
not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into 
his glory. And beginning at Moses and all 
the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the 
things concerning himself. Again, if you're reading Genesis 
to Malachi and you're missing Jesus, you're not reading it 
properly. Jesus is the sum and substance 
from Genesis to Malachi. Notice in verses 44 to 47, then 
he said to them, these are the words which I spoke to you while 
I was still with you. that all things must be fulfilled 
which were written in the law of Moses and the prophets and 
the Psalms, notice, concerning me. And he opened their understanding 
that they might comprehend the scriptures. Then he said to them, 
thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ 
to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day. and that 
repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name 
to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses 
of these things. Behold, I send the promise of 
my Father upon you, but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until 
you are endued with power from on high." So Christ is the one 
who is telling us that Christ is the scope of the whole. Notice 
in John's gospel, John chapter 5, specifically at verse 39, 
Jesus combating, as he often did with the religious leaders, 
rebukes them in 539. You search the scriptures, for 
in them you think you have eternal life, and these are they which 
testify of me. But you are not willing to come 
to me that you may have life. So they searched the scriptures 
looking for eternal life, but they didn't search the scriptures 
looking for the one in whom there is eternal life. They missed 
it by a long shot. Notice in verses 45 to 47, do 
not think that I shall accuse you of the Father. There is one 
who accuses you, Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believe 
Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if 
you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? 
We have the testimony of Christ. We have the testimony of his 
apostles. Look at Acts chapter 10, Peter preaching in the household 
of Cornelius. He says specifically in verse 
43 concerning our Lord Jesus Christ to him, all the prophets 
witness that through his name, whoever believes in him will 
receive remission of sins. Again, if you're reading the 
Old Testament and you're getting diets and principles and nuggets, 
but you're not getting Jesus, you're not reading the Old Testament 
properly. Look at Romans chapter 16, the 
last bit, the doxology of praise to God. Notice in Romans 16, 
25, now to him who is able to establish you according to my 
gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation 
of the mystery kept secret since the world began, but now made 
manifest and by the prophetic scriptures made known to all 
nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God for obedience 
to the faith to God alone wise be glory through Jesus Christ 
forever. Amen. So, in the first place, 
it's good to know what the Bible's about when you come to interpret 
the Bible. If you don't know what the Bible 
is about, ask somebody so that they can tell you that the scope 
of the whole is the glory of God in the salvation of sinners 
by His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Because that will affect how 
you read it. That will affect how you understand 
it. That will affect the relationship 
between the Old and the New Testaments. We've got anticipation and promise. We've got realization and fulfillment. The two are inextricably connected 
together. You don't get rid of one or the 
other. You must have them both because 
they testify of the same Christ. So the scope of Scripture. Notice, 
secondly, the sufficiency of Scripture in paragraph 6. There 
was a fellow that wrote an article, and it was called The Insufficiency 
of Scripture. And I think that's a volatile 
title, right? That's a very volatile title. 
But I think the point was simple. The Bible doesn't tell us how 
to build a refrigerator. The Bible doesn't tell us how 
to build a car. The Bible doesn't tell us about 
how to cook a chicken. I mean, maybe. That's closer 
to it than the fridges. So the Bible, understanding the 
scope of the whole, the glory of God, and the salvation of 
sinners through Jesus Christ, it therefore doesn't speak to 
every possible thing in the world. It doesn't address refrigeration. It doesn't address cooking temperatures. It doesn't address... Not to 
say it hasn't got science in it, not that there isn't logic, 
not that there isn't those things in it. The primary focus of Scripture 
is the glory of God, salvation of sinners. So we need to understand 
the sufficiency of Scripture. Notice what our Confession says 
here. It speaks with reference to God. Paragraph 6, the whole counsel 
of God concerning all things necessary, notice, for His own 
glory. That comes first, but then man's 
salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down or 
necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, unto which nothing 
at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit 
or traditions of men. So the extent of Scripture's 
sufficiency, it is calculated to bring glory to God, and it 
is calculated to bring blessing to man. Again, it was not calculated 
to build refrigerators. Now, the salvation of man, the 
restoration of the mind, the image of godness that man possesses, 
all that enables him to build refrigerators. But there's not 
a Romans 18 on, you know, appliances. When it comes to this issue of 
the sufficiency of scripture, the confession is very specific. 
