You’ll not find the word sanctification 

in

Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.


The process of sanctification, however,
is what Paul describes in chapter 5 as the
outworking of

the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life.

One of the Holy Spirit’s functions in the believer’s life is to cultivate Christian character, to transform us more and more into the likeness of Christ. This is sanctification, and this is foundational to the teaching of Galatians 5. Here are five things we need to know and teach about sanctification:
​

1. Sanctification is the work of God.

All our efforts toward holiness are useless apart from

(1) the work of Christ on the cross (Heb. 10:10) and

(2) the work of God’s Spirit in us.

Paul highlighted the Holy Spirit’s role with repetition of the phrase

“by the Spirit”

in Galatians 5:16,18,25. He used the phrase

“sanctified by the Holy Spirit”

in Roman 15:16, and in Romans 8:13 he said it is

"by the Spirit” that we are able to “put to death the deeds of the body.”


2. Sanctification involves our cooperation.

Take note of the imperatives in Galatians 5: “walk by the Spirit” (v. 16), “live by the Spirit” (v. 25), and “keep in step with the Spirit” (v. 25).

Whereas justification is entirely God’s work, sanctification involves our cooperation with God. Christ has delivered us from sin’s reign, but the responsibility for resisting sin is ours. God has given us His Spirit, but the responsibility for walking by the Spirit is ours. “Pursue … sanctification” urged the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 12:14, NASB; see also 2 Cor. 7:1).


3. Sanctification is on ongoing process. 

Whereas justification is once and for all, sanctification is a continuous process whereby we grow in holiness. The Greek verb translated “walk by the spirit” in verse 16 translates the Greek verb peripateo, which literally means “to go about” or “to walk around.” It’s the same word Jesus used of the paralytic, “get up, take your mat, and walk” (Mark 2:9). The word walk also can be used to mean a certain walk of life or conduct. Paul used a tense of the verb that reflects continuous, on-going activity.

The word walk reminds us that sanctification doesn’t roll effortlessly
down a superhighway;
it treks resolutely up a more arduous path, steadily progressing
toward the goal but never arriving until that

​day we “see him as he is”

(1 John 3:2).


4. The goal and measure of sanctification is Christlikeness.

God’s purpose in our sanctification is to transform us more and more into the likeness of Christ (Rom. 8:29). Refuse to be seduced into defining spiritual maturity in terms of religious activities (sanctification-by-checklist). The 8-point record system offering envelope I grew up using in church is not a gauge of spiritual maturity. (On the weekly envelope was a checklist: Sunday School attendance, Bible brought, lesson studied, giving, worship attendance, daily Bible reading, number of visits, and number of other contacts made. Check off the items on the list and you’re good for another week!) On the contrary, Christ-like character is the measuring stick of growth in sanctification.

5. The primary instrument of sanctification is the Word of God.

Jesus’ prayer for His disciples, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17), instructs us that God sanctifies us by His Word. Paul understood that God’s Word trains us in righteousness so that we may “be complete” (2 Tim 3:16-17). Let us drink deeply, then, from the Scriptures, for by them God will transform us more and more into the likeness of Christ.
(See also Ps. 119:11; Acts 20:32; 1 Pet. 2:2.)

Remember, “this is God’s will, your sanctification”

​(1 Thess. 4:3).

In selecting a team, the criteria used often include a person’s abilities, status, and history of success. However, the world’s measure of success is different from God’s. God does not require intelligence, ability, power, or status to become a believer. Those who come to Christ are on His “team” by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). In fact, God chooses the foolish things to confound the wise, or, as rendered in the NIV, He “chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise” (1 Corinthians 1:27).

Previously, Paul reminded the Corinthian believers that the message of the cross unites them (1 Corinthians 1:10–17). Trusting in Jesus’ death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins brings all believers into the same family, the same team. No other external qualifier—status, wealth, intellect, nobility, fame, or anything else—defines us. Everything else becomes secondary to our status in Christ: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” (1 Corinthians 1:18), but God, in His infinite wisdom, chooses the foolish things to confound the wise.

While the message of the gospel appears foolish to the world, “to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18). The unbelieving world sees Christ’s death on the cross as foolish, seeing it as a sign of weakness or a proof of criminality; however, this is where God chooses the foolish things to confound the wise. It is through the death of Christ that we have forgiveness of sin and life eternal. This gospel message is simple enough that a child can understand it. In Matthew 11:25, Jesus praises the Father because He has “hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.” God’s truth is not foolish; it is of infinite value and brings life for all who believe.

God’s plan of salvation is so simple, so surprising, that the learned of this world often miss it. Salvation does not come through mankind’s ability to reason; we cannot think our way to heaven: “Where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:20–21, NLT).

Not only does the message of God seem foolish to the unbelieving world, but so do the people of God: “Consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise” (1 Corinthians 1:2627, ESV).

Scripture exhorts us not to be wise in our own eyes (Proverbs 3:7). Rather, we should humbly submit ourselves to the Lord and His truth. We may appear foolish to the world, but this is the path to true wisdom (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). “God has selected [for His purpose] the foolish things of the world to shame the wise [revealing their ignorance]” (1 Corinthians 1:27, AMP). God uses foolish things and foolish people to confound the wise—at least those who think they are wise.

“The wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile” (1 Corinthians 3:19–20). There is a difference between worldly wisdom and godly wisdom (James 3:13–17). Worldly wisdom is characterized by pleasing oneself or following what one thinks is best in his own estimation. Worldly wisdom is not at all concerned about honoring God. To the world, believers are foolish and weak. Yet God indeed uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and the weak things to shame the strong. A person is not saved by following worldly wisdom but by trusting in what seems foolish to the world (1 Corinthians 1:20–21).

God uses the foolish things to confound the wise; i.e., He uses what the world deems foolish to show that the so-called wisdom of the world is not all it is cracked up to be. God’s wisdom through salvation is available to all: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). By God’s grace, all who humble themselves and trust in Him will receive the wisdom that lasts for all eternity.

All that God deemed essential knowledge for His children is found in His Word—the Bible. Beyond that, all truth is God’s. God has, however, revealed His truth to all humans in the things created (Romans 1:20) called general revelation, and in His written Word called special revelation (1 Corinthians 2:6–10).

There is a difference between “earthly wisdom” and the “wisdom that comes from above” (James 3:14–18). To tap into God’s wisdom, we must, first of all, desire it and ask God for it. “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you” (James 1:5). The next verse specifies that we must “ask in faith, nothing wavering” (verse 6).

We acknowledge that true wisdom comes from God and that Jesus Christ is the embodiment of that wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:30). To trust in Christ and yield to His Holy Spirit is to walk in wisdom; as Christians, “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16).

Love of God, the greatest commandment, is also required. “As it is written: ‘What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived’—the things God has prepared for those who love him—these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God” (1 Corinthians 2:9–10; cf. Isaiah 64:4).

