We are on page 64. If you have your books, you can be turning there. Page 64, under the heading of Principles of Interpretation. Principles of Interpretation. In this section, Ferguson begins with a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith. Let me just read this in your hearing, then you'll be able to fill out your worksheet. This particular quote reads as follows, the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations 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 unto a sufficient understanding of them. 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 and known by other places that speak more Clearly. Now, thankfully, Ferguson has broken what I just read down into six points. And if you have your worksheets, these are enumerated there, letters A through F. The first question in your worksheets. According to Ferguson, what are the six big points made in the Westminster Confession of Faith concerning the study of God's word? The first of these, And this is all in your book, if you just want to copy it from your book, but we're going to be talking about each one very briefly. The first of these is that all we need to know in order to love and glorify God is found in scripture. That's the first of the six big points in that statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is also repeated in the London Baptist Confession of Faith, if you prefer. That's the first point. Everything you need to know in order to love and glorify God is found in the pages of Scripture. Now, why is that important? Well, it's important because as prone as we are to look elsewhere other than the Word of God, the Word of God in and of itself contains everything you need to know in order to love God and to glorify Him. This should be a preventative. from rushing to other resources before first and foremost considering the Bible. I mean, how prone are we to do that? I was thinking about this the other day. I looked at my bookshelves at home. I've got book after book after book after book that tells me how I'm to love God and glorify God. But none of those hold a candle to what the scriptures themselves teach me in that area. So we need to look at the word of God as solely able to give us that information. The second big point, although there are difficult sections in the Bible, all the basics of the Christian faith are clearly and simply stated or can be deduced from scripture. We talked about that as well. There are a lot of problematic passages in scripture. People often read the Bible, they come to a passage they don't understand, they stop, they throw up their hands and they yell, woe is me, I'll never understand this. And what did I say was the antidote to that? Keep reading. Because if you read the Bible through two, three, four times in a year, whatever the case might be, if you become familiar with the word of God, you'll be amazed at how those difficult passages, those problematic passages solve themselves. Because now you have the whole body of text to compare and contrast and to glean things about those difficult passages which explain those difficult passages, right? Don't just stop midstream and begin to look elsewhere for the answers. Keep reading, keep reading, and you'll find the answers in the scriptures themselves. And they're plain and they're simple. You know, doctrine, contrary to popular belief, this is the greatest lie Satan's ever told. Doctrine is not difficult. It's just not. Now let me rephrase that. The doctrine you need to know is not difficult. People make doctrine difficult, right? People talk about whether you're infralapsarian or superlapsarian. I'm what you call a neitherlapsarian, right? If you don't know what the Lapsarian argument is, the Lapsarian argument is an attempt to determine the order of God's decrees concerning the fall. Did God decree the fall, you know, before it happened? Did he decree it when it happened? You know, what does the Bible tell us? He decreed whatsoever shall come to pass. Including what? The fall. When? In eternity past. What does that make you? An infralapsarian or a superlapsarian? Who cares? Right? You get the point. Do you really need to know? How many of you just have this burning desire and you feel like you might miss heaven itself if you don't know how to articulate the different lapsarian arguments? Anybody? Good. Because it's just not necessary. Doctrine in and of itself though, what doctrines do you need to know? You need to know that Jesus was born of a virgin in fulfillment of prophecy. You need to know that you're a sinner in need of a savior, that that savior is Jesus Christ, the perfect paschal lamb of God. Who is Jesus Christ? He is God or very God from ancient days from the beginning. He's always been God. He always will be God. He is God even now. Things like that, yes, you need to know this. And those things are clearly enunciated in the word of God. And it doesn't take a PhD in theology to be able to figure those things out. That's what the Westminster Confession is saying. There are difficult sections, but everything you need to know is clearly and simply stated or can be deduced from scripture. The third thing, we are in constant need of the Spirit's help to understand Scripture and apply