Bible Interpretation Errors Pt 1

0:01 All right, this morning, we're going to hopefully take something I've been talking about all week and advance this to some level and try to bring to some kind of conclusion. But for Sunday School, I want to revert back to what we were talking about for a long time, and then we took kind of a detour. We were talking about the different covenants. We talked about the Abrahamic Covenant, talked about the Davidic Covenant. We didn't finish the Davidic Covenant. And because we were doing kind of a series on eschatology and dealing with a lot of issues related to eschatology, and what we found is when we start talking about the covenants or anything related to eschatology, we immediately realize and see there are lots of disagreements, of course, and when it comes to some aspects of the Covenant, the issue is, okay, was the Covenant made with Israel? Or do we see Israel not as Israel? Do we see Israel as the Church? And those types of things, which all of this comes down to the issue of how do we interpret the Bible. Whose interpretation is right, who interpretation is wrong? Because everyone has one and it kind of demonstrates how subjective Bible interpretation really is. Everyone not only does everyone interpret the Bible, because within the non Catholic system, every person supposedly has the authority. So everyone not only can interpret the Bible, then the people sitting in the pew are actually supposed to be judging what is preached to determine whether it's true or false. Meaning they have great authority because they're the ones who are going to determinef it's tru or false. And so it

1:34 just leads to kind of a spiritual chaos and anarchy. And I've talked about this forever. I've talked about it in connection to know in the Catholic system, the church had the authority. Now the people have the authority. We claim the Bible has the authority, but the reality is what has the authority is my interpretation. Because my interpretation I believe is right, and then I judge everyone else based off their acceptance or disagreement with my interpretation. And it's just subjective, it's relativistic, it's chaos, it's anarchy. And whenever I put forth that kind of perspective, I know people tend to push back and they don't necessarily like it, but I think history proves that I'm right. We've got thousands upon thousands of denominations and groups and nobody can agree on anything. So there's times I talk a lot about that, I discuss it, I mention it, and then there are times that I feel like the issue comes back in a very glaring way. So this week I was going to I'll reviewed a sermon on Second King's chapter six. If you want to turn there, Second King's chapter six. I'll just make sure you guys are all cut up on what has transpired over the last week.

2:52 Second King's chapter six, Pseci King's chapter six. Very famous story. Yeah, the axe heads, Second Kings chapter six. So I was going to review a sermon on Second King's chapter six, which is about the floating axehead. Right, it's in chapter six versus one. I think it goes to basically one through seven, all right, and I won't read it for time's sake. But Second King chapter six, verses one through seven. Well, when you start reviewing the sermon, all of a sudden, guess what we find out? The axehead is not really an axet. I mean, it is an axhead, but it actually represents our effectiveness and our work for God. It actually represents our pictures our fellowship with God, It actually pictures or represents our passion and zeal for God. Well, there's a million issues with that, mainly what are you basing that on other than just you read the text and you say, well, this pictures this, and this represents this, and this represents this based off what There's nothing in the Bible that would say an axead represents these things in any way, shape or form. So it it was maddening.

3:59 So we reviewed that. I told everyone in the podcasts to start listening to sermons on Second Kings chapter six. We listened to a second one which took it in a much more literal way. So we had two sermons. One takes it in a much more figurative, allegorical I don't even know what that is way, another one takes it in a more literal way, and it just shows you again the subjectivity when it comes to interpreting the Bible. So then I saw a message on how to study the Bible dealing with the allegorical method, and I'm like, oh, this will be good because they'll give me the principles of the allegorical method, and then I will demonstrate that the preacher preaching Second King six, who would argue all day that he doesn't use the allegorical method, which are actually using the allegorical method. I thought this will be great. Well, that entire sermon on the allegorical method was a complete misrepresentation of the allegorical method, and it was really a rant against Calvinism, and it was it was just insane.

4:56 So then I was like, Okay, this is really getting on my nerves. So then I'm like, you know what, I'll take a break from everything. I'll do a sermon review on a sermon on Proverbs chapter thirty. I mean, you can't go wrong right Proverbs chapter thirty. This should be simple, this should be straightforward. I saw that what the text for the sermon was Proverbs chapter thirty versus eleven through seventeen. Proverbs chapter thirty, verses eleven through seventeen, and we see a phrase repeated numerous times Proverbs chapter thirty, verse eleven. There is a generation Proverbs chapter thirty, verse twelve. There is a generation Proverbs chapter thirty, verse thirteen. There is a generation Proverbs chapter thirty, verse fourteen. There is a generation and I'm like, okay, so this is going to be a discuss about a discussion about there is a generation that will be like this. So then I thought, you know what I'll do. I'll review a little bit of this sermon, but then I can utilize this to get into a discussion how the older generation always talks about this generation, and I wanted to go all the way back to an ancient Egyptian document where the older generation was condemning the younger generation and saying that this has been going on for well over three thousand years, if not longer. So I wanted to get into that discussion.