To have knowledge is to have understanding or information about something. To have wisdom is to have the ability to apply knowledge to everyday life. It is in the reading and understanding of God’s Word that we obtain knowledge, and meditating upon that knowledge brings wisdom. The longest chapter in the Bible is Psalm 119, which is all about gaining understanding and wisdom from God’s Word. Just a few verses are “Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long” (verse 97).

“Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path”

(verse 105).

​ “I will meditate on your precepts, and have respect to your ways. I will delight myself in your statutes: I will not forget your word” (verses 15–16). The word meditate is used five times in Psalm 119 and in various forms another fifteen times in the book of Psalms. Meditation is required to fully consider how to apply God’s Word in everyday life.

The book of Proverbs is full of wisdom. In that book, Wisdom calls for a hearing: “How long will you who are simple love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge? Repent at my rebuke! Then I will pour out my thoughts to you, I will make known to you my teachings” (Proverbs 1:22–23). The promise of Wisdom is that those who desire God’s truth can have it, but it requires giving up the world’s foolish mockery of the truth. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7).

To have the “fear of the LORD” is to have an awed respect of who God is and a reverential trust in His Word and His character, and to live accordingly. When one is walking in the fear of the Lord, he or she is relying on God’s wisdom in the matters of everyday life and making whatever changes need to be made in light of God’s Word.

Those who have God’s wisdom will show it in how they live: “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom” (James 3:13).

In summary, to tap into God’s wisdom, we must diligently study God’s Word (2 Timothy 2:15), meditate on the Word, pray for wisdom, seek it with all our hearts, and walk in the Spirit. God desires to give His wisdom to His children. Are we willing to be led by that wisdom?

​The day of Christ is a prophetic event specifically referenced three times in the New Testament; the apostle Paul speaks of “the day of Christ,” “the day of Jesus Christ,” and “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Other New Testament passages may allude to the day of Christ, but the use of this phraseology is unique to Paul’s writings. Let us examine these three passages within their proper scriptural context. The first is Philippians 1:3–6:

I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ (ESV).

Besides assuring Christian believers of their eternal security, this passage teaches that the day of Christ marks the time when our sanctification will be complete. At long last, we will enjoy sinless perfection and dwell in resurrected, immortal, glorified bodies. In reference to this same bright future, John wrote, “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2, ESV).

The next mention of “the day of Christ” is in Philippians 2:14–16:

Do all things without grumbling or disputing, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain (ESV).

From this passage, we can be assured that the difficulties believers face in a hostile, godless world will pass and that, in the day of Christ, the struggles will end for those who persevere. In another passage, the apostle Paul writes, “And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9, ESV).

The third and final of Paul’s references to “the day of Christ” is found in 1 Corinthians 1:4–8:

I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge—even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you—so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ (ESV).


Again, the apostle Paul assures all believers of their eternal hope, for when the day of Christ comes, they will be counted among the redeemed. This blessed hope is also expressed in our Lord’s words, “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day” (John 6:39, ESV).

The day of Christ points to the time when our struggles end and victory over sin and death is no longer a promise, but a glorious reality. We believe the day of Christ begins at the rapture of the church and continues through the millennial reign. The day of Christ is a time of lavish promises fulfilled and decisive victories achieved—a time when believers no longer walk by faith but by sight, for our enemies will be our Lord’s footstool (Psalm 110:1).

The day of Christ is related to but probably distinguished from the day of the Lord. The day of the Lord is a time of judgment in which God pours out His consuming wrath upon a hostile, rebellious, unbelieving world:

Alas for the day!
For the day of the Lord is near,
and as destruction from the Almighty it comes (Joel 1:15, ESV)

Wail, for the day of the Lord is near;
as destruction from the Almighty it will come! (Isaiah 13:6)

Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord!
Why would you have the day of the Lord?
It is darkness, and not light (Amos 5:18, ESV)

For the day of the Lord is near upon all the nations.
As you have done, it shall be done to you;
your deeds shall return on your own head (Obadiah 1:15, ESV)


The day of the Lord is a time of worldwide judgment;

the day of Christ has to do with

believers meeting Christ and receiving their

​heavenly inheritance.

Thankfully, God’s people will not face the unleashing of God’s righteous fury when the day of the Lord comes (I Thessalonians 5:9). The day of the Lord is reserved for unrepentant sinners who refuse God’s mercy. The haughty and proud rebels who snub His mercy must face His judgment. By contrast, the day of Christ is a time of hope and promise and, indeed, a day of celebration. May we join King David in singing,

“I waited patiently for the Lord;
   he inclined to me and heard my cry.
He drew me up from the pit of destruction,
   out of the miry bog,
and set my feet upon a rock,
   making my steps secure.
He put a new song in my mouth,
   a song of praise to our God.
Many will see and fear,
   and put their trust in the Lord”

​(Psalm 40:1–3, ESV).
​

​​​https://youtu.be/dyOrS3kY8BY
​



TESTIMONY

of

​Jesus Christ





​
​No wonder

​He also said,


“The world cannot


accept  him,



because it neither


sees him nor knows him.

But

you - 



know- him!



for he lives with you

and

will be in you.”


This makes



God’s


gift of the Holy Spirit


that much more essential

for He is
​

not just the


Spirit


who gives us life

and the


Spirit of Anointing



who teaches us;


He is the One Jesus calls



“the
​

Spirit of Truth.” 



No wonder He also said,

“The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”

( John 14:15-17)


Jesus,

who had just declared


Himself


to be


“The Way, the Truth and the Life”

(John 14:6),


understood

that the majority of the world

would be hostile to this

uncompromising nature

of

God that reveals the truth,

the

whole truth,

and

nothing but the truth.



He warned those who would


follow

Him into all Truth

that

“if the world hates you,

keep in mind that it hated me first.


If you belonged to the world,

it would love you as


its own



As it is,  you do not

belong to the world …

that is why the world hates you."

(John 15:18-19)


Jesus adds,

“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.
​

And you also must testify.”

(John 15: 26-27)



Following Jesus

isn’t just a matter

of hearing and believing spiritual



truth



but also


telling the truth


about

spiritual realities.


This has never been and will never be popular,

but we are comforted to know that



Jesus went before as


One

willing to tell


the truth no matter the

consequences.


Being a


witness of the truth


is also a


great responsibility



It isn’t enough to

think

we

know the truth.



God has actually made us



LIABLE to Tell the TRUTH




He has not left us to guess but


promised,   “when he, the


Spirit of Truth, comes,


he will guide you into all the truth


He will not speak on his own;


he will speak only what


he hears,

and he will tell you what is yet to come.

He will


glorify me



because it is from me that he


will receive what  he will  make known to  YOU


(John 16:13-14)


Far from being a passive student of the  truth,

Scripture cautions us to  test everything. 