It is for His own glory, and as well, man's salvation, faith, 
and life. And then look at that last statement 
in the section that we just read, unto which nothing at any time 
is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit or traditions 
of men. Now, it is true at the time of 
the Westminster Assembly, I'm not sure too much about the particular 
Baptist, there were those who had a more charismatic understanding 
of the Holy Spirit. I don't mean charismatic like 
we see in our own day, but I mean those that were open to new readings 
by the Spirit. That's just undeniable. But remember 
that the confessions of faith are consensus documents. So what 
makes it into the document is a clear statement on what we 
call today cessationism. And cessationism simply is the 
cessation of the revelatory gifts of the Spirit. not the cessation 
of the gifts of the Spirit. The Spirit of God regenerates 
sinners. That's a gift, and we praise 
Him for it. But the revelatory gifts, tongue-speaking 
and prophesying, by which tongue-speakers and prophets communicated the 
revealed Word of God to the early church prior to the close of 
the canon. So this statement is a cessationist 
or a non-continuationist statement, unto which nothing at any time 
is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit or traditions 
of men. John Owen has a famous saying. 
He says, if private revelations agree with Scripture, they're 
needless. But if they disagree with Scripture, 
they're heretical. So, this whole idea of new revelation, 
new light, or the Lord spoke to me, or the Lord told me, not 
so with reference to our confession here. And then notice, specifically, 
it says in the middle there, nevertheless we acknowledge the 
inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the 
saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the 
Word. So, and that there are some circumstances concerning 
the worship of God and government of the church, common to human 
actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light 
of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules 
of the word, which are always to be observed. That's the statement 
I just mentioned. Does the Bible say you got to 
meet at 10 a.m. or 11 a.m. and at 5 p.m.? No, that's light of nature. That's 
general revelation. That's Christian prudence. You 
can agree upon that collectively as brothers in Christ or brothers 
and sisters in Christ. But the point is, is that when 
it comes to the glory of God, man's salvation, faith, and life, 
in the first part of paragraph 6, it's either expressly set 
down. That means explicit statements. 
You shall not murder. That is an expressly set down 
statement or necessarily contained. That means it's implied or it's 
implicit. So when it comes to Scripture, 
it's not only the explicit meaning of text that is authoritatively 
the Word of God, but those things that are deduced by good and 
necessary consequence. In fact, the Westminster Confession 
in Savoy contains that language here. It says, "...by good and 
necessary consequence may be deduced." So the idea is that 
if you have a sound and a true logical deduction from Scripture, 
then that is the authoritative Word of God. Dixon says, "...is 
not that which necessarily follows from Scripture, contained in 
it implicitly and implicitly revealed by God, infallibly true?" 
Again, back to the example, you shall not murder. We say that, 
you know, if you take a pill and you commit the act of suicide, 
then that is to violate the sixth commandment. There's no specific 
text in the Bible that says you must not take a pill and commit 
suicide. That is a necessary inference 
that we can deduce from the commandment, you shall not murder. So the 
sufficiency of scripture is seen in explicit statements and as 
well in implicit statements in those things that are deduced 
by good and necessary consequence. And then thirdly, in terms of 
a principle, the perspicuity or the clarity of Scripture in 
paragraph 7. And notice, first, it says all 
things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves. In fact, 
you can turn to 2 Peter chapter 3. It's a classic proof text 
on this idea of perspicuity. Usually we invoke it to show 
that there are some things in the Scripture that are hard to 
understand. And, brethren, I think everybody 
would admit that, right? There's some difficulties when 
it comes to certain things by way of interpretation. And even 
Peter recognized that concerning the Apostle Paul's writings. 
Notice in 2 Peter 3 at verse 14. Therefore, beloved, looking forward 
to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, 
without spot and blameless, and consider that the longsuffering 
of our Lord is salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul, 
according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you." 
Now that last phrase, right before verse 16, the last part of verse 
15, is oftentimes employed as a helpful proof text, or at least 
an implicit statement that Paul wrote Hebrews. Because Peter's 
audience are Jewish believers. And so he's saying, our beloved 
Paul wrote to you. And then he says, as also in 
all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which 
are some things hard to understand. So the clarity of scripture does 
not mean you're going to figure every single thing out. The perspicuity 
of scripture doesn't mean that you're going to be, you know, 
a rocket scientist that's able to interpret every jot and diddle 
of God's holy word. That's not the perspicuity of 
scripture. Notice, well, just continuing 
on this verse, in which some things are hard to understand, 
which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction. 