6:15 I thought, elthy, it'll be great, It'll be wonderful, great hit play. Well, it was not long that the sermon and Proverbs chapter thirty, verses eleven through seventeen turned into this there is coming a time where people will eat poor people. They will chop off their heads, drink their blood, and eat their flesh. And I was like, what just happened? Okay, yeah, you think it's a Halloween sermon. They based it off Proverbs chapter thirty, verse fourteen. There is a generation whose teeth are as swords, their jaw teeth as knives to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men. So it turned into this bizarre idea that Proverbs thirty fourteen is to be is to be interpreted what way literal? Right? So then they started doing cross references. Right, they did cross references. They went to Psalm fourteen four, Psalm fourteen four. If you want to go there, Psalm fourteen four, Psalm fourteen four. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? Who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord. Well, guess how they interpreted Psalm fourteen four literal right. Then they went to Micah chapter three, Micah chapter three, Michaeh

7:53 chapter three, verse one, And I said, here, I pray you, oh heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the House of Israel, Is it not for you to know judgment? Who hate good love evil? Who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones, who also eat the flesh of my people and flay their skin from off them, and they break their bones and chop them in pieces for the pot, and the flesh within the cauldron. Okay, you get the idea, right. So they're like all these passages. I know some of you could say it's metaphorical, but basically made the argument that these are literal, These are literal, These are literal, and that there's coming a time in the tribulation where they're gonna take poor people, they're gonna chop off their heads, drink their blood, and eat their flesh. And I was like, what is happening right now? What is happening? And then in the very same sermon, after about a fifteen minute rant about this basically being true and literal and that's the way it's going to happen, even though some people may say it's metaphorical, and the very same sermon, about fifteen minutes later, he said, if you want to know what the figurative is, go to John chapter six, John chapter six, Yes, John six, verse fifty three. Barely John six fifty three. Then Jesus said, into them verily, barely, as in you, except you eat the flesh of the sun of man and you drink his blood, you have no life in you. That's figurative. All the other passages

9:27 are literal. This is figurative. Well, at this point I was ready just to I mean, I just I don't it just makes me so frustrated how within Christianity we go around saying the Bible is the final authority. The Bible is not the final authority, Ladies and gentlemen, it is not. It is our own interpretation, and our interpretation can be We can make it say whatever we want it to say. The hermeneutic. Within Christianity, nobody wants to admit this. We read the Bible and we make it up. That's what we do, that's what we've been doing. And nobody wants to acknowledge that. The unintended consequences of the Protestant Reformation is you took where the interpretive authority rested within the church. You ripped it away from the church.

10:18 You gave it to every individual, and every individual can just read the Bible and say whatever they want, and I can say it's wrong, and they can simply turn around and tell me I am wrong. I mean, I've seen it as a pastor, we've seen it as a church. Doesn't matter, doesn't matter, your education doesn't matter, your study doesn't matter. Anyone can just read and say that's what it means, and it doesn't matter. You can even challenge them. No, go look up everything doesn't matter. They don't have to look it up. Anybody can just interpret it. It's subjective and it's total complete spiritual anarchy and chaos. And I sometimes and like I think, if you just don't listen to sermons, you may convince yourself that it's not that bad.

11:04 But the reality is it's bad. So what we're going to do at least part of this hour, maybe we'll do it the next hour. So I started doing a lot of things talking about allegory, metaphor just different harmoneutical subjects. So I'm just going to kind of step back and just try at least to discuss how this should possibly work. So let's do this. I'm going to break this down under a number of headings. Let's just start with reality and history. Let's just start with reality and history because Christians don't want to admit this reality. But let's just deal with reality and history. Right. The reality is there is a great level of subjectivity that arises in biblical interpretation.

11:50 There is a great level of subjectivity and biblical interpretation, particularly when we consider the vast number of different and sometimes contradictory interpretations throughout two thousand years of Church history and that's just the fact over two thousand years, the number of interpretations, they're innumerable. They're innumerable, all the different interpretations, and the interpretations do what completely contradict one another? And right here in this local area, at this very hour, there are over two hundred and what fifty churches and probably about a fifty mile radius, all meeting this morning. All of them are offering interpretations. And guess what. Most of those interpretations do what contradict one another? And everyone thinks what they are right? And why do they go to that church because their church interprets it's better than the other church. So I'm wrong in my interpretation. They think they're right, they think I'm wrong. I think they're wrong.