it. True, right? You cannot interpret Scripture or apply it correctly without the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. You can't. You need the Holy Spirit. Sadly, the Holy Spirit's often neglected. Sadly, the Holy Spirit's often put in the back seat. and what's given primary importance, the intellect, right? People are, especially this young, restless and reformed crowd, the new Calvinism, it's largely an intellectual pursuit, you know? I mean, you ask these kiddos who are involved in a lot of this excitement surrounding their newfound Calvinism, you ask them, okay, that's all well and good, I know you've read every Puritan out there, but how's that affecting your life? How's your walk with Jesus Christ? And you'll get that deer-in-the-headlights look a lot of times. They know a lot, but they're not letting the Holy Spirit make it real to them. They're not letting the Holy Spirit teach them how to apply it in their lives in such a way as to be truly meaningful. You might know a lot of the Word of God, but unless it means something to you, it will avail you nothing. It's got to be personal. Fourth thing, the way in which we come to understand the central teaching of scripture is by discipline use of the means God has given us to interpret it. There are means, there are methods to interpretation. We're gonna talk about those tonight, so I'm not gonna belabor that point. Fifthly, when we read and apply scripture, we should read it in its own terms and not impose on it what we think it should be saying. Huge problem. We've seen it, you'll continue to see it. It's much easier to develop your own fanciful interpretations of what scripture says. It seems very gracious to ask somebody, what does this mean to you? And that's not the point at all. We need to read scripture in its own terms and not impose anything on it. We need to be exegetes and not eisegetes, right? And finally, each passage of scripture has its own basic meaning within its context, not multiple possible and equally valid meanings. There's only one meaning, not many meanings. The postmodern mind tends to think of things not in absolutes, but in varying shades of gray. So they'll tell you this scripture, that's good that that scripture means that to you. but it doesn't mean that to me. And your truth is valid and so is my truth. Folks, there's only one truth. There's only one truth. And each scripture has its own meaning within its own context, right? Question number two, as the author notes, A passage may have various applications and indeed apply in different ways to different contexts. In addition, a statement may relate to something that takes place beyond the time period in which it was spoken or written and thus may have both an immediate and a longer term function. What are some scriptural examples of this? Well, let me make this fairly simple for you. Let's talk about the first scenario in which a passage may have various applications applying in different ways to different contexts. Let me give you this quick example. In Ephesians 4.25, the Apostle Paul says, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor. Now, there's only one interpretation of that. What's the interpretation? Tell the truth, right? As believers, as new men and women in Christ, having put aside the old man, we are to be truth tellers. That's the meaning of that passage. As a new creation in Christ, tell the truth. Now, what are the applications? Are there many applications of that? Sure. Don't lie on your taxes. Don't lie to mom and dad. Don't lie to your spouse. Don't lie to your employer. Those are many applications, right? And so when you read that text, not only are you being told not to lie, period, there are many ways you can apply that truth, right? And it's going to be different in every context. Some of you don't have a problem of lying to your spouse, but you might have a problem lying on your taxes. You might not have a problem lying on your taxes, but you might have a problem lying to your employer. You might not, you know, when you call in for that sick day and you're not sick. Ouch, right? So there are all kinds of applications, but only one interpretation. Now, this other one. The second scenario where he says a statement may relate to something that takes place beyond the time period in which it was spoken or written and thus may have both an immediate and a longer term function. We see this throughout the scriptures as well. One of the passages that came to mind immediately for me was 2 Chronicles 7.14. 