Notice what he says concerning Paul's writings, as they do also 
the rest of the scripture. So Peter recognizes that Paul 
wrote scripture by the spirit for the good of the church. So 
he acknowledges that not all scripture is equally clear. The 
next statement says, nor alike clear unto all. Not everybody's 
going to be a Calvin. It's like when mommy said you're 
going to be, you can be the president. A lot of mothers are lying to 
their children out there. No, you're not smart enough. You're not going to be a president. 
Now, I know that's not designed to help their little self-esteem, 
but somebody needs to deliver that crushing blow. But when 
it comes to interpreting Scripture, we're not going to be, you know, 
Martin Luther. We're not going to be, you know, 
Peter van Maastricht or Turretin. So that's okay. Embrace that. But then it goes on to say, and 
this is connected to that whole sufficiency of Scripture thing. 
Things necessary for His own glory, the beginning of paragraph 
6, man's salvation, faith, and life. Drop down to paragraph 
7. Yet, so it's an acknowledgment that not everything is as plain 
as alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet, 
those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed 
for salvation. are so clearly propounded and 
opened in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, 
but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain 
to a sufficient understanding of that." It's a blessed thing. 
You may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but by 
God's grace, you can learn the doctrine of salvation. You can 
learn justification. You can confess faith in Jesus 
Christ. You can hear that he lived. You 
can hear that he died. You can hear that he was raised 
again and that he does this for us men and for our salvation 
by God's grace, believing in that and passing from death unto 
life. It's a blessed, wonderful thing. 
They're so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture 
or other than not only the learned, but the unlearned. And I love 
this in a due use of ordinary means. You don't have to shimmy 
up to the top of Mount Shem, not eating anything for 40 days, 
and just beg the Lord to save you. No, read the Bible. Come 
to church. Read the confession of faith. 
Pray to God. Use the means that God's ordained 
for the salvation of sinners. And I really encourage this to 
sinners. Read the Bible. Romans 10, 17 
is really clear. Faith comes by hearing and hearing 
by the Word of God. Yes, people need your testimony, tell them 
about how good Jesus is, but they need the written Word of 
living God, propositional revelation. They need to believe that for 
salvation. And so the best evangelism you 
can do for your beloved neighbor or friend or family member, buy 
them a Bible and encourage them to read the Bible. Get in there. 
Get into the text of scripture. I typically recommend the gospel 
of Mark. I know a lot of times people recommend the gospel of 
John. John's great too. Mark to me is a simpler, quicker 
read and 16 chapters. I mean, it doesn't take a lot 
of effort to read through the gospel of Mark. I mean, come 
on. In this day and age, we have 
all these benefits and all these Bibles. I mean, we don't even 
have to read it now. Just put it on your phone and 
they'll read it to you. There's really no excuse for 
the amount of biblical illiteracy that we face in the church. And 
for those of us within the church, we ought to commend the reading 
of God's holy word to people. So the learned and the unlearned. We know the psalmist says that 
the law of Yahweh makes wise the simple. And he says in Psalm 
119, God's law makes me wiser than all my instructors. So it's 
the scripture that makes a man wise. It's the scripture that 
makes a man knowledgeable. And then notice, fourthly, we 
have the translation of scripture in paragraph 8. Paragraph 8 basically 
says we have the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament 
in Greek. Well, guess what? Living in Chilliwack 
in the 21st century, we don't speak Hebrew or Greek. So how 
do we, you know, breach that chasm? How do we bring the Word 
of God to bear upon moderns? Well, notice that the confession 
reminds us that God's Word is inspired. Notice right after 
the statement concerning Hebrew and Greek, it says, being immediately 
inspired by God. That means that when Paul and 
Peter and James and John and Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel 
and Nahum, when they wrote scripture, they were writing the Word of 
God. The classic text is 2nd Timothy. All scripture is given 
by inspiration of God. Literally, it's God-breathed. 