12:56 What do you even do with it? But the reality is there's a great level of subjectivity to it, even though nobody wants to admit that. It's just the fact. So so we're going to break this down in reality and history, right, So let's just start with the reality of multiple interpretations, because that's just the fact. It is true that throughout Church history there have been a vast number of interpretations of scripture, from the early Church Fathers Augustine origin to the Reformation, Luther Calvin and modern theological movements. Christians have disagreed on key issues such as baptism, the Lord's Supper, salvation, end times, and many other theological doctrines.

13:37 The diversity of interpretations continue today across denominations, culturals, and theological traditions. We have his so when we talk about the history, we have a history of diversity. Right. So if we want to talk about the reality, there's a reality of multiple interpretations. And that reality of multiple interpretations has seen in the historical diversity that we see within church history. I mean, we've got everything in church history. You name it, it's there. You just throw out an idea, you can find someone in church history saying that idea was what either wrong or are right and just and not.

14:18 The diversity is just crazy. And I think the average Christian just and our brains, at least when we first became saved, I think we thought, for the most part, everyone agrees and wherever they disagree, it's on insignificant matters. That's usually what we told ourselves, right, But that's just not the case. So the reality of all these different translations is seen in the historical diversity and there's just no Look, that's not even debatable. Church history shows me a diversity of interpretation, right, So that shows the reality of multiple interpretations, endless interpretation. So we have historical diversity, we have endless interpretations, with innumerable individuals throughout history offering interpretations and new interpretations continually arising. The total number of perspectives on Biblical texts are endless. It's endless. Even within specific theological traditions. There can be great significant disagreement within one philological tradition. You can have one philological tradition, and what do you have within that tradition? All kinds of arguing and debating even within one right. That's why even within the reform world, if we say we're reform Baptistist, what most reform people will say, you can't really be reformed and be a Baptist because because Baptists belief about

15:49 baptism and not placing the quote unquote sign of the Covenant on a child removes us from Covenant from reform theology, so we're not reformed enough. When we will say, well, no, you're problem is if you're really reformed to believe the Bible is the final authority you wouldn't be baptizing a baby because there's nothing in the Bible about it, right, But that's within one same philological stream. I mean, that's just that's just crazy. So the reality of multiple interpretations are seen in historical diversity, and it is seen in the endless interpretations. They are innumerable. Not only the reality of multiple interpretations are seen in historical diversity. Not only is it seen in the endless interpretations, it is seen in the contradictory interpretations. There are constant, never ending, contradictory interpretations on basically almost every verse in the Bible. Almost every verse in the Bible, there is a there's contradictory interpretations.

16:49 For instance, one group may interpret passages as supporting infant baptism, while many others may argue it supports believers baptism only. Similarly, debates around predestination, free will, the nature of the millennium can be deeply divided. And we know that, right, it's contradictory. Now, why should contradictory bother us? The diversity and the endless number should bother us. But when it comes to the fact that they're contradictory, that really should disturb us, and the reason why is if they're all contradictory, what does that mean not all of them can be right? So if they're endless, if the history is full of diversity, there's endless numbers of interpretations and they contradict one another, then it comes down to who's right and ultimately who decides who's right the individual? Well, the Catholic Church at least has a magisterial authority, right, so they can determine that they're right right, and they would believe they have the authority to do that. But when it comes to the non Catholic world, who determines who's right? The individual?

18:04 Now we can say, oh, the church, Now the church has no authority, the church only how much authority does any Protestant church have as only as not as the individual grants it right? So like, what how do we even process that? Does anybody even have a I don't even know how we process that. It's just complete chaos, all right. So there's the reality of multiple interpretations. The reality of multiple interpretations are broken down into historical diversity. No one can argue that the endless interpretations, no one can argue that and their contradictory. No one can argue that everything there is factual, all right, So this leads to number two, the subjectivity in interpretation. Biblical interpretation is subjective to some extent. I will say it's more than just to some extent. I think Biblical interpretation is absolutely subjective.

18:57 I used to try to. I just have come to the colon. There is no It's just an endless subjectivity. And when we say something is subjective, what do we mean by that? When we say something is subjective, Well, subjective, it just it can be a matter of anything, right, there's no something, there's nothing definitive. When we say something is objective, we're like, this is objective truth it is, it's fixed, it's settled. If it's subjective, it fluctuates, it can change. We don't really know. Well, when it comes to Bible interpretation, why would I argue it's subjective. Well, go back to my previous point. The reality of multiple interpretations.