2 Chronicles 7.14. This passage was actually, actually records a response by the Lord to Solomon's prayer with regard to his dedicating the temple. And it's very famous. The Lord says, if my people who are called by my name humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. Yes, this was something that was said specifically to Solomon. So when we interpret this passage, how do we interpret it correctly? We see it in its context. It was something the Lord said specifically to Solomon with regard to both the current situation at hand, as well as any future developments among the children of Israel. The Lord saying to Solomon, you've dedicated this temple and if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and seek my face, then I'll hear from heaven and I'll heal the land. It fits very neatly within that timeframe, right? But doesn't it also apply outside that timeframe? Absolutely it does. It always applies. It's an axiom. What is an axiom? Axiom is a true truth. It's axiomatic. It's beyond debate. It's beyond question. It's something that can be firmly established as truth for all time. Impervious to anything that might try to assail it. That's axiomatic, and this is axiomatic. It's always been true, it will always be true. If God's people will humble themselves and seek his face, he will respond favorably. Now how do you work that out with God's sovereignty and salvation? Does God really respond? We're not gonna go there. But that's the truth that's being told there, right? And so that's that second scenario that Ferguson is pointing out. There are things that are said and in their context can be applied in different ways, but there are also things that are said very specifically to one group of people that will apply for all time to various people, various places in various contexts. In other words, it's a principle thing, right? It's a matter of principle. As Ferguson states, he says, our basic approach to Bible study should be to read passages in their own context and to understand them in the light of the rest of Scripture, remembering that all Scripture has the same ultimate source in the one true and living God. Is everybody clear on that? Or as clear as you can be? Okay. Moving on to question number three, what does it mean to read and interpret Scripture according to its natural sense? It means that we read scripture according to its natural sense. And that's pretty explanatory, right? Scripture uses normal words, normal language to convey normal truths. Scripture is not full of codes. It's not full of hidden meaning. It's not full of mystery and intrigue. Although there are some places where I guess if you don't read the end of the story, you can find yourself engaged in mystery and intrigue, but that's not the intent. It's not full of riddles. It's not full of things meant to stump you in your pursuit of truth. Scripture uses real words, normal words, and can be interpreted accordingly. Now, these normal words that are used in Scripture, are first and foremost to be considered in terms of what the author intends for his original audience to understand. Right? As Ferguson says, there are not a series of spiritual meanings in God's word. It's all plain language. Now, to illustrate this, I've selected a random scripture, and really, literally, I just opened my Bible and scanned the page for about a half a second, and I landed on Genesis 21, verse 19. Genesis 21, verse 19. This, of course, is the account of Hagar and Ishmael, right? Remember, Abraham has sent Hagar and Ishmael packing, sent them with a skin full of water. They run out of water. Hagar hides Ishmael in the bushes. And then in verse 19, then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. And she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. What does that passage mean? Huh? You think? Is that really what that means? Hagar saw a well, filled her little flask full of water and gave Ishmael a drink. That's what that passage means. Well, what might people do to that passage to make it mean something else? See? Steve's probably heard sermons preached like that, right? Have you ever heard anybody preach a sermon and you're like, now I'm not talking about sometimes when I preach you all scratch your heads, but you know, when you just know something's up, it's like, nah, wait a minute, right? I mean, It'll sound too entertaining. It'll sound too convenient, right? This is no exception. I'm sure that somewhere at some time, some pastor has stood up and said something akin to, well, this is a reference to salvation. It's a reference to God opening our eyes and allowing us to drink from that well that Steve says of living water. In other words, this just prefigures salvation. Right. Yeah, Ed. God opened her eyes, and they could say, well, she had a vision, so it's normal that we should all seek visions of Jesus in a taco or something. Yeah. Yeah. You're right, though. That was really good. But people do that, don't they? You know, the fact that God opened her eyes, what does that mean? It means God providentially allowed her to find a well. Doesn't mean that God opened the window of her heart and she saw the well of living water. No, it just means she found a drink for her son. That's what we mean when we say, the natural sense of scripture. Remember what we said when we went through our hermeneutics stuff? The plainest, most obvious sense of scripture is usually the better interpretation. Yeah, Steve. You have more? You can pull this stuff out really fast. With a little bit of imagination, you could be the woman at the well and the boy is Christ. You could go round and round and round in this thing really fast. Well, yeah. It doesn't take a lot of studying to go goofy. Let me ask you this. What about Abraham and Isaac? Is that a story or an account of Abraham proving to be a man of faith? Or is that a picture of God's sacrificing his only son? Huh? Yes, very good. Types are different. You can label something a type. You can have