That doesn't mean that the apostles were inspired like we're inspired 
when we look at a sunset and then we might compose a psalm 
or a hymn, rather, or a poem. No, no, that's not what inspiration 
means. It means God-breathed. God used those men with leaving 
those men intact. When you read Paul, he's not 
James. When you read James, he's not John. When you read Peter, 
he's not Matthew. They're their own men. They're 
their own fellows. They're their own guys. God doesn't 
destroy that, but rather God uses that to speak to the church 
specifically. So we've got this statement concerning 
divine inspiration, but then we have this statement concerning 
providential preservation. So notice, being immediately 
inspired by God and by His singular care and providence, kept pure 
in all ages, are therefore authentic. It's a wonderful statement. God 
who gave us the Word. In fact, if you look at paragraph 
1 in this chapter, it will tell you why God had the Word given. At the very bottom or, you know, 
well, let's look right in the middle. Therefore, it pleased 
the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself 
and to declare that his will unto his church and afterward 
for the better preserving and propagating of the truth and 
for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against 
the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the 
world to commit the same holy underwriting, which maketh the 
Holy Scriptures to be most necessary those former ways of God's revealing 
His will unto His people being now ceased." Again, another statement 
on cessationism or non-continuationism. The idea being is that God, who 
gave the word through Paul, through Peter, through James, through 
John, through Isaiah, through Jonah, was able to preserve that 
word such that we can trust what we have now in our English Bibles. The argument's simple. If the 
God of Genesis 1 is the God of Genesis 1, then certainly what 
Paul wrote in the 1st century is still what we have in the 
21st century. And so we have translation of 
Scripture. Notice, going on in paragraph 
8, but because these original tongues are not known to all 
the people of God who have a right unto and interest in the Scriptures 
and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, 
Therefore, they are to be translated into the vulgar. Vulgar doesn't 
mean bad words. It means the various languages 
out there, the non-Hebrew, non-Greek, the vulgar language of every 
nation under which they come. Now, the particular discipline 
that deals with this sort of a thing is called textual criticism. And textual criticism is a monumental 
area of study. But suffice it to say that the 
New Testament, we have over 5000 extant manuscripts of the New 
Testament. Compare that with, say, Plato. 
There might be a couple. Do you notice that people in 
college settings don't question the integrity of Plato's writings? 
They don't say, well, you know, this can't actually be what Plato 
wrote. Well, they do that all the time with what Paul wrote. 
Why is that? Because they have an ax to grind 
against God. They don't have an ax to grind 
with Plato. They have an ax to grind with 
God. So they think there's all these errors. There's all these 
problems. There's all the over 5,000 extant 
manuscripts. That doesn't mean Matthew to 
Revelation. It doesn't mean beautifully bound Cambridge Bibles with wide 
margins so that Paul could write his copious notes in there. No. 
But there are pieces, fragments, minuscules, codices, all sorts 
of things displayed throughout the world in various museums. 
The Bible is the most well-attested book in the world. And again, 
those who say, well, it's all filled with all kinds of inconsistencies 
and contradictions, best way to rebuff that is just hand them 
the Bible and say, show me these things. So textual criticism 
deals with the underlying Greek manuscripts. And typically, I 
don't know that I want to get too far afield here. But basically 
they categorize, or there's three approaches to the sort of Greek 
New Testament. One is called the Textus Receptus, 
and that's the Greek text that the King James Version was translated 
from. The New King James is also, what's 
that? Boom. OK. And then you have what's 
called the majority text. The majority text is basically 
the most readings, the most amount of manuscripts that pertain to 
a reading. And this affects what you see 
when you're reading. Say, for instance, you have the 
New King James, which, by the way, one of the benefits of the 
New King James is the marginal notes. But it'll tell you where 
there's a difference between, say, the Textus Receptus and 
other manuscripts. Those are called variant readings. 