19:44 History shows me what nobody can agree endless interpretations. What does that demonstrate No one can agree and every interpretation contradicts the other. Well, then that only screams to me that is subjective. Even well meaning and vout believers and scholars and theologians come to different conclusions because they bring their own experience, presuppositions, and philological framework and cultural influence and biases to the text. So where does the problem begin? Why do we have all of this diversity, endless interpretations and contradiction. Why because there's a level of subjectivity to it?

20:27 Why is there a level of subjectivity to it? Because what do we bring to the text? I want you to write those things down? We bring to the text? Are you ready experience or experiences if you want, plural presuppositions, philological frameworks, cultural influences and biases to the text. This leads to the variety of interpretations. Now what do we mean when we bring our experiences to the text? Just our life? While we've experienced things, We've encountered things, and so we bring that to the text. Now should we bring our experiences to the text? In reality, no, what you experience has nothing to do with what the text says.

21:24 But it impacts it does it absolutely impacts. What was the second thing that we bring to the text? Presuppositions? We bring all kinds of presuppositions to the text. And what have I been saying forever in this church? Take our presupposition out back and shoot it now. Whenever I say that, everyone laughs. But then we see the danger that happens when I set us at our presuppositions. Right as soon as I set our presuppositions aside, and I start questioning and I start challenging, and I start going, well what about this and what about that? Inevitably someone didn't shoot their presupposition because they get mad, they get defensive, they get upset, they get argumentative. Instead of just saying, well, you know what, I don't have a presupposition here. It doesn't matter what I learned yesterday. It doesn't matter what I learned last week. I'm willing to look at the text anew and start over. Nobody wants to start over.

22:14 Everybody wants a conclusion, and that conclusion must remain true Sunday after say, until when they come to a different conclusion. Then I must be willing to do what consider they're new And it's so just ridiculous the way that works. But everyone brings their presupposition. If you bring your presupposition to the text at that point, what does that mean about Bible interpretation. It's just it's utterly subjective, and we're guess what's now the authority we are or what's the third thing they say can be brought to the text theological framework? What does that mean? Yeah, whatever theological team you're in, right. So if I'm in Team Reformed, what should I never do in my preaching ever, say anything that would call into question Team Reform and get I take off reform people when I call into question the way the Reformation went right, the unintended consequences of the Reformation. Well, look, nobody should get mad at me for that. That's something we should all acknowledge. Something happened, right. Everyone wants to argue about, Well, the Reformation was about the ninety five PCs.

23:24 The Reformation was about indulgences. The Reformation was about justification. You know what the Reformation was about who's in charge? Right? That's what it comes down to, right and our system? What does the Reformation tell us in our system that who's in charge the individual? Right? And that what the Reformation proves? Right? I mean, what did Luther say? Yeah, I know we preach that the scriptures are, but in reality, what does the Reformation say? One individual said the Church was wrong? And then and we and we celebrate him as the hero. Right, Yay, he told that church. Now everyone celebrates it until what I tell that church you're wrong? No, no, no, what about the pastor has the spiritual authority? The pastor has no spiritual authority if the person in the pew at any particular time can simply stand up and say you're wrong because the Word of God says so, and here I stand, I can do no other. I even use that argument against my pastor in uh in Nebraska.

24:36 And when we got into a huge argument, I said, I basically said, I believe this is what the Bible teaches. Here I stand. I literally quoted Luther because I felt like I have historical justification to tell the pastor what you're wrong. Well, at that point, and so guess what, so we we and so whatever film logical idea that I'm in, that that's what we're supp to go with. And nobody is supposed to challenge it. But our system says every individual can do what challenge it? And challenging it makes you what the hero? But it doesn't really make you the hero, does it? It makes you It will get you kicked out. As Catholics kicked out Luther, every other group will kick out the individual who questions them.

25:22 That's the way it works, right, And and so the philological framework really could I will argue that we interpret the Bible not based off the study of the Bible. We base it, and I say it all the time, we interpret it off what our theological framework. So if your theological framework is that Israel isn't Israel, and I challenge that, then I'm just going to be wrong. But it's really it doesn't come down to us looking at the text. Your theology says Israel is an Israel. My theology says Israel is Israel. And we're never going to come to an agreement because nobody actually cares about the actual text because everyone's going to interpret the text on the bays of what the theological framework. So then it's just pointless. And even having the conversation, it's just it's meaningless.

26:07 It's ridiculous. All Right, What was the next thing? Cultural influence? What does that have to do? What does that refer to the culture? Well, what can state it this way? And a culture that say is pro gun, pro republican, pro whatever, they're going to interpret the Bible through that cultural lens. So the Bible all of a sudden is going to be what pro gun, pro war, pro this, anti immigration, And if you come from a very liberal cultural culture, the Bible is going to be interpreted as more passive, more pro immigration. And so guess what, that's just us interpreting the Bible based off our cultural background, which just makes the Bible interpretation what completely subjective because they should not work. And what's the last thing, biases?

