The Sound of Doctrine

Tag: Exposition

  • The Span of Time

    “You sound like what I heard growing up!”

    That was a comment after church service Sunday. That sister in Christ, who is in her mid-fifties, her statement was in reference to my sermon in which I introduced what Scripture says concerning “ages.” She was referring to the things her dad taught her, what she heard in churches as a young girl, and the general mood of that day.

    That statement really got me thinking. It occurred to me as well that the things I taught were something like what I used to hear in the early years of my walk with Christ. The distinctions of times, and ages, and Israel, and the church, all seemed to be regular fair.

    But now, the mood has changed. The atmosphere of the teaching in mainstream Christianity seems to have shifted 1) to oppose the distinction of ages in history, or 2) to completely ignore and neglect those things altogether.

    I believe that now, more than at any time, we need to explain that there are distinct ages, or dispensations, of time in the plan of God. These are distinctions that are designed by God based upon clear statements in the Scripture and not manufactured by man’s imagination. Once these things are cleared up, I believe the history of God’s eternal purpose in Christ becomes clearer than ever.

    The Ends of the Ages

    1 Corinthians 10:11 (LSB)

    “11Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have arrived.”

    This is Paul’s warning to the Corinthian church about their penchant for craving “evil things” (v.6). Israel’s tendency was to pursue a course of misbehavior as it regards idolatry, sexual unrighteousness, and grumbling. The history of Israel is replete with examples of these sins. Paul’s indication is that the Corinthians were in the same boat, as it were, and they also craved evil things.

    But, what is curious is the subtle, and then not-so-subtle, statements regarding the progress of time, and the condition of Israel, being inconclusive without the church. What I mean is, it seems that Paul is indicating that over the eons what happened to Israel was not simply factual history. It was all, indeed, events that were meant to benefit the church, a dispensation of time wherein men and women, slave and freemen, Jew and Gentile, would benefit from the New Covenant seemingly designed only for Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

    They Could Not Be Perfected Without Us

    “because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.” (Hebrews 11:40, LSB)

    This statement from Hebrews is very similar in emphasis in 1 Corinthians 10. The indication of the writer of Hebrews is that the fathers, Israel, the prophets, and the godly men and women of Hebrews 11 were not the end-all of God’s plan. The writer is identifying the reality that, in God’s wise intention, there would exist a future people, future to the people listed in Hebrews 11, who also would “be perfected.” The complete sanctification, which is idea of “perfection,” of a people including, but not limited to, Israel and the progenitors of Israel, was God’s intention (Hebrews 2:10).

    This is wonderful news! It is incredible to think that in the plan and purpose of God, He would conceive of the concentration of His covenants and Temple, and His Law, upon one nation, with the intention all along to bring that nation to the point that they would abandon those things, and her God, for evil things such that God would then turn His (predetermined) eye beyond Israel and to the nations (Gentiles). The genius, the brilliance, and wonder, of it all demonstrates a level of purpose and plan and power far beyond the imagination. The purpose and plan of Yahweh to preconceive of this extensive ambition is magnificent. But, now consider, that the power that is required to move in the hearts and events of Israel in order to accomplish His purpose and plan is nothing short of absolutely divine and must cause us to bow in worship.

    Having His purpose to determine that He would bring a people into an assembly completely apart from national identity, biology, and even apart from an external script of worship (i.e. a Temple and sacrifices), shows a quality of perfection that, apparently, could never have been possible in the worship economy of Israel.

    Why? Why was it impossible to perfect a people before us? Because, we are the church. The church is a body gathered together from tribes, languages, nations, from around the globe and based solely on a single thread of commonality-we believe the Messiah has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2). This faith in Jesus of Nazareth is the only common thread of our existence that we have. Without it, there is no church. Without it, there is no salvation. And, without it, there is no “ends of the ages.”

    Jesus Had To Come; Jesus Had To Die

    When Paul wrote, “…upon whom the ends of the ages have arrived,” he was referencing the above fact, that the ages of time in human history have come to their climax. In other words, the whole point of God’s plan is now complete. The Messiah is the Son of God, and He arrived in the flesh of men (John 1:14), and He accomplished all the Father had given Him to accomplish while in the flesh (John 17:4). Now, the Father is able to fulfill His unfathomable plan in Christ. Nothing else is needed in order to do that.

    Why did Jesus have to come in the flesh, though? Was there a specific reason in order to motivate such a plan? Was there some kind of purpose beyond time, and “eternal purpose”? Absolutely, there was! The coming of Messiah, the Son of God, was the hinge pin of His plan, the event that would accomplish the predetermined purpose of the Father. Once again, the writer of Hebrews teaches us what that purpose was.