Dear friends,

​
do not believe every spirit,

but test the spirits

to see

whether they are from God,

because many

​false prophets

have

gone out into the world. This is how you can

recognize the


Spirit of God:  Every spirit that



acknowledges that


Jesus Christ


has come  in the flesh is


from God, 



but every spirit

that does


not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.


This is the spirit of

the

antichrist…



​They are from the world and therefore

speak from the

viewpoint of the world,


and

the world listens to them…


​This is how we

recognize



​the

Spirit of Truth


and

the spirit of falsehood.”


(1 John 4:1-6)




The Holy Spirit,

whose name is Spirit of Truth,

can be trusted to

​

"guide you into all

truth”

because


“the Spirit is the truth.”


(1 John 5:7)


​Calling on His Name:


Spirit of Truth,

I praise You that with You there

are no shades of truth.

Everything You reveal leads to an

accurate

and life-giving reality about

Jesus.

GO,


​and  

preach thegospel



https://youtu.be/DzHx9OnhEdM

​

Most every Christian would

agree this is

what the  CHURCH ​is  supposed to do.

Most every Christian has been told that the word


GOSPEL


means good news or glad tidings. 

The natural question that no one asks

should be, what is the  good news?” or


"which GOSPEL?”


There are many  "gospel messages" in the Bible.


When Christians  fail to see the difference  in the

 gospel message revealed

to the apostle Paul

from

'from other gospels'  in the Bible,  then

what the church preaches

becomes an

uncertain sound and  causes confusion


Below is a comparison between

the

gospel of the grace of God,

and

another popular gospel,

the

"gospel of the kingdom"




Gospel of the Kingdom

(Mark 1:14)



Gospel of Grace

(Acts 20:24)


Preaches the soon coming of the king and his kingdom (Matt 3:2)

Preaches the grace of God for salvation (Rom 3:22-26)

The king and kingdom was promised to the nation of Israel
(Luke 1:69)

The grace of God is offered freely to all (Rom 3:22)

The kingdom was spoken about since the world began (Acts 3:21-25)

The dispensation of God’s grace was kept secret since the world began

(Rom 16:25)

Killing the king is a sad and wicked thing (Luke 24:17; Acts 2:23)


The

crucifixion of Christ is our glory

(Gal 6:14)

The cross of Christ was not part of the message
(Luke 9:2 vs. Luke 18:34)

Requires preaching the cross
(1 Corinthians 15:1-4)


Resurrection was not part of the message
(John 20:9)

Preaching is vain without the resurrection

(1 Corinthians 15:14)


The kingdom requires performance (1 John 2:3; Matt 25:32-46)

God’s grace motivates a purpose in your heart (2 Cor 9:7; 2 Cor 5:14-15)

The kingdom will benefit everyone on earth (Rev 20:3-4; Isa 2:3-4)

God’s grace unto salvation benefits
only those that believe
(Rom 3:22)

Salvation comes in the future when the kingdom comes
(Acts 3:19; Heb 9:28; 1 Pet 1:5)

Salvation comes at the moment of belief

(Eph 1:13; Rom 5:1)

To be saved requires enduring to the end (Matt 24:13)


To be saved requires believing

your work

has come to an end

(Rom 4:5)

There is a difference between Jew and Gentile in the kingdom

(Matt 15:26; Zech 8:23)

There are no Jews or Gentiles in the church in this dispensation of grace

(Gal 3:28)

Was given to the Twelve apostles of Israel to preach

(Acts 1:3)

Was given to the apostle of the Gentiles to preach

(Rom 11:13; 1 Cor 9:17; Eph 3:1-2)

Waiting for a kingdom of heaven to come to earth
(Matt 6:10)

Preaching for those on earth to trust Christ and go to heaven
(Eph 2:6-7)

The kingdom will be a visible presence on earth
(Matt 24:27; Rev 19:11)

God’s grace is by faith and not by sight
(2 Cor 5:7)

Healing of the sick was a sign of the kingdom
(Matt 4:23; Mark 16:18)

The lack of healing is a sign of God’s sufficient grace
(2 Cor 12:8-10)

Water baptism prepares Israel to enter the kingdom
(Matt 3:3; Acts 2:38)

Baptism by the Spirit places us in the Body of Christ

(1 Cor 12:13)

Continued obedience to the commandments required

(Matt 23:13)

Justified without the law of Moses; not under the law

(Acts 13:39; Rom 6:14)

Faith without works is dead

(James 2:24)

Faith in the finished work of Christ
gives peace and life

(Rom 4:5; Rom 5:1)



These are just a few of the

differences between preaching

the


gospel of the kingdom

and  the

gospel of the grace of God.


These are only two of the many gospels in the Bible. 



If the church agrees we are to


preach the gospel,  it is important that we get the

message right and clear



Knowing the difference

between the many gospels in the Bible is the


difference between a  confused church

and a  saved church.



Today,  God is dispensing  his grace to a world of sinners,


not his kingdom to a world in righteous judgment.



It is the church’s

responsibility to make all men see this  mystery operation of  God

(Eph 3:9). 



Knowing what makes

the

gospel of the grace of God

different is necessary

to make our message  clear enough

so that  God’s will be done


(1 Tim 2:4). 




​“Who will have all men to


be saved, and to come unto

the

knowledge of the truth.”

– 1 Timothy 2:4

bond·serv·ant; person


bound

in service without wages

First, in verse 1,

Paul says that he is “a bond-servant of God,

and an

apostle of Jesus Christ.”

When Paul says that he is a

bond-servant of God,

he is saying that he is willingly self-committed

to

permanent service of the Lord.

a slave or serf; 

one bound to service without wages.

also  slave.

​http://www.biblestudy1.com/bond.html

​
Please turn to Titus 1:1-4.

In this letter, Paul is writing to Titus
who has

been commissioned

to establish the Christian church on Crete.

Specifically,

Paul wants to help Titus pastor Christian congregations

in the context

of an immoral culture and to encourage those Christians

to

adorn the gospel of God our Savior

in all of life by the way that they live.
The gospel has the moral power to transform lives and social relationships, and that


gospel power serves as a

witness

to the world around us that the

gospel is a reality

worked in us by the


Holy Spirit.

And so Paul has in view an exhortation to Titus to

help this people adorn the


gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is just Paul’s word of greeting,

but in it we observe three things.
First, in verse 1,

we see the title of the messenger.

Then, in verses 1-3,

we see the

service of the messenger.


​Finally, in verse 4,


we see the blessing of the messenger. 


I. The Title of the Messenger. 

First, in verse 1,

Paul says that he is “a


bond-servant of God,

and an


apostle of Jesus Christ.”


When Paul says that he

is a bond-servant of God,

he is saying that he is willingly self-committed to

permanent service of the Lord.

And when he says that he

is an

apostle of Jesus Christ,

he is telling us

that he did


not call himself

to

the ministry.



Instead, he was sent

by Christ

into the ministry.