This does not mean there's errors or problems in the Bible. It 
doesn't mean that Paul wrote something in error. It means 
in the transmission of Scripture, scribal errors did come to pass. But really, let me just finish 
these manuscripts. So you've got Textus Receptus, 
Majority, and then what's called the Eclectic Text. And that's 
pretty much the foundation for all the modern translations, 
all the modern perversions, all the, just kidding. All the modern 
departures from, I'm kidding, I gotta stop here. Me and Shane 
are gonna fight. So those are the three differences, 
but I think the number, it's been some time since I looked 
into this, within that, there's about 85% agreement. When we 
talk variant readings, it could be the difference between Bethesda 
and Bethesda. We're not talking about massive, 
oh, life-shattering, earth-altering sorts of things. So these are 
called variant readings. And the discipline that is tasked 
with investigating these things is called textual criticism. And it's not being critical, 
yeah, you're messed up. It just means going into the 
text, looking, comparing, and sort of collating things. And 
then fifth, the interpretation of scripture. As I said, there's 
probably a lot more that could be said on a lot of these things, 
but just a flyover tonight. So the interpretation of scripture 
proper in paragraph nine, you have two principles here, the 
analogy of scripture and the analogy of faith. Notice the 
analogy of scripture says the infallible rule of scripture, 
of scripture, or I'm sorry, of interpretation of scripture is 
the scripture itself. That should make perfect sense, 
right? If you have a problem with something 
in the Bible, ask the Bible. A way to sort of illustrate this, 
one of the ones that I use pretty regularly is baptism. There's 
a statement, 1 Corinthians 15, 29, where the apostle Paul mentions 
baptism for the dead. What does that mean? Well, I'm 
not sure I'll ever know what it means, but I can tell you 
certainly what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean that we baptize 
dead people. So how do I come to that recognition? Well, from the clear teaching 
passages where baptism is asserted. We see it as something that is 
given to believers, it is by immersion, and it represents 
our union with Jesus Christ and his life, death, and burial, 
and resurrection. Eschatology, the study of last 
things. There's, you know, much to say 
on that subject, but we always confine everything to Revelation 
chapter 20 and the identification of the thousand years there. 
Well, the book of Revelation is a very symbolically highly 
charged book. It tells you from the outset, 
there's things signified. When you read through it, there's 
monsters, there's beasts, there's all kinds of stuff. And yet we 
get to Revelation 20, and all of a sudden we're just, you know, 
have to take everything here absolutely literally. I would 
suggest that 1 Corinthians 15, 20 to 28 is a clearer presentation 
of what happens, not presentation, a clearer statement of what happens 
when Jesus returns. So I think that 1 Corinthians 
15, 20 to 28 can help us with a Revelation 20. In other words, 
you don't take the admittedly difficult passages to help you 
with the admittedly clear passages. Why would anyone do that? Why 
would you take a passage that's not as clear to help you with 
passages that are certainly clear? Take the certainly clear passages 
and let them help you with the not certainly clear passages. Muller says, the analogy of Scripture, 
the interpretation of unclear, difficult, or ambiguous passages 
of Scripture by comparison with clear and unambiguous passages 
that refer to the same teaching or event. Again, when you start 
looking at hermeneutics or these principles of interpretation, 
have I said anything tonight that you would go, wow, I can't 
believe, probably not. You've probably thought, yeah, 
we should probably know what the Bible is about. Yeah, we 
should recognize it's sufficient. Yeah, we should recognize that 
it is to be translated. These are things that once you 
hear them, you just kind of go, yeah, that makes perfect sense. So it's not esoteric, it's not 
confined to a handful of monks in the 14th century out in the 
desert. These are things for the church so that when you're 
reading your Bible, you can profit and you can benefit and you can 
grow and you can understand. So if you come to something that's 
difficult to understand, look in a passage that's not as difficult 
to help shed light on it. I gave the example of baptism 
and of eschatology. So, it says the infallible rule 
of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. And 
therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense 
of any Scripture, which is not manifold but one, it must be 
searched by other places that speak more clearly. Nehemiah 
Cox, the architect of our confession says, so in all our search after 
the mind of God and the Holy Scriptures, we are to manage 
our inquiries with reference to Christ. Therefore, the best 
interpreter of the Old Testament is the Holy Spirit speaking to 
us in the new. Again, this is just to me so, 
so basic that you let the apostles show and teach and lead and demonstrate 
how to deal with Old Testament prophecy. If you do that, you 
can't help but become Reformed. It's an inevitability. If you 
listen to the Paul, how he deals with who Israel is, what the 
land is, who, you know, the blessings and the promises are for. What 
Paul does with the Old Testament prophets is to be the pattern 
for what we do with the Old Testament prophets as well. Some have said, 
well, Paul had the spirit, and we don't in the way that Paul 
had it. So if Paul had the spirit and 
does correct biblical interpretation, if we don't have the spirit like 
Paul, shouldn't we still follow what Paul had when he had the 
spirit and correct biblical interpretation? There are people, brethren, and 
Bible teachers, professors of theology, that say you can't 
use Paul in Romans 5 to help you understand Genesis 1 to 3. That is mind-blowing. You can 
use John Calvin to help you with Genesis 1 to 3, but you can't 
use the apostle Paul. Well, when you read Romans chapter 
5, Paul helps a lot with Genesis 1 to 3. We need to listen to 
him and let him help us with Genesis 1 to 3. So interpreting 
scripture by scripture, interpreting Old Testament scripture with 
the New Testament apostles and seeing how they themselves do 
it, see how they apply it in light of the Christ event. in 
light of the reality of the life, death, and resurrection of the 
one who was promised and prophesied in the Old Testament. Now that 
he's come, now that he's lived, now that he's died, now that 
he's been raised, now that he's been ascended on high, the apostles 
write and they apply Old Testament prophecy and they show how it 
is fulfilled in him. Certainly, we follow their example. 