26:58 Everyone has a bias somewhere tox So guess what the subjectivity. All of that leads to subjectivity and which leads to subject What a subjectivity leads to variety of interpretations. It leads to the historical diversity, the endless interpretations, and the contradictory interpretations. All right, so there's the subject, there's there's Bible interpretation is subject subjective due to those very reasons. Those things being added. Now, we have interpretive frameworks which lead to subjectivity and interpretation. Various hermaeneutical frameworks, and I'll just go through a couple of them. Literal, allegorical, typological, historical grammatical. Those are just some of the schools of hermoneutics. Right, Literal, allegorical, typological, historical, grammatical.

27:51 They lead to significant different understandings of the same text. For instance, someone using a literal approach might interpret revelation and very different than someone using an allegorical approach. These frameworks themselves are often shaped by theological traditions, which further leads to differences. In other words, this not only do we have Bible interpretation subjective because we bring all of this stuff to it. It's subjective because everyone is using a hermeneutical framework to some level, at least from behind the pulpit they should be. Now, sadly, the people sitting in the pew, do they have a hermeneutical framework. In most cases, no, they do not. They do only because of what they've heard. But they've never actually studied hermeneutics.

28:38 I mean, at least in all of my years of going to church, right and all of my years of going to church, I have never met a layperson, almost never who's studied hermeneutics to any great degree. Most of them have never read a hermeneutical textbook. They could not articulate the different schools of thought. I mean, And I spent a good portion of I mean, I spent a good portion of my ministry here trying to get everyone simply to read this book Protestant Biblical interpretation. It's not even a big book, couldn't get anyone to read it, right, it's a simple, small book, right because it goes to all the different schools of hermoneutics. Right because most people aren't interested in it. I understand that right now, people who fill a call to ministry are much more likely to read it. But the average lay person isn't. But even though so, they don't want to study the subject.

29:28 But what will they do spake authoritatively on the subject? Which is maddening to me? Right, It's like, it's maddening. It's like, if you don't want to really engage, then why do you speak so authoritative about it? But that's the case. But the point is these hermaeutical frameworks are inevitably going to lead to what different interpretation, which, now, just think about this from a now, just see how depressing this can be. We look at the text and do we not see in nothing but a never the amount of interpretations and contradictions? Yes, well, is there ever a way to solve that? If Christianity cannot even agree on the hermoneutical framework, If we can't even agree on the framework in which we're going to approach the text.

30:19 This happened in this very church when I had people arguing with me about the whole you know, Israel being Israel, And I was like, okay, so what's the hermoneutical framework we're going to use? I thought, if you've gone to this church, you know we take things from a much more historical, grammatical, literal approach. Right is Genesis one, Literal is Genesis two, Literal is Genesis three, Literal is Genesis four, Literal is Genesis five, Literal is Genesis six, literal is Genesis seven. And it would be like, well, yes, yes, yes, yes, but all of a sudden, Israel isn't Israel. Well when did that happen? And so, and you try to have that debate. Doesn't matter, No, it doesn't matter. So you can't even get people in your own church to agree on a hermeneutical framework. If you can't even get people in your own church to agree in a hermeneutical framework, look, ladies and gentlemen, the battle is lost. It's over. Everyone should just go home and give up. There has to be some agreement on the hermeneutical framework. If Christianity cannot agree on hermonutual framework. Then guess what you do? You just break off into groups based off hermeneutical framework, even though nobody really knows what their hermeneutical framework is, and then everyone just pretends that that's the one they use.

31:37 But I will say, what even makes it worse is people are not even even pastors are not consistent on their hermeneutical framework. The guy that was yelling and screaming that poor people are going to be eaten and the axet is not an axe head. They would have both argued to you that they do not buy into the allegorical type method. But in many cases, well, he went to John six fifty three said what, it's not literal, but then he went to Proverbs thirty and says it is. The other man went to Second King six and said, well, I mean it's an axe head, but I mean it pictures this, this and this and this, meaning that we don't even remain true to necessarily our hermeneutical framework. It's it's subjective. And even how we apply the hermonutical framework to the text, Well, if we can't even stay true to our hermoneutical framework, then there's no hope forever coming to any objective interpretation, it's just chaos. There's got to be some way of determining something correct. There should be right, and so well, we went through most of that, and so we have kind of a subjectivity because of all the things we bring to the text. We have these interpretive frameworks that don't even agree. And then we have doctrinal biases. People often interpret the Bible through the lens of their theological tradition Calvinism or Minianism, Catholicism, pentecostal. In such cases, the interpretation is not coming from the text.