Notice how even in that title, Paul is supplying us with truth which serves as not only an example as to how to live the Christian life in an immoral culture, but it also

serves as an exhortation

to us to

commitment and to mission.



As an apostle of the


Lord Jesus Christ,



Paul has a clear sense of his mission.

He knows what his purpose


is in life,

and he not

only knows his mission,

he is

gladly, willingly, wholeheartedly,

​and

permanently committed to it. 


There were individuals in these local Christian congregations who were being pastored and nurtured by Titus who were being

influenced by the world around them.

They

had forgotten their

mission

and purpose in life

which was to adorn the


gospel of God in all things.


And so Paul’s sense of mission and his commitment to that mission serve as an example to follow for the Christians that Titus was ministering to and to us as well. When we are living lives that

contradict our profession of faith in God,

one of the things that is always going on is that we are forgetting

who we are.

We are forgetting what

God called us to,

what He made us for, and what our purpose is in life.

Our purpose is to glorify

and enjoy God forever. And that purpose evokes a permanent

willing commitment

to be


disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.


II. The Service of the Messenger.

In verses 1-3,


Paul says that the

service of the messenger

is aimed at three things which include


saving faith,

sanctifying truth,

and encouraging hope.


First,

Paul says that his ministry is aimed at

promoting saving faith

among the chosen of God.

Paul’s desire is that those who have been


chosen by God will


believe and trust

in

Jesus Christ for salvation


as He is


offered

in the gospel.




God’s choice of them

is at the root

of their response to God


in faith,


but Paul’s purpose in ministry is to


teach and to preach

and disciple so that the chosen of God will exercise


FAITH

He longs for them to respond to the

free and gracious overtures


of


the gospel


by trusting in God,

and in


Jesus Christ,


and in the gospel.


Secondly,

he also says that he is an



apostle


for the knowledge of the


truth



that is according to godliness.

In other words, Paul is saying,

“My ministry is aimed at producing a


sanctifying knowledge

in

the people of God.



I don’t simply want them to have more information than other people.

I don’t simply want them to be smarter than other people.



I’m not interested in them knowing certain facts

that other people don’t know.



My goal in ministry

is a




​true knowledge

that is productive of real godliness and piety.”


Thirdly,

Paul is saying,

“My goal in ministry is with a view to the

faith of God’s people

and the sanctifying knowledge




of the truth


in light of the hope of


eternal life



The motivation for Paul’s labor and the motivation
for their living of the Christian life is this

hope of eternal life.

It is a hope that has been


promised by God


who cannot lie.


It is a hope that has been promised long ago

but is now being manifested

to the full in the proclamation of Paul and the

apostles.



III. The Blessing of the Messenger. 

In verse 4, Paul tenderly concludes this salutation with a word of blessing. Specifically, he says,

“To Titus, my true child in a common faith…” and then he
pronounces the blessing,


“Grace and peace from God the

Father and Christ

Jesus our Savior.”


In other words, Paul is saying,

"Titus, your encouragement in ministry

in that local setting

is not going to be drawn from the

congregation,

its circumstances, or the culture.


It’s going to be


drawn from God.

So just as the Christian life begins with


God’s grace and peace,


I pronounce God’s

grace and peace on you so

that you will remember that if this ministry

is going to prosper,

it’s going to be because of God’s grace and peace.”


The Christian life starts with



God’s unmerited favor


reaching out to us first.


We simply respond.


But until


God’s grace is there,


the Christian life has not yet begun.

​And the Christian life begins with God’s peace,

because when

God’s unmerited favor comes to us

in Jesus Christ,


the just condemnation which

He has against us is

dealt with,

and our enmity toward Him is

dealt with,

so that for the first time in our lives we begin to experience

true

fellowship and communion with God.


So the Christian life begins with grace and peace, but the Christian life ends with grace and peace as well. And it is the grace and peace of God that supplies the encouragement to the Christian in every circumstance, in every congregation, and in every culture.

The Christian longs to experience God’s unmerited and undeserved favor eternally and everlastingly and the peace that flows from His grace. Not just a peace which means the cessation of God’s judicial judgment against us, but a peace which means all of the blessings of being in the family of God and a child of God. May God grant that we would believe the

sanctifying truth of theWord;

that we would have instilled in our

hearts and stoked by the Spirit the hope

of eternal life; and that we would live reliant upon His heavenly benediction.

A bondservant is a slave.
​
In some Bibles the word bondservant is the translation of the Greek word doulos, which means

"one

who is subservient to,

and

entirely at the disposal of,


his master; a slave.”


Other translations use the word 


slave or servant.

In Roman times,

the term bondservant or slave could refer to someone who

voluntarily served others.

But it usually referred to one who

was held
in a

permanent position of servitude.

Under Roman law, a bondservant was considered
the owner’s personal property.


Slaves essentially had no rights

and

could even be killed with

impunity by their owners.

The Hebrew word for “bondservant,” ‘

ebed, had a similar connotation. However,

the Mosaic Law allowed an indentured servant

to become a bondservant voluntarily:

“If the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and
pierce his ear with an awl.
Then he will be his servant for life”

(Exodus 21:5-6).

Many prominent men of the Old Testament were referred to as servants.


God spoke of Abraham as

His servant

(Genesis 26:24; Numbers 12:7).

Joshua is called the servant of the Lord
(Joshua 24:29),

as are David (2 Samuel 7:5) and Isaiah (Isaiah 20:3).

Even the

Messiah is called God’s Servant

(Isaiah 53:11).

In all of these instances,
the term servant carries the idea of humble nobility.


Being God’s servant is

an

honorable position.


During the time of Jesus and the first-century church,

as much as one third of the Roman population were slaves,
and another third had been slaves earlier in life.

It was common for freeborn men and women to work

side-by-side

with slaves as street sweepers, dockworkers, doctors, teachers, and business managers. Convicted criminals became bondservants of the state and usually died working in the mines or on galleys.


Historical records

reveal that it was not unusual for Jews to own slaves

during the New Testament period.

Because slavery was a familiar part of the culture,

Jesus sometimes referred to

slaves and owners in His parables

(e.g., Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 12:41-48).


Also, Jesus taught that the greatest

in


God’s kingdom

would have to become


“the servant of all”

(Mark 9:35).

Such a concept was unthinkable to a Roman citizen,

who prided himself in his freedom

and would never identify himself as a


​bondservant.


But Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world

(John 18:36),

and the selfish values of earth

are of no consequence

in heaven.


Throughout the New Testament,

the word bondservant, slave, or servant 

is applied metaphorically

to someone absolutely


devoted to Jesus.


Paul, Timothy, James, Peter,
and Jude all describe themselves as “bondservants of Christ”

(Romans 1:1; Philippians 1:1; James 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; Jude 1:1, NKJV).

Believers today should still consider themselves bondservants
or slaves of Christ
(1 Corinthians 7:22; Ephesians 6:6; 2 Timothy 2:24).