something in the Old Testament that hearkens unto some other part of the scriptures, or is similar to other parts of the scriptures, or draws your mind to other parts of the scriptures, but what can't you do? You can't call that an interpretation. You see what I'm saying? Unless the Bible itself which it does in Abraham's case, shows a similarity and a fulfillment in that sort of thing. Unless that happens, you can't do it. Yeah. Right. Well, there's a danger though, like Steve's point now, you know, there's a danger to take scriptures just offhanded and make them mean something that they totally don't mean. And as noble as they might sound, as serious minded as you might be in making those claims, you can't make those claims because scripture is to be interpreted, not projected, right? Even though what you're projecting is true. God did open the eyes of our heart, so to speak, and allow us to drink from the well of living water. But he didn't provide that passage to remind us of that, or else he would have told us. One other thing is, when the people just take one part of the text and do not take the whole context, that is really, they tend to try to prove something, what is, do not mean something. What is a real breakthrough is a way to try to say something about what is to, try to say something, what is doesn't connect, what is the context. Yeah, there's an old saying that says a text without context is a pretext. Exactly, that is the point. One very good passage is when you think of Nehemiah chapter 8. It's when Nehemiah talking about the whole, about the law and where all the Israel was hearing, all the people was hearing, and all was misapprecious. Right. There are people understanding everything about that. Yeah, you're right. That's a bad fallacy to fall into. You've got to take it in its context. Question number four. Historically, it was quite commonplace to look for several meanings in any given passage of Scripture. Elaborate on each of the classifications of meanings below. The Roman Catholics still adhere to this today, as a matter of fact. The Roman Catholics still promote this idea that you're to view scripture in terms of the four classifications of meanings, just so you know. And a lot of, unfortunately, a lot of non-Catholics kind of feel this way by adopting either one or more of these. Now, the first of these is the literal or historical meaning. This is simply what the passage meant and how it was meant to be understood by the ordinary rules of grammar. This, of the four, is the preferred method. This really states our case that we've made before. It's to be understood in its natural sense. You're supposed to understand scripture in terms of its literal or historical meaning. Right? That's how you establish context. So we're not going to spend a lot of time talking about that. The next one is the moral sometimes called the tropological meaning. This was what the passage had to teach about the practicalities of the Christian life. And this tended to be confused with the application of the text. Well, what does a moralization of a text look like? I'll give you a perfect example. Consider David facing Goliath, right? David was brave. David was courageous. And you should be brave and courageous too. That's what that passage teaches. David was brave, courageous. He fought the giant of his day. You need to be brave, courageous, and fight the giants in your life. That's not what that passage teaches. What does that passage teach? That David was brave and courageous, period. It has nothing to do with you. It's an account of how God used David to slay Goliath. There's no extended moral meaning beyond that. Now you can admire David, right? You can wish to be more like David, right? One of my favorite songs by Casting Crowns talks about that very thing. You know, oh how I wish that I had the faith to stand before the giant, you know, with only a few stones and a sling. So you can certainly admire the man, but you don't take that passage that teaches us the historical account of David slaying Goliath and then apply some moral meaning to it and insist that that's what that passage is teaching. Now is it good to be brave? Yes. Is it good to be courageous? Yes. Is it good to slay the giants in your life with the help of the Lord? Yes. But that's not what the passage itself teaches. Yeah, Irma. That's fine as an application. Yes, but what the people who adhere to the tropological system of interpretation are doing, they're attaching the morals to the interpretation. In other words, for Steve, Steve might read that passage and not think a second thought about his need to be brave or courageous. He might read that and say, that's just a historical account about how brave and courageous David was, hooray, go David, right? Because he's not choosing to apply it in that way. You might read it and apply it that way. The tropological interpreter would say, no, that's what it means. It's teaching you to be courageous and brave. And that's not what it's teaching. It's imposing a moralistic meaning to the text, which it's clearly not. Applicationally, yes, you can apply. The sky's the limit in terms of how you're going to apply Oh, absolutely, yeah. Yeah, that would be basically the difference. Right. They