33:03 It is filtered through the pre existing doctrinal beliefs, making interpretation absolutely subjective. And everyone has a philological bias. If your lordship, how are you going to interpret the text from a lordship perspective? And anyone who says that that's wrong is going to be considered a heretic. How do Catholics interpret it to the framework of Catholicism right? How does a free grace person through that? So then our theological biases get in the way. So it's subjective because of all the things we bring to the text. It's subjective because of all these different interpretive frameworks, and it is subjective because we bring our doctrinal biases to the text.

33:45 Meaning the text is by no means the authority. So what do we have here? We have the reality of multiple interpretations. We see this in historical diversity. We see this in endless interpretations. We see this in the contradiction. We see the subjectivity and interpretation because of what we bring to the text interpretive framework and because of doctrinal biases. So is personal interpretation. The real authority is personal interpretation. The real authority I dogmatically say what it is, and the reality is personal interpretation is the authority. The Bible is not the authority. Our interpretation is the authority. Now, whenever I say that, every Christian is going to disagree, but I think it's factual. Given the subjective nature of interpretation, it can sometimes appear that the real authority in Christianity lies not in the text of Scripture itself, but how individuals or groups interpret that text. In many cases, the authority of the text is mediated by tradition, church leadership, or individual interpretation, which can cause the actual meaning of the text to seem less important than the interpretive framework someone adopts. I will argue it doesn't just seem that way.

35:04 The authority is the interpretation. The authority is not the text, right, That's the reality of Christianity. Nobody wants to admit it. I'm going to make that a dogmatic I'm not even making that a hypothesis. The authority lies where your interpretation. And then guess what your interpretation becomes, what dogma right and what not? Only do you say you are right, you say everyone else is wrong? It becomes a dogmatic declaration, all right. So, in many Christian contexts, the community quote unquote I hate that term, or denominations interpretations takes precedent over individual interpretations. For example, Catholics give interpretive authority to the magisterium will Protestants tend to prioritize individual interpretation. But even then into visual interpretation are often influenced by one's denominational tradition. So you can you can try. Sometimes we'll try to be like, well, the church gets to make some decision, But the reality is it still goes down to the individual. Still goes down to the individual. Now that individual may be influenced by their theology, but it's still their interpretation that's authoritative, and that's the way it works, all right. Now, Despite that reality, most Christian traditions hold that scripture itself is the final authority, even though interpretations

36:35 may vary. The issue is that subjectivity and the variety of interpretations make it challenging to say that the text always functions as the ultimate authority and practice. Now they won't go as far as I will go, but they will say it almost makes it. It makes it very difficult to say, what is the authority? The word makes it very difficult to say that. You can't say that with a straight face. The fact that people reach different conclusions based on the same text suggests that interpretation takes precedence over the objective meaning of the text itself. Let me hear that. I want you to hear that again, all right. The fact that people reach different conclusions based on the exact same text suggest that interpretation takes precedence over the objective meaning of the text itself. So what takes precedence? Interpretation over text, interpretation over text meaning? We do not believe in sola scripture? What do we believe?

37:55 And sola interpretation? Sola individual? We are the pope, we are the magisterium, we are the expert we are the seminary professor. We are the Bible scholar, we are the theologian. We basically are our own pastor. We determine right, we determine wrong. We tell people what they should and shouldn't do, and you must do what they do or you are gone. And it's all based off what they say they will. And everyone claims what that they are simply following the Bible. If we were to get in a car right now and drive to a Pentecostal church, what would they tell us they're following the Bible. If we went to another form of charismatic church right now, they would tell us they following the Bible. If we went to a Church of Christ right now, what would they tell us they're following the Bible. If we went to a Nazarene church the Bible, go to a Lutheran church the Bible. Every church we would go to would all say we follow the Bible. The Bible is the word of God, the Bible is the authority. But not one church agrees on basically anything, and you're just like, well, what's the authority?

39:02 The people? The people, and that like every Christian should just be like that, should just leads you to almost a point of despair. Look, it typically does. I mean, I get frustrated with it constantly. Right, But when you listen to a sermon on Proverbs thirty and the next thing you know, people's heads are being chopped off and you're drinking blood and eating flesh you got, you'd start losing all hope and humanity. You know, you listen to a sermon about an axet and all a sudden an accent isn't an axe head. I don't know what anything is. Right, you go to Ezekiel thirty six, where it says Israel Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel Israel. I'm gonna give you a new heart and new spirit. Next thing, you know, that's me, even though the text says once they get a new heart in the new spirit, then you'll go into the land that I promised your father's. How can you make that about me?