He is our Lord,

and our allegiance

is

due to Him alone.


As bondservants, we renounce other masters

(Matthew 6:24)

and give ourselves totally to Him

(Matthew 16:24).

Being a bondservant of Christ is not drudgery.

His “burden is light” (Matthew 11:30).

Also, we have this promise:

“Now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life”

(Romans 6:22).

1 Corinthians

 Were you a bondservant when called?

Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise

he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ.

You were bought with a price;

do not become bondservants of men. So, brothers, in

whatever condition

each was called, there let him remain with God.

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion: Greetings.


 Count it all joy,

my brothers,

when you meet trials of

various kinds,


James 1:1-2:26 ESV / 6 helpful votes James,

a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,

To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion: Greetings.

Count it all joy, my brothers,

when you meet trials of various kinds,

for you know that the testing of your faith

produces steadfastness.


And let steadfastness have its

full effect,

that you may be perfect and complete,

lacking in nothing.


If any of you lacks wisdom,

let him ask God,

who gives generously to all without reproach,

and it will be given him. ...


Philippians 2:7 ESV / 6 helpful votes But emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Galatians 3:28 ESV / 6 helpful votes There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

James 5:12 ESV / 5 helpful votes But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

2 Timothy 3:16 ESV / 5 helpful votes All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Ephesians 6:5-6 ESV / 5 helpful votes Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,

James 1:26 ESV / 4 helpful votes If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.
James 1:5 ESV / 4 helpful votes If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 ESV / 4 helpful votes Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price.
So glorify God in your body.

John 4:24 ESV / 4 helpful votes 


God is spirit, and those

who worship him must worship

in spirit and


truth.”


Isaiah 53:1-12 ESV / 4 helpful votes 


Who has believed what he has heard from us?

And to whom has the


arm of the Lord been revealed?

For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;

he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by men,

a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;

and as one from whom
men hide their faces he was despised,
and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;

yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed. ...


Revelation 2:26 ESV / 3 helpful votes 

The one who conquers and who

keeps my works

until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations,

James 4:11 ESV / 3 helpful votes 

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother

or judges his brother,

speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.

James 2:1-26 ESV / 3 helpful votes 

My brothers, show no partiality as you

hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,

the Lord of glory.

For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say,

“You sit here in a good place,”

while you say to the poor man,

“You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,”

have you not then made distinctions among yourselves

and become judges with evil thoughts?



Listen, my beloved brothers, has

not

God chosen those who are

poor in the world

to be rich in faith

and heirs of the kingdom,

which he has promised

to those who love him? ...



James 1:20 ESV / 3 helpful votes For the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.

Titus 1:1 ESV / 3 helpful votes 

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
for the

sake of the faith

of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth,

which accords with godliness,

Philippians 2:6 ESV / 3 helpful votes 

Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count
equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Philippians 2:5-8 ESV / 3 helpful votes 

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

And being found in human form,
he humbled himself by becoming
obedient to the point of death,
even death on a cross.

Romans 13:10 ESV / 3 helpful votes Love does no wrong to a neighbor;

therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Romans 6:23 ESV / 3 helpful votes For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 1:1 ESV / 3 helpful votes Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,

Acts 21:18 ESV / 3 helpful votes On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

Acts 9:1-43 ESV / 3 helpful votes But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. ...

John 7:35 ESV / 3 helpful votes The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?

John 3:3 ESV / 3 helpful votes Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 5:44 ESV / 3 helpful votes But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Daniel 11:1-45 ESV / 3 helpful votes “And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him. “And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece. Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and do as he wills. And as soon as he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the authority with which he ruled, for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these. “Then the king of the south shall be strong, but one of his princes shall be stronger than he and shall rule, and his authority shall be a great authority. ...

2 John 1:1-13 ESV / 2 helpful votes The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth, because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever: Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father's Son, in truth and love. I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded by the Father. And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. ...

1 Peter 4:14 ESV / 2 helpful votes If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

1 Peter 1:6 ESV / 2 helpful votes In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials,

1 Peter 1:3 ESV / 2 helpful votes Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1 Peter 1:1 ESV / 2 helpful votes Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

James 2:1 ESV / 2 helpful votes My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.

James 1:22 ESV / 2 helpful votes But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

James 1:18 ESV / 2 helpful votes Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

James 1:13 ESV / 2 helpful votes Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.

James 1:11 ESV / 2 helpful votes For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits.

James 1:4 ESV / 2 helpful votes And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

James 1:3 ESV / 2 helpful votes For you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.

Hebrews 11:31 ESV / 2 helpful votes By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.

Hebrews 6:1-20 ESV / 2 helpful votes Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, ...

Colossians 2:9 ESV / 2 helpful votes For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

1 Corinthians 15:7 ESV / 2 helpful votes Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

1 Corinthians 13:12 ESV / 2 helpful votes 

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully,

even as I have been fully known.

1 Corinthians 10:23 ESV / 2 helpful votes “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.

1 Corinthians 6:12 ESV / 2 helpful votes “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything.

Romans 6:13 ESV / 2 helpful votes Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.

Acts 15:23 ESV / 2 helpful votes With the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings.

Acts 15:14 ESV / 2 helpful votes Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.
Acts 15:13 ESV / 2 helpful votes After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.

Acts 12:17 ESV / 2 helpful votes But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.” Then he departed and went to another place.

John 17:4 ESV / 2 helpful votes I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.

John 5:17 ESV / 2 helpful votes But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”

John 1:13 ESV / 2 helpful votes Who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 1:1 ESV / 2 helpful votes In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Luke 22:30 ESV / 2 helpful votes That you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 2:1-52 ESV / 2 helpful votes In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. ...

Mark 15:40 ESV / 2 helpful votes 

There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the
younger and of Joses, and Salome.

Matthew 24:1-51 ESV / 2 helpful votes Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying,


"I am the Christ,’ and they will

lead many astray. ...


Matthew 13:55 ESV / 2 helpful votes Is not this the carpenter's son?

Is not his mother called Mary?

And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Matthew 10:3 ESV / 2 helpful votes Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;

Matthew 5:48 ESV / 2 helpful votes You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:22 ESV / 2 helpful votes But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Matthew 5:12 ESV / 2 helpful votes Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Matthew 2:11 ESV / 2 helpful votes And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Malachi 3:6 ESV / 2 helpful votes “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

Malachi 3:1 ESV / 2 helpful votes “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts.

Psalm 22:1-31 ESV / 2 helpful votes To the choirmaster: according to The Doe of the Dawn. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest.


Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel.

In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them.

To you they cried and were rescued;

in you they trusted and were not put to shame. ...

​

​​​

​1.  Divine meaning and human meaning
​


Disagreements in interpretation

arise

from differing views of the relation of divine

and human authorship. 




The chief question is this:  what is the


relationship between what God says  to us


through the text and what the human author says? 