And if we do so, I think we're going to be correct when it comes 
to certain things that are very, very provocative in our own generation. So, not only the analogy of Scripture, 
but there's also something called the analogy of faith. And again, 
Muller says, the analogy of faith, it means the use of a general 
sense of the meaning of Scripture constructed from the clear or 
unambiguous texts as the basis for interpreting unclear or unambiguous 
texts. As distinct from the more basic 
analogy of Scripture, the analogy of faith presupposes a sense 
of the theological meaning of Scripture. In other words, it's 
the overarching ebb and flow of God's Word. In other words, 
the theological interpretation of Scripture. Thankfully, that 
is making a resurgence in our own day. It's what the church 
operated with and practiced up until the Enlightenment. And 
again, the historical grammatical interpretation of Scripture, 
good. We should, as far as we're able, know what's going on in 
the background. We should know how to parse verbs. 
We should know how to sentence diagram. We should know how to 
break down, you know, syntactical units and all that sort of thing. 
But we need to know the theological interpretation of Scripture. 
We need to understand God, the Lord, speaking in the Word of 
God. That is the primary emphasis. You got guys that are skilled 
in Greek, they are skilled in the background, they are skilled 
in all this stuff, and they don't know theology, brethren. And 
then you go back to our brothers in the history of the church, 
and they didn't have the resources available, the computers available, 
and yet they understood that God the Lord spoke His Word through 
both the Old and the New Testaments, and they understood that. Very 
crucial. Analogy of faith, analogy of 
Scripture. And then the finality of Scripture 
in paragraph 10. The Supreme Judge, this again 
is an interpretative principle. We can use the gifts that Christ 
has given to the church. Notice that paragraph 10 does 
not denounce, does not decry, and does not suggest that there 
should be no decrees of councils, that there should be no opinions 
of ancient writers, that there should be no doctrine. That's 
not the argument in paragraph 10. the supreme judge by which 
all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all 
decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines 
of men, private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence 
we are to rest can be no other. But the Holy Scripture, delivered 
by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered our faith, is finally 
resolved." So it's not saying that councils, creeds, confessions... 
Remember, They're writing a confession. They're not saying don't do these 
things. They're saying that everything 
written by man, uninspired man, is ultimately subject to and 
subordinate to the Word of the Living God. It must be, it can 
be, no other but Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit into 
which Scripture so delivered our faith is finally resolved. 
So everything that was written, everything that we use to help 
us with reference to the interpretation of Scripture, it's all subordinate. 
It is not on the same level. It is not on par with Scripture. 
So just some principles there hopefully that will help in interpreting. If you have questions and maybe 
you want to go a bit more into One of these particular subjects 
next week, as I said, text me or email me by Tuesday. I'll 
close and then if there's any questions about anything in there, 
we'll talk. Our Father, we thank you for 
these things that we find here in our confession of faith. We 
thank you for the scriptures and the clarity that we have. 
concerning the glory of God and the salvation of man. I pray 
that you would bless and encourage us with these things, that you 
would help us to read our Bibles with zeal and earnestness, with 
receptivity, and with a desire to do what you call us to do. 
And we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Well, any questions 
or comments?