39:50 Since I know none of my fathers were promised any land right like that? That's not even that doesn't even require any great philological training. That's just basic reading comprehension skills. And so I don't know what you do at that point so a question, then, can interpretation be objective? That's the history and the reality. That's the history and reality, And the history and reality leads us into a very dark place. Can we agree with that? In fact, where does history and reality lead us? That the reality is? The Bible is not even the authority, the individuals, the authority and interpretation trump's texts. So can there be an objective interpretation all efforts towards objectivity, Well, Biblical interpretations does involve some degree of subjectivity. There are methods scholars and theologians use to minimize the subjectivity. So they're saying, there have been efforts made by theologians and scholars to minimize the subjectivity and biblical interpretation. What can can we say about those efforts? What can we say about those efforts of theologians and Bible scholars? Their efforts have failed? All right? Now?

41:12 Why have they failed? Now? Who do we blame here? Who do we blame for the failure of their efforts to stop the subjectivity or to lessen the amount of subjectivity and biblical interpretation? Who should we blame? Now? There are times I would always put the blame at the foot of the church or the pastor. Then there are issues now where I blame the people in the pew far more than the people in the pulpit. I think in this area, I'm going to blame the church. But at the same time I blame the people. I think there's a shared blame. And let me try to explain, all right, any person who's a Christian in twenty twenty four twenty over the last probably fifteen twenty years, you have access to everything. You have access to everything, right, So you have access to books on how to study the Bible, you have access to hermineutical textbooks, you have access to hermoneutical lectures. You have access to literally everything.

42:24 So if you go to a church that is not in any way, shape or form helping you understand how to handle the text, if you don't know how to handle the text, it really is your fault because there's no one stopping you from learning. There's no one stopping you. Right, there was no my church right down the road where I became a Christian. I immediately realized as a teenager, it's not answering questions, it's not helping me. Right, So did I sit around waiting, No, I got in my car, I drove to Abilene to Butternut Street and went to the Bible bookstore. I drove to Harden Simmons and went to the library. I drove to ACU and went to the library. I drove to McMurray and went to the library and I started looking for book. I didn't even have the internet, and I went find Now, that's not I don't say that because I was spiritual. Had nothing to do with being spiritual. It had something about doing what. Well, if I'm supposed to understand this, I'm holding up a Bible for those listening online. Well, I got to find a way to get answers. If the church is not going to give me the answers, where do I find them?

43:29 Because the church wanted me to go to lock ins and pizza parties and six Flags and some dumb church camp where I could be manipulated and indoctrinated, and I refused to play any of their reindeer games because it was stupid. I didn't want to go to church for fun. I thought I was going to church because I heard that we have a book that comes from God. Right, and so my understanding, if there's a God and he's put his word and a book, then I think we should be obsessed with figuring out what what it says, what it means. That doesn't mean I was spiritual. I don't want in any way to say that the heck it was not because I was spiritual. It was just because if this book is from God, I want to understand it. So on one hand, I can't make any excuse for people sitting in the pew who are just foolish and subject. That's their own fault, there's nobody else's fault.

44:24 At the same time, it ticks me off that churches just I look, I think churches give the people what they think the people want because a church can What can a church not do and survive? Can a church survive by giving the people what they don't want? Cannot? I mean? I look, I know it, right, Okay, I know it because okay I I look, if anyone says, what did I mean? I failed in a lot of ways as a pastor, like I could, I could make a write a book and all the ways I failed. But I in some ways from a human perspective, I was an idiot because I really thought that what the people wanted was in depth study, to study, to dig in. Now, people would tell me that, but inevitably you would find out they don't really want that. They want a church to believe a certain thing, and they wanted to agree with them, right, and then just basically do what Just repeat it over and over and over. You don't challenge it, you don't grow, you don't evolve, You just and and well that's where we are. So the whole thing is to me, the idea that these scholars and people tried to get rid of subjectivity. I think they tried. Pastors weren't going to really try to get into it because they really can't and the people don't really want it.

45:51 So it failed. So for so, let's look at some of their efforts. Right, So, they were a method known as the historical grammatical method. This method sought to understand the text in its original context, looking at the original language, historical setting, and grammar to draw out the intended meeting. Now that sounds good. Hey, here's this method. It's called the historical grammatical method. The historical grammatical method. That's the method I have put forth in this church since the inception. I thought everyone in this church agreed with the historical grammatical did that fix any of our disagreements or problems in the no did not fix anything, because guess what, they can just violate that whenever they wanted to violate it.