do think it's a historical account, but it's overlaid with this moralistic meaning. The reason it's a historical account, the reason it's mentioned at all in Scripture, is to promote the idea that you're to be brave and courageous, just like David. That's not it. By the way, why is that story or that account presented in Scripture? Because it happened. There you go! Woohoo! Because it happened. And it is a wonderful example of God's providence. And it is a wonderful example of good over evil. But those are all in the applicational realm, not in the interpretational realm. It's recorded there because it happened. Does that make sense? Yes. What about the allegorical meaning? An allegory? Some people have called allegory an extended metaphor, right? It's an extended narrative in which the details in the fictional world of the story represent events and experiences in the real world. Pilgrim's Progress, as Ferguson points out, is the perfect allegory. You know, it's a good example of allegory. Allegory in Pilgrim's Progress, you know, the Celestial City is what? Heaven. The pack that he carried on his back is sin. So you've got, you know, the Slew of the Spawn, Vanity Fair, you've got, you know, the Worldly Wiseman, you've got all these things that represent realities. And you've got them in extended metaphor language, allegorical language. The erroneous understanding of the Genesis 21 passage we just looked at is a form of allegorical interpretation. In other words, we're reading about Hagar and Ishmael, but God intended for Ishmael to be you. And the water is new spiritual life. You see how that can be allegorized? That's a form of allegory. Getting back to the David and Goliath thing, I've heard that allegorized as well. David represents the love and wisdom of God, which is able to destroy false teaching, which is Goliath. Yeah? Is this what sort of happens also with topical studies? Is that how that can turn into... Most assuredly. That's why you're kind of, you have to be careful not to get into Yeah, that's why expositional preaching is a must. Expositional preaching just, you take a text and you expound upon what is written in the text using all the rules that we're talking about right now. Topical preaching, if you pick a topic, I don't know, pick a topic, what'd be a good topic? Love, right? Then you go to the scriptures finding everything that you can bring to your topic. Right? What's the danger? You might drag something over that you think speaks to the topic, but it has nothing to do with the topic in terms of its original placement in the scriptures. See what I'm saying? Very important that we don't do that. Well, more about the allegorical method in just a minute, but the fourth one is the anagogical meaning. It's closely related to the allegorical meaning, but it focuses strictly on the afterlife. The anagogical meaning focuses on the afterlife. For example, there are many who see Moses' parting of the Red Sea and the children of Israel crossing on dry land as God's opening up the gates of heaven and all the children of God, using God as a bridge to get into heaven. No, I'm pretty sure it was an account of God saving the children of Israel from the armies of Pharaoh. Right? Yeah, because for 40 years they kept wandering in the wilderness. I even heard that interpretation too. This whole idea of the Jews wandering around in the wilderness for 40 years and none of the original generation seeing the promised land save two, Joshua and Caleb. Moses himself didn't even enter the promised land. That's really intended to teach the idea that the broad way leads to destruction and many there are that go therein, but the narrow way that leads to salvation, few there are that go therein. Now again, I'm pretty sure it's just an account of the obstinacy of the children of Israel and God's prohibiting them on the basis of their sin from entering in the promised land. Right? Remember the anagogical meaning always attaches a heavenly meaning to it. It's like the allegorical meaning, but it always attaches a heavenly meaning to it. That's really all you need to know. You really don't need to know any of this because except just to know when people are in error. I mean, you read books, right? We read books all the time. Isn't it gonna be helpful now to be able to detect, perhaps, when someone's not playing fair with the scripture? That's one reason you need to know this sort of thing. Now, let me say this, there's nothing wrong with certain scriptures evoking thoughts of heaven. Right? I mean, if you read, The account of the children of Israel crossing where the Red Sea used to be on dry land, crossing over, it's not inappropriate to stop and say, thank you, Lord, for making a way for me too, to be able to go to heaven one day. The thing is, though, you don't say, and thank you for that interpretation of your word. It's not an interpretation. It's like application. Your mind's free to do whatever it will within the confines, just not in the interpretational realm. You can't make an interpretation. You can make all kinds of applications, but you can't tell your neighbor, that's what that text means. Does everybody get that? It's critical that we understand that. Yeah, Dwayne. I'll give you an