    ”5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,”

    “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,

    But a body You have prepared for Me;

    6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.

    7 “Then I Said, ‘Behold, I have come,

    In the scroll of the book it is written of Me,

    To do Your will, O God.’”  (Hebrews 10:5–7, LSB)

    The entire sacrificial and offering ritual system, the dominant component of their Law (v.8), was given to Israel in order to cover their sins. However, it was clear that the system was not able to perfect the worshippers because 1) they kept sinning, 2) the atonement was temporary. And, remember, it is perfection that God is after for both Israel and those to come beyond Israel. The rituals of the Law, which were dependent upon the behavior of already-fallen man, simply did not accomplish perfection. It couldn’t. And yet, it was a system of worship that God Himself gave to Israel to perform, under penalty of death (Hebrews 2:2).

    However, there needed to be something beyond the earthy and the temporary to accomplish the needed completion of the eternal atonement. After all, God did promise to the Son an inheritance. The Spirit told David about that conversation in eternity in Psalm 2:8

    “‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,

    And the ends of the earth as Your possession.”  (Psalm 2:8, LSB)

    The record states that the Son was commanded to ask the Father for an inheritance to possess forever. The inheritance consisted of nations (“people”), and the entire earth. These things were the components of creation, destroyed by the fall of Adam. The people of the earth were subject to death (Hebrews 2:14-15; cf. Romans 5:12ff), and the earth was subject to a curse of “futility” (Romans 8:20). Both components of the Son’s inheritance were effectively destroyed.

    How could they be recovered? What needed to happen in order to restore the plan for the Son? In a word, an atonement was needed. The recovery is called “redemption,” but the need was an atonement. Something had to cancel the death judgment in order to bring back the life that was lost. And THAT is why Christ died. His death satisfied the Father’s will. His obedience was not the obedience of the Mosaic Law, but the obedience of death of crucifixion.

    It was His death on a Roman cross, condemned by the Jews apart from the Romans, that introduced the death of the Messiah into history. That action pleased the Father because through death Jesus Christ was able to absorb the death God pronounced upon Adam, and his progeny, such that death would be destroyed and life would then constitute the nature of the elect.

    In so doing, Jesus Christ is now able to receive the kingdom promised to Him, and to us, from the foundation of the world (Matthew 25:34). In order for the Son to have many brethren, they would need to rule with Him since they would need to be like Him. This redemption gives to us the new nature, a new heart necessary to enter into that kingdom forever. Those whose heart has not been re-created by the Holy Spirit, based upon the death of Jesus Christ, will not, cannot, inherit the Kingdom of God. As Paul wrote, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”(1 Corinthians 15:50). The corruption of the body is permanent. It cannot be improved upon. I can only be created all over again. Only God can do that, and He does in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:4-5).

    Jesus Had To Be Raised

    The death of Christ, really the entire suffering of Christ from the Garden of Gethsemane to the wooden stake between two thieves, completed the atonement that the Father witnessed and thereby “justified the many” (Isaiah 53:10-11).

    The evidence that the atonement was satisfactory, propitiatory, is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. That resurrection establishes, once and for all time, the absolute completion of the Father’s plan to redeem the kingdom of the Son. His resurrection from the dead ended the “work” of Christ such that Jesus could say that He has accomplished the work the Father gave Him to do (John 17:4). It was by this work, the manifesting of the name of the Father upon the earth, and having drawn the men and women who were given to Him by the Father to Himself.

    Once all of that which could be done in the flesh and only accomplished during the earthly ministry of the incarnate Son of God was essentially accomplished, then the Son could be raised from the dead and given life again, bodily, and return to heaven seated next to the Father. Death could not keep the eternal purpose of the Father from happening.

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ is what the Old Testament calls being “begotten.” The term refers to being brought into life, usually by childbirth. However, in the case of the Messiah, it is a reference to His being brought into life by bodily resurrection from the dead. Again, Psalm 2 gives us the meaning:

    “I will surely tell of the decree of Yahweh:

    He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,

    Today I have begotten You.  (Psalm 2:7, LSB)

    “Today I have begotten You” is a component of the Father’s plan to raise Jesus Christ from the dead in bodily form on a particular day (see Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5). The third day, the very morning of that day, Jesus Christ was restored to His body, a newly created body that was not free of scars, but was free of death.

    Thereby, being raised from the dead, He was then able to be received back into heaven once again. The magnanimous and rich and unfathomable work of the Father was completed! The Son is declared to be such with power (Romans 1:2-4), and will return again in power in order to receive His inheritance, and inheritance of love (John 3:35).