46:43 If they want Israel not to be Israel, Israel's not Israel. If they want forever, want they don't want forever to be forever, guess what forever isn't forever. I mean we've watched it in real time. Because of the way I teach, I've kind of, you know, allowed sometimes more more chaos to happen. I mean, people outside the church who listen online telling man y'all would have some serious arguments going on. I'm like, well, you know, that's kind of the way. That's my own fault. But the point is sometimes it would be baffling because that would be like we agreed on the same hermeneutical method, right, if we agree on the same hermonutical method, then what should happen? I mean, there may be disagreement, but the disagreement should be what should be. But the only way that works is you've got to get people to do what go put in the work according to that method and then see where we are. But I could never get people to do that work. Remember I started making the I started making statements like, look, don't argue until you go do the work.

47:44 That didn't even stop the arguing. I mean, finally, I think it finally toned it down, but it took a while because people still wanted to just argue without ever doing the study. It's like, you've got to go do the work. If there's an actual method, you can't say anything until you've run them method. Right, So the historical grammatical is great, but it hasn't fixed anything. So that was a concept to try to fix to minimize subjectivity, was the historical grammatical method. Another thing was the idea of comparing scripture with scripture. Many interpreters use the principle of scripture interpreting scripture, believing that the Bible is a cohesive whole and one passage can clarify another. But guess what does that fix anything? It doesn't fix anything, because guess what. When I listened to that sermon this week on Proverbs thirty, guess what they did. They compared scripture with scripture. They went Proverbs thirty fourteen. When Psalm fourteen four went Micah chapter three. The next thing, you know, people's heads are being chopped off and we're eating bodies.

48:44 What just happened? So, because what can you do? When you compare scripture with scripture? You can fit the thing that fits your narrative. Right, So now I like the concept though, it sounds good, right, we hold through the historical grammatical method, right, the historical grammatical method. It sounds good, right, we compare scripture with scripture. Also, hermaeneutical principles were developed. Hermaeneutical principles like contact, genre and author intent can help bring more objectivity to interpretation. So hermautical principles were developed, hermaeutical systems were developed. Comparing scripture with scripture was given hermeneutical principles. Did that fix everything? No? Even with these methods, interpretations are influenced by the interpreter's cultural background, theological presuppositions, and personal biases. In the end, complete objectivity, they say it's difficult to achieve. I'm gonna say complete objectivity is impossible to achieve. We can never reach true objectivity and biblical interpretation meaning and some level Biblical interpretation is always what subjective, that is, that's very, that's very that's not

50:15 a good place to be. Can we agree on that if all Biblical interpretation to some level is subjective, what does that lead to? Well, then how can we say something as writer, say something is wrong? And why do we get so mad when we think that somebody over there is being too subjective in their interpretation. Well, because we can be just as guilty of it. So what does this mean for biblical authority? Now, according to this argument, despite the subjectivity of interpretation, most Christians would agree that the Bible itself holds the ultimate authority. Now, I think Christians agree to that, but it doesn't mean anything. I think it's just I think it's just a useless, a youth full a useless thing to say, because it doesn't really mean anything. However, the issue lies and how that authority is applied or understood throughout different interpretations. Yeah, of course, in this sense, while the Bible is the objective authority, the variety of interpretations create the impression that individual communal interpretations hold more weight than the text itself. Again, I don't think it gives a I don't think it gives the idea that the interpretation holds more weight than the text.

51:29 The reality is the interpretation trumps the text. That's the reality. So what reality have we come to conclude? Bible interpretation is subjective interpretation trumps the text. That's that's nobody wants to admit any of that, do they? Nobody wants to all right? And so how about tradition and traditions such as Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Tradition plays a key role in interpreting scripture, with the belief that the Church provides the correct understanding of the text, and Protestantism the emphasis on solo script tora theoretically places the scripture above all else but in practice, but in practice, interpretations vary widely, and really who becomes the authority the individual? Right? So uh yeah, well there's more, much more I can say here, but we're out of time, so we'll have to stop there for now. That leads us in a very depressed way. Right.

52:40 The reality is, it's just been chaos throughout Church history. The reality is everything's been subjective. And the reality is when it comes to the Bible, Bible interpretation is subjective, and the and the end result, the end result of this subjectivity is that the interpretation trumps the text. So the final authority lies within the individual. The final authority a lies within the lies within the interpretation, and the text is subject is basically has to submit to the individual and to the interpretation. Even though we would say that's not the case. Anything we argue is simply a theoretical concept, because in practical reality, that's just the way it works, and there's no way to deny it in any way, shape or form. All right, so we'll stop there and then see how we want to approach the next hour. Maybe we can do something of benefit here. Right, let's pray, Lord God, we come before you this morning. Lord.

53:37 It's a sad state that we all find ourselves, even though we may not want to admit it. The reality is, Lord, we have placed your word underneath us, and there's nothing we can do but ask for your forgiveness for that and be willing to admit that. And we asked this in Jesus name. It got people said,