Let us consider two simple alternatives. 



First, we could take the view that the


meaning of the divine author



has little or nothing  to do with

the meaning of the human author. 


For instance, according to an

allegorical approach,


commonly associated with Origen,6 


whenever the “literal”


meaning is


unworthy of God,  it is to be rejected. 


And even when the “literal” meaning

is
unobjectionable,



​the heart of the matter  is

often to be found

in  another level of meaning,

a

spiritual”

or  allegorical meaning. 


If we were to take such a view,

we could argue that the spiritual

or allegorical meaning is part of the 

divine meaning in the text. 

But the human author was not aware of it.


The difficulties with this view are obvious.  When we detach the divine meaning from the human author, the text itself no longer exercises effective control over what meanings we derive from it. 

The decisive factor

in what we find God to be saying

is derived from our allegorical scheme and our preconceptions about

what is “worthy” of God. 

We can read in what we afterwards read out.  God’s Lordship over us through his word is in practice denied.


When we see the dangers of this view,

we naturally become sympathetic with the opposite alternative. 

In this case, we say that what God says is simply what the
human author says: no more, no less.



Sometimes, of course, there may be

difficulties in determining

what a particular human author says at a



particular point. 


Moreover,

sometimes what authors say

may be not perfectly precise. 


Sometimes they may

choose to be ambiguous

or to hint at

implications without blurting them out. 


But the difficulties here are the same difficulties

that confront us with all


interpretation of  human language. 

Such difficulties have


never prevented us  from

understanding one another sufficiently

to carry on. 


The divine authorship of the Bible

does not alter

our procedure at all.

I am sympathetic with this view. 

With some qualifications it can

serve us well:  much better, certainly,

than the procedure of unbridled allegorization. 

However, there are

several nuances and complexities

about interpretation that  this view does


not  handle well.

First of all, and perhaps most obviously, this view,

at least as described so far,

does not tell us enough

about how the Bible speaks to our situation

and

applies to ourselves.


 Some of the human authors of the Bible were, perhaps, consciously “writing for posterity,” but most, at least, were writing
primarily to their contemporaries. 


They did not write with us directly in view. 


Nor did they foresee all our circumstances and needs. 


We can stilloverhear what they said to people in their own time, but that is not the same

as hearing them speak to us. 

How do we know what they want us to do with their words,
if they did not have us

in mind?

A popular solution to this difficulty is to invoke E. D. Hirsch’s distinction between

"meaning” and “significance.”9  

"Meaning,” in Hirsch’s view,

is what the human author expressed,

including what is expressed tacitly, allusively, or indirectly. 

It includes what can legitimately be inferred. 


“Significance”

is a relation that we as readers draw between what is said
and our own (or others’) situation. 

Interpretation of a biblical passage,

narrowly speaking,

determines the meaning of the human author. 



Application

involves the exploration

of the significance 

for us of that one meaning,

and action in accordance with it.


Let us take as an example Mal 3:8-12.  Malachi here instructs his readers that they have robbed God in tithes and offerings, and that they are to bring the tithes to the temple storehouse, as Moses commanded.  Both the general principle of not robbing God and the specific application to keep the law of tithes are part of the “meaning.”  Malachi did not have our modern situations immediately in view.  Nevertheless, modern readers are to apply Malachi’s meaning to themselves.  In a comprehensive way, they are to devote all their lives and substance to the Lord, and specifically they are liberally to give a portion (some would say, at least 1/10th) of their gains to the church and Christian causes.  These applications are “significances,” based on a relation between Malachi’s meaning and the modern situation.

So far this is reasonable.  But there is a difficulty.  “Significance” is here understood as any kind of relation that readers perceive between their own situations and the passage.  There are many possible “significances,” even for a single reader.  There are many possible applications.  What then distinguishes a good from a bad application of a passage of the Bible?  Is it up to the reader’s wim?  In cases when we read Shakespeare, Camus, or some other human writer, we may derive “lessons” from what we read, and apply things to ourselves.  But, as Hirsch and other theorists in his camp assert, it is we as readers who decide how to do this, based on our own framework or values.10  To be sure, even a human writer may want to challenge our values.  But we treat that challenge as simply a challenge from another human being, fallible like ourselves.

In the case of the Bible it is different. 


Precisely because it has

divine authority,

and for no other reason, we must

allow it to

challenge and reform

even our most

cherished assumptions and values. 



But how do we do this? 

We listen to the human author of, say, Malachi. 

But he speaks to the Jewish audience of his day, not to us. 

Hypothetically,
therefore, modern readers might evade applying 

Malachi 3:8-12 to themselves by any of several strategies.

  (1) God’s intention is simply Malachi’s intention: that Malachi’s Jewish readers repent concerning their attitude and practice in tithing. 
There is no implication for us.

  (2) God intends us to understand that we ought not to rob God, but this applies simply to our general attitude toward possessions, since there is no longer a temple in the Old Testament sense. 

(3) God intends us to understand that if we are remiss in our financial obligations in our day, he will send a prophet to let us know about it.

Note that these construals do not dispute the “meaning” of Malachi 3:8-12 in a Hirschian sense.  They dispute only the applications (“significances”).  There are several possible replies.  For one thing, we could argue that the the rest of

Scripture, and the

New Testament in particular,

shows that we are to give proportionally (1 Cor 16:1-4),

and that in various other ways

we are to be

good stewards of God’s gifts. 

That is not disputed. 


The question is whether Malachi 

shows us such applications.


Second,

we may say that,


-in the light-


 of the rest of the Bible,



we know that God intends us to apply Malachi to our proportional giving. 

But if we say that God intends(!) each valid application of Malachi,
then in an ordinary sense

each

valid application is part of God’s meaning

(=intention),

even if it was  not immediately in the view


of the human author

of Malachi.  This seems to

break down the idea

that there is an absolute,

pure equation between divine intention

and

human author’s meaning. 


Divine intention includes

more, inasmuch as God is


aware of the all the  future applications.


Third, we may say that even though

the
human author did not have  all the

applications in mind,

they are part of his “unconscious intention.”
  

That is, the (valid) applications are the

“kind of thing he had in mind.” 



Once Malachi


saw our circumstances, he would acknowledge

the legitimacy of our applications. 


This is

quite reasonable. 


But there are still some complexities. 

(1) Some people, with a

very

narrow conception

of “ meaning,”


might object that this breaks down the initial

distinction between


meaning and significance. 


I do not think that this is so, but it is sometimes


hard to know where the


exact line is drawn


between “meaning” and “significance.” 


(2) We still need to discuss what guidelines
to use in drawing applications. 

How do we go about determining what Malachi would say were he


confronted by a situation

very different

from any that he confronted

in his own


lifetime? 



We have only his text to go by. 


Or do we have also the

rest of the biblical canon,

which expresses thoughts consonant with Malachi’s? 