    Conclusion

    Now, post-resurrection, we are in the ends of the ages. The dispensations of time leading up to the cross of Christ, then emanating from that cross to our day, and on into the coming again of the Sun to physically take over His kingdom, a kingdom filled with lawlessness and lawless ones. The church of Jesus Christ awaits her Rapture. She anticipates that rescue out of the world in order to be saved from the wrath to come (Romans 5:9). But, for now, we live in the special time of post-Messiah, post-resurrection, which identifies this age as the end.

  • What Comes First: Hermeneutics or Exegesis?

    What Comes First: Hermeneutics or Exegesis?

    The Ridge or the Base

    For those who are aware of the issues, the above question is a significant one. For those who are not aware of the issues, let me summarize for you so that this essay makes some contribution to the next time you open the Bible and read.

    The issue raised by this question is the quandary of whether a man A) should read Scripture with interpretation in mind first, or B) whether he should disband the attempt to interpret until after he has done the work of exegesis. Or, in other words, should the Bible be read with a intent to interpret, or should he deal with the words on the page as words before he can interpret?

    The position of this essay is B. It will become evident that before any interpretation can be done, a man must work through the meaning of the words on the page of Scripture first. That work is called “exegesis.” It is similar to scaling a mountain by establishing a base in order to begin the ascent to the ridge.

    Definitions

    In order to make sure we are all playing the same game, we need to understand the definitions of the terms germane to our discussion.

    • Inerrancy
      • The quality and nature of the Bible, the 66 books of the Protestant canon, being from God through the pens of men, make the Bible a singular revelation, self-disclosure.
      • This collection of writings, in the original forms, were without error in form, content, and syntax.
    • Exegesis
      • “Exegesis” is the critical or technical application of hermeneutical principles to a biblical text in the regional language with a view to the exposition or declaration of its meaning.”1
      • I will take some liberties with this definition pertinent to our discussion.
    • Hermeneutics 2
      • “Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation.“
      • It is a science, and not an art.
    • Exposition
      • “’Exposition’ is defined as a discourse setting forth the meaning of a passage in a popular form.” 3
      • In other words, “exposition” is the proclamation a man does after he has worked hard at Exegesis and Hermeneutics.

    These definitions are not my own, necessarily. However, I believe these definitions as my own. I will make a distinction in the term Exegesis that needs to be clarified, but otherwise they are what I believe.

    First Step

    The basis of exegetical, hermeneutical, and expositional work is Inerrancy. Once Inerrancy is removed, redefined, or altered in any way, the other three components come crashing down. Inerrancy is the quality of the original manuscripts and are the only manuscripts of that nature in history. 4 Therefore, with that as the basis, how we work through the text of Scripture will reveal how well we understand and respect Inerrancy.

    The process of the determination of whether Exegesis comes before Hermeneutics, or the other way around, is based upon Inerrancy. Inerrancy affirms that every word, word form, word arrangement, and every detail of those arrangements, in the original languages, is inspired and cannot be altered without doing harm to the Spirit-inspired meaning of the text.

    For example, Paul wrote:

    Galatians 3:16 (LSB)

    16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 5

    The Greek text is as follows:

    Galatians 3:16 (UBS5)

    16 τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ. οὐ λέγει, Καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐφʼ ἑνός, Καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός. 6

    In this example, one of many that I could use, Paul demonstrates his argument of the Messianic Kingdom, as promised to Abraham and his “seed,” with the noun “seed” as singular. Paul tells that the original text of Genesis 17:7, as found in the Hebrew language there, is not plural as in “seeds.” But, if we look into that passage, we do see that the covenant was made with Abraham as well as the Seed, the Christ. However, that is for another discussion.

    The point is, the fact that the original language has a singular noun there, and that Paul based his argument upon that singularity, gives us indication of the nature of Inerrancy. The Spirit of God put that direct object as a singular, masculine, noun-a male seed from the man Abraham.

    In this particular case, it is not possible to come to a conclusion of the meaning apart from this kind of work. We must be committed to, and understand the extent of, Inerrancy so that we can organize our studies correctly.

    Next Step

    Once we commit ourselves to Inerrancy, we must determine the meaning of the words of the text. This is not Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of Bible interpretation, but unless we know the meanings of the words, the arrangements of the words, and the syntax of those words, we simply cannot take the next step of determining the meaning of the passages that contain those words.

    In other words, unless I know the definitions of the words of an Inerrant passage of Scripture, I cannot interpret them. Those words are not native to me, or anyone alive today, because spoken Hebrew and spoken Greek of today are foreign to the written Hebrew and Greek of the Bible. Therefore, we must investigate, through the tools available to us of lexicography, and work through the definitions of the individual words of a particular passage.