example. Someone preaching on Ephesians 5, 25, and 26 claimed that that's teaching that men can save their wives. Oh, Ephesians 5? Right, right. Right, right. Yeah, that would be a wrong interpretation. Remember, we're focused right now on interpreting the Word, not applying the Word. We want to be faithful interpreters of the Word. We're not talking about application yet, really, at this point. Well, number five, what's wrong with at least three of these four classifications of scriptural meaning? Well, there's actually nothing wrong, as I said, with the literal historical classification, provided one remains true to that understanding. The other three are fraught with problems, though. And Ferguson gives a few reasons why this is so, but I think the most important and overarching of those reasons he gives, I mean, he says it really in one little sentence, there are no real controls. There can't be a method applied to those understandings of how we derive its scriptural meaning. There's no rule set. You can't apply rules because if you're gonna allegorize something, What are the rules for that? And I've told you before, you know, and I realized fully that we have some people here who would consider themselves amillennial. I don't. And the reason I don't consider myself amillennial is because I, in my own mind, small as that might be, cannot rationalize how you can take a thousand year period, mentioned in Revelation 20, mentioned six times really in Revelation 20, I believe it's verses three through seven, how you can take a period of time that's modified by a real number, 1,000 years, and just allegorize it or spiritualize it to say, no, it's not a literal thousand years, it's just a long period of time. I can't wrap my brain around that because if you're able to do that, why can't you go back to Genesis and say the six days of creation are not literal days? If you have a consistent hermeneutic, you have to apply it across the board. You can't just pick out this and say, well, that's not literal. You're on dangerous ground. You can't do that and then say, but that's literal. That's what Ferguson's saying, where are the rules? And I would long for somebody to tell me, where are the rules with regard to that? What gives you the liberty, not to mention the fact that the allegorical method was not even in existence for the first 500 years of the church. No one allegorized scripture, everybody took it at face value. It meant what it meant until Origen came along and gave us the allegorical method of interpretation. And I think he had a profound influence on a lot of people who believe in the allegorical method, applying it to the millennium. I believe what John Gill said, he says, the space of a thousand years is not a number for an uncertain or large and indeterminate space of time. These years are to be taken, not indefinitely, but definitely for just this number of years exactly. as appears from their having the article prefixed to them and are called the thousand years or these thousand years. You see there's also a hermeneutical rule that militates against allegorization. The rule is, and I've told you this before, anytime you see a period of time modified by a real number, the rule in stone is that it's to be taken literally. unless you want to break that rule. But if you're going to break it there, you got to break it everywhere. So then where is the rule? Where does the rule go? There is no rule, which means you can apply any number of anything as spiritual or allegorical. Where does that stop? How many things or periods of time or anything in the Bible are modified by a number? How many times am I to forgive my brother? Seven times? No, 70 times seven. Now that in its construction does mean an infinite number of times because the use of the 70 times seven implied really much more than you're willing to forgive right now. Till you've run out of forgiveness, right? That sort of thing, yeah. for each one of the sins you've committed against your witch-taker? Every different one? 70 times seven? Yeah, that'd get old really quick. Yeah. I just, I don't know any sinners like that in my life that keep committing the same sin 490 times. So thank God for that, right? Who had their hand up? Ed? No? No, okay. Now I will say this, in defense of a lot of amillennial people, are amillennialist heretics? No. No. If I believed that, I'd have to go home and get rid of half my library. I do believe they have an out. And I believe Ferguson hits on it a little later on. The book of Revelation, in which we find that passage, Could be considered largely what? Allegorical. Could that be the rule? Yeah, could be. So that's why I have the utmost respect still for amillennialists. It's just that my brain, I can't wrap my brain around it. Call me stupid if you're gonna, you know. It's probably me. You know, I told you before, I don't dabble that much in eschatology anyway. But again, rules are rules. And that's a good point that Ferguson makes, is it not? Stick with what we have rules for. And then you're not wondering where the rules are. So when you go to interpret it anagogically, when you go to interpret it tropologically, when you go to interpret it allegorically, you're better off interpreting it in the plainest sense