But appealing to the

rest of the canon as

revealing the mind of God

takes us beyond the mind of Malachi,

unless we say that all this

is in his “unconscious intention.” 


(3) Even if Malachi were acquainted with our situation, he would never be as well acquainted with it as God is.  Moreover, there is an undeniable difference between God’s understanding of the text and Malachi’s, since God is conscious of those aspects of Malachi’s intention which are unconscious to Malachi himself.


What are we to do with these difficulties? 

I think it indicates that when we come to the

point of application,

we must somewhere along the way


appeal directly to

God’s knowledge, authority, and presence. 


Otherwise, we are simply “overhearing” a human voice from long ago, a voice to which we


may respond

in  whatever way  suits our own value system. 


To be sure, the idea of simply equating divine and human meaning in the Bible is a useful one. 


It directs us away from the

arbitrariness of an

allegorical system. 


But when we use this idea in order

simply to stick to

human meaning, arbitrariness can

still exist

in the area of the application. 

No technical rigidity in our theory of meaning will,

by itself,

allow us to escape this easily,

because there are an

indefinite number of applications,
and

many of them are

not directly anticipated

in the


text of Scripture



I propose, then, to deal with this area of application.



  I count as “applications” both effects in the


cognitive field

(e.g., concluding mentally,

"I ought to have a practice of giving to my church”) and effects in the field of overt action (e.g., putting money in the collection plate).  “



Application”  in this sense 

includes all inferences about the

meaning of a biblical  text. 


Such inferences are

always applications in the cognitive  field. 


For example, to conclude that Malachi teaches tithing
(inference about meaning)
is simultaneously to come to believe that “Malachi teaches tithing”

(a cognitive effect in the reasoner).


With this in mind, the

central question  confronting us is,


“What

applications of a biblical passage

does

God approve?” 




To answer this,

we have to look at some characteristics of communication through language.



2.  Interpreting human discourse

Let us first consider communication from one human being to another. 

Person A speaks discourse D to person B. 

Now, given almost any fixed sequence of words (D),

we can

plausibly

interpret them in several different

conflicting ways. 


We can do this by imagining


different contexts

in which they are

spoken or written. 


“The door is open” can easily be

intended to imply,
"Please shut it,” or “Get out,” or “That is the cause of the draft,”

or

“Someone was careless.” 


Or it may simply convey

a bit of information. 


To understand

what another human being A is saying,

in the discourse D,

is not simply to explore the range

of all possible

interpretations of a sequence of words. 




Rather, it is to understand

what the speaker as a person is saying. 

We do this using

clues given

by the situation and by what we

know of the person. 

We must pay attention to the author and to the situation as

well as to the exact choice of words.


Moreover, many different things are happening

in an act of

communication. 

For one thing, speakers make assertions

about the world. 


They formulate


hypotheses,

they express assumptions,

and otherwise make reference to the world. 

Let us call this the “referential” aspect of

communication. 



But referring to the world is not all that speakers

do. 

They may also be trying to bring about

actions or changes of attitude

on the

part of their hearers.   They are trying to achieve

some practical result. 


Let us call  this the “conative” aspect of communication. 



Next, whether they want to or not, speakers inevitably tell their hearers something about themselves and their own attitudes. 


Let us call

this the “expressive” aspect of communication. 


In fact, Roman Jakobson, in

analyzing communicative acts,

defines no less than six planes or aspects of communication.12 

For our purposes, we may restrict ourselves to three prominent aspects:


referential,

conative, and expressive.


Note that most of the time a speaker is not doing only one of these. 

In fact, any of the three


indirectly implies the others. 


Facts about the speaker’s 'attitudes'

(expressive)

are also one 'kind of fact'

'about the world'

(referential). 


And facts about the

speaker’s goals or attempts to

change the hearer?

(conative)

are also one kind of fact about the world (referential). 

Conversely,

any of statements about the world (referential)


simultaneously give information

about what a speaker believes

(expressive)

and what the speaker wants others to believe

(conative).




3.  Interpreting divine speech

Now consider what is involved in

interpreting speech

from God to a human being. 


I have in mind instances such as God’s speeches to Abraham

(e.g., Gen 12:1-3, 15:1-21, 17:1-21)



and God’s

pronouncements from

Mt. Sinai to the people of Israel

(Exod 20:2-17). 


Of course, these speeches (or portions or condensations of them)
are later on recorded in written form by human authors
writing the books of the Bible. 

But for the moment let us concentrate on the

original oral communication. 




​This is useful,


because no human being

mediates

these original acts of communication. 


In these cases,

does

interpretation proceed

in the
same way as with human

speech? 


In a

fundamental sense it does. 


For one thing, the speeches come in a

human language

(in this case Hebrew). 

They are sometimes directly compared with speech
from one human being to another

(Exod 20:19). 



The audiences are expected to

proceed in a way

similar to what they do with speech

from a 'human being'



They interpret what God says  in terms

of the situation -in which- he speaks


(Exod 20:2, 20:18,22),


and -in terms- of  -what- they 'already' know

about God and 'his purposes'



(Exod 20:2, 20:11). 

But here lies the decisive difference, of course. 

The people are listening to God. 


Using the “same” interpretive process

that we use with human speech

is precisely what causes

us to acknowledge the


profound difference

and uniqueness

of divine speech–for God is unique.


Now consider what it means to


know that God is speaking. 
​

We earlier observed that a

discourse detached from any author and any situation could mean any number of things. 


Moreover, if we attribute a discourse to a
different author or a different

situation than the real one, we will often find that we interpret the

same sequence of words in a different fashion. 



For example, if we think that the wording of Col 1:15 is a writing of Arius,


we will interpret it differently

than if we think it is a

writing of the

Apostle Paul.


Likewise,

if we think that the  wording of God’s speech


at

Mt. Sinai is spoken by someone else,

or if we have  mistaken conceptions

about God,  this will more or less seriously

affect our  interpretation of the speech. 


What is authoritative

about  God’s speech at Mt. Sinai?   Divine authority  does not attach


to whatever meaning  other people may

attach to the words. 


They may even choose to

speak the 'same sequence' of words

as in Exod 20:2-17,

yet mean something different. 

In this sense, we may freely admit that many “meanings”
can be attached to these same words. 


But that is not the issue. 


Rather,

divine authority belongs to what 


God is saying. 

What is crucial is what  God means. 


To find this out, we must interpret

the words in accordance  with what we

know about God, just as we would

take into account

what we know of human authors

when we interpret what they say.

​

But, someone may say, this is circular. 

How can we know God

except by what he says and does? 


And how can we properly understand

what he says and does


unless we already know him? 


Well, how do we come to know

another human being? 


In both cases there is a certain “theoretical” circularity. 

But in fact, it is more like a spiral, because


earlier incorrect impressions

may be corrected

in the

process of seeing and hearing

more from a person.


In addition, we may say something about the application of God’s words. 