    Please note, we are not interested in the meaning of the passage at this point, only the words that are in that passage.

    For example, looking at that same illustration as above, we have individual words in Koine Greek that, to Paul, mean so much because he spoke and wrote them. However, to me, it is literally Greek, pun intended.

    The best way to come to the definitions of each, and every, word in the passage is to build a table in this way:

    WordParseMeaningNotes
    δὲConjunction, adversativeBut, yet
    τῷ ἈβραὰμMasculine, singular, Dative, Proper nameAbraham
    ἐρρέθησαν3rd person, plural Aorist middle/passive IndicativeThey were spokenHow were they spoken?
    Lexical Table

    I am not worried about the meaning of the passage. I am only trying to learn the meaning of each word of the passage. The meaning of the text as determined by the author, will come together well enough downstream of this foundational work.

    There are other aspects to this that I won’t go into now (i.e. Syntactical Exegesis, Problem Solving, Sentence Diagram). However, I hope this can illustrate the fact that Hermeneutics cannot come before Exegesis. Exegesis is the technical work of words, syntax, and grammar. That work does not concern itself with the overall meaning of the passage, only the trees of the forest. They are the building blocks of meaning for the use of Hermeneutics in the next step.

    Hermeneutics

    Once we have done the exegetical work, we can then sit back and examine everything and interpret what we have found. This work would fill a volume or more to explain. However, the basic and simple rule to follow for accurate hermeneutic is this:

    INTERPRET THE BIBLE THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN.

    Every passage of Scripture is given in human, known, language. Each passage is given in historical context and with some kind of historical impetus for the author to write. Researching and organizing that information is vital to the hermeneutic. There are subjects of the verb, verbs, direct objects of the verb, etc… These are the things that must be known and comprehended before there is an attempt to understand the meaning of the passage.

    To reverse this process is to put the interpretation before the words of the verse. This is “pretext” and a theological Hermeneutic, not an exegetical one. It is assuming a meaning before the real examination of the passage is made, which dominates the landscape of the church historically and in modernity. It is relying upon another’s work. Since a pastor is to rightly divide the word, reliance upon the work of others is dishonest for the man of God. It is one thing to refer to the work of others and see what they came up with. It is another thing to sidestep the work and go straight to the conclusions of others to see which ones I agree with.

    The science of Bible interpretation is built upon the actual text, a work that is the technical work of exegesis. However, once that exegesis is done, and a good grasp of the language is had, putting it altogether to determine the meaning is next. The “interpretation” is very soon exposed to the exegete. The meaning is discovered, the significance is evident. The historical/grammatical hermeneutic, the only proper way to interpret Scripture since the Scripture was written in actual language and in an historical context, preserves the exegetical work that is done.

    Exposition

    A short statement about exposition is in order. Exposition, as noted above, is the proclamation, explanation, on a popular level, to the audience to whom we speak. Exposition, as with Hermeneutics, does not offend the Exegesis that was done. It is consistent with Exegesis. The rules of the right Hermeneutic that are followed, rules that uphold the Exegesis, will feed the Exposition.

    The effect of this Exposition is that the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the Words in the first place, takes the truths discovered in the text and implants them in the hearts and minds of the saints. The power of the Truth drives deeply into the person via the Spirit of Truth.

    My point in saying all of this is to emphasize that the entire process of the exposition of the Word of God begins with Exegesis, the technical work in the words. This is the beginning of “cutting it straight.”

    Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.  (2 Timothy 2:15, LSB)

    1. Thomas, Robert L. ‘Bible Translations: The Link between Exegesis and Expository Preaching,’ The Master’s Seminary Journal 1/1 (Spring 1990): p. 54,
      ↩︎
    2. Terry, Milton S. ‘Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.’ Edited by George R. Crooks and John F. Hurst. New Edition, Thoroughly Revised. Vol. II. Library of Biblical and Theological Literature. New York; Cincinnati: Eaton & Mains; Curts & Jennings, 1890), p. 17
      . ↩︎
    3. Thomas, p.54 ↩︎
    4. I understand that we do not have those manuscripts in possession. Rather, we have copies of those manuscripts and, through the work of Textual Criticism, we can duplicate the biblical text with tremendous certainty. ↩︎
    5. All quotations will be from The Legacy Standard Bible. Three Sixteen Publishing, 2022, unless otherwise noted. ↩︎
    6. Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament. Fifth Revised Edition. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014. ↩︎