in which it was presented. Yeah? Yes. Depends on who you talk to. Right? I mean what about the 70 weeks of Daniel? Are those weeks or are they weeks of years? Is there a pause or is there not a pause? No. Yeah, that's what I would call a ship of fools. No, no, no, no insult intended. That's a fool's errand. You know, if you can go to a library and find 30 different books with 30 varying opinions on that very thing, There's not a very great likelihood that several of you in a group are going to figure it out. I don't know. I mean it depends on whether you're a dispensationalist or whether you're a covenantalist or whether you have a literal interpretation of those seven years or not a literal interpretation. I mean, it's good that we know, but we just, it's just there. Yes. Back then they didn't understand everything, we may not understand that. Yeah, there's still mysteries, many mysteries that we don't understand. My recommendation to you as a congregation, do not dabble in eschatology. You're wasting your time. What difference does it make, really? Think about that. If we're to be practicing living our lives every day as if Christ could return tomorrow, why are you worried about determining the times and seasons and knowing the signs? You don't know that tomorrow's guaranteed to you at all, whether Christ returns or not. You don't know that you'll make it home tonight without getting in a fatal car crash. So why, this is one of my pet peeves, Christians spend an inordinate amount of time reading all these fanciful books about the end times when one is just as good as the other, right? So don't do that. Spend your time focusing on how the Lord would have you live your life now, in the here and now. And honor and glorify Him with what you do know and what you can apply. This ethereal stuff, you've got to leave that. That's why I jokingly tell people I'm a pan-millennialist. It's all going to pan out in the end. Yeah, Ed. Question 1, subsection F. within its context only one meaning. Yes. So there has to be a right meaning. Absolutely. We're not finding out what it is, but there doesn't have to be three or four or five of them. There's only one that's right. Right. So we can take comfort in that even if we don't know it. Right. That's exactly right. But the problem is, do we resign ourselves? No, we keep studying. Yeah. Well, I would say in terms of eschatology, Just resign yourself because I'm only as good as the last book I read. I read the next guy and I'm like, whoa, that's it. That's it. That's what I am. Then I pick up another book and I'm like, wait a minute. No, that's what I am. You see how maddening that can be? You know, read the rest of the Bible and find out what God wants you to be today. not what he wants you to believe about eons to come. No one's figured it out. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Well, the last question there is really kind of just a discussion question. Note the encounter with a friend that Ferguson describes on page 69. How would you describe your own Bible study? Is it focused primarily on your own spiritual condition or do you truly seek to know and understand what the author is actually saying and then seek to apply it personally? One of the biggest pitfalls to personal Bible study, personal Bible reading is that we approach it all wrong. We approach the word of God as medicine. We approach the word of God with the intent of finding something in our daily reading, in our study that will apply to my situations in life. That's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. And how have I learned that? I've learned that because preaching expositorily takes me to where I need to be. I sit down every Monday morning not knowing what I'm gonna come out at the end of the week with. But through rightly dividing the word of truth, finding out exactly what John meant to convey to his original audience when he wrote his gospel, I come up with what he intended to say in plain language and the applications are many, right? But I don't go into my study saying, okay, I have this problem, this problem, this problem, how is the word going to affect me today? What can I get out of this today? Approach it academically and then let the Holy Spirit apply it spiritually. approach it with the intent to study it, to know what's being said, and then allow the Holy Spirit to speak to you in terms of how to apply it in your life. You see how that works? You don't want to go to the scriptures with, what's in this for me? Because you know what? If you go with that attitude, you're going to find that most days, there's nothing in it for you. You know? But if you go into it, what does this mean to the original audience to which it was written? How can I understand the words? How can I understand it? Then you'll start finding out, wait a minute. This says something, this answers a question I wasn't even asking. So don't go to the word of God with preconceived questions. Let the word of God do what it does. as that which is sharper than any two-edged sword, able to cut to the division of soul and spirit, to drive right into the very marrow of your bones, as it were. Let the Word of God do what it does. Don't go to the Word of God demanding that it do something for you.