God expects his words to be applied in many situations


throughout history. 


He binds us to obey, not only what he says in the most
direct way (“meaning”), but what he implies (“application”). 

Each valid application is something that God intended from the beginning, and as such has his sanction.  Divine authority attaches not only to what he says most directly, but to what he implies.  It attaches to the applications.


Of course, we must be  careful. 


We may be wrong when we

extend our inferences  too far. 


We must respect the fact that  our inferences are  not infallible. 

Where we are not sure, or where

good reasons existon the other side,

we must beware of insisting that our interpretation

must be obeyed. 


But if it turns out that we

did understand the implications and applications correctly,

then we know that those applications  also had divine

sanction and authority.

This means, then, that we do not need a rigid, precise distinction between meaning and application, in the case of

​God’s speech. 

To be sure, some things are said directly (“meaning”), and some things are left to be inferred in the light of seeing a relation between what is said and our situation (“significance”, “application”). 


But the distinction,

as far as I can see,  is a  relative one. 


It is a distinction between what is said more or less directly,

and between what needs more or less reckoning


with a larger situation in order to be inferred.


The usual way of

distinguishing between meaning
and

application is to say that meaning has to do

with

what the text itself says

(in itself),

whereas application


has to do with a  relation between the text and the

reader’s situation. 


But we have already seen that, in general,

we cannot properly assess “meaning”

even in the narrowest possible

sense apart from  attention  to the author’s situation. 


This situation includes the hearers.  All assessment of an author’s expressed meaning must reckon with the intended hearers and their situation. 


In the case

of divine speech,

all future hearers are included, hence all their situations are included. 

Therefore, focus on what the text says most directly and obviously,
and focus on what it is seen

to say

in the light

of relation to a situation, are both a matter of degree.

Next, we may observe that God’s speeches include
referential, expressive, and conative aspects. 

God’s speeches make assertions about the world

and

about ethical standards for our lives

(the referential aspect). 


Secondly,

we meet God when we hear him speaking

(the expressive aspect). 


And thirdly,


we are affected and transformed

by what we hear


(the conative aspect).  God’s word may empower us to do good, but it may also harden our hearts when we are rebellious.

These three aspects of God’s communication are not so many isolated pieces. 

Rather, they are involved in one another. 


In fact, each one can


serve as a perspective


on the whole

of

God’s communication.


First of all, all of God’s speech is referential in character. 

In all of what God says, he is

bringing us to know him and his world. 


For knowledge

includes not just information

(knowing that),

but skills in living (knowing how)

and

personal communion with God

(knowing a person).

Second,

in all of what God says, we meet him:

he “expresses” himself. 


God is present with his word.


Third, in all of what God says, he affects us (“conatively”)

for good or ill, for blessing or for cursing
(e.g., 2 Cor 2:15-16).

These three aspects of God’s speech are expressions of


his knowledge (referential),

his presence (expressive),

and his active power (conative). 


These are nothing less than attributes of God. 

It is no wonder that we find these features

in all that God says.


4.  Divine speech as propositional and personal


We may already

draw some conclusions

with respect to modern views of revelation. 

Neo-orthodoxy and other modernist views of divine revelation typically argue that revelation is personal encounter and therefore
not propositional. 
But these are not exclusive alternatives.  Human communication in general is simultaneously both.  That is, it simultaneously possesses a

referential and an expressive aspect. 

To be sure, one or other aspect may be more prominent and more utilized at one time, but each tacitly implies the others. 

Moreover, to know a person

always involves knowing

true statements about the person,


though it means also more than this. 


If the supposed “encounter” with the divine is indeed “personal,”

it will inevitably be propositional as well. 

When I say that communication is “propositional,” I do not of course mean that it must be a logical treatise. 

I mean only that communication conveys information
about states of affairs in the world. 

One may infer from it that certain statements about

​the world are true.

In our claims about divine speech we do not rely only on general arguments based on the nature of human communication. 


The reader of Scripture

over and over

again

finds accounts

of

divine communication


that involve

both propositional statements

and

personal presence of God. 

(Exodus 20 may serve as well as many other examples.).

But there are lessons here also for evangelicals.  Evangelicals have sometimes rebounded against modernist views into an opposite extreme.

  In describing

​biblical interpretation,

they have sometimes minimized the aspect of

personal encounter and divine

power to transform us . 

There is no need to do this.  The issue with modernism is rather what sort of divine encounter and personal transformation we are talking about: is it contentless, or does it accompany what is being said (referentially and propositionally) about the world?

Moreover, there may be a tiny grain of truth in the slanders from modernists about evangelicals “idolizing” the pages of the Bible.  We say that divine speech is “propositional.” 

To begin with, we mean only that


God makes true statements

referring to the world. 


That is correct.  But then, later on, we may come to mean something else.  We think that we can isolate that referential and assertive character of what God is saying into gem-like, precise, syllogistic nuggets which can be manipulated and controlled by us, from then on, without further reflection on God’s presence and power at work in what we originally heard. 

The “proposition,” now isolated from

the presence of God,


can become the excuse for evading God and trying to lord it over and rationally master the truth which we have isolated. 


And then we have become

subtly idolatrous, because we

aspire to be lords

over God’s word.

I do not mean to bar us from

reasoning from Scripture. 

We must do this in order to struggle responsibly to

apply the Bible to ourselves. 


We must take seriously its implications as well as what is said most directly.  What I have in mind is this. 

Even with the discourses from human beings, it would be unfair not to take into account what we know of their character, their views and their aspirations when we draw out the implications of an individual sentence. 

A statement with no explicit qualifications,

and with no explicit directions as to the way in which we are to draw implications, may nevertheless not be completely universal. 

It may not have all the implications that we think.  A larger knowledge of the author forms one kind of guide to the drawing of implications.  At least this much is true with respect to the situation where God is the author.



5.  Speech with two authors

So far we have discussed speech with a single author. 

But of course the Bible as we have it

is a product of both

the divine author and various human authors. 

How do we deal with this situation?



Well, the Bible makes it

very clear

that what God says does not cease to be what God says just because a human intermediary is introduced (Deut 5:22-33). 

After all, it is God who chose the human intermediary and who fashioned his personality (Ps 139:13-16). 

Hence everything that we have said about divine speech,

such as God’s speeches to

Abraham,

applies also to God’s speeches through human spokesmen.  In particular, it applies to all of the Bible, as the

written word of God.

Conversely, what human beings say to us does not cease to be what they say when they become spokesmen of God.  Hence, it would appear, everything that we have said about human communication applies to

all of the Bible, as the writings of men.


But now we have a complex situation. 

For we have just argued that interpretation of a piece of writing interprets the words


in the light

of what is known of the author

and his situation. 

If the same words

happen to be said by two authors,

there are

two separate interpretations. 

The interpretations may have very similar results, or they may not, depending on the differences between the two authors and the way in which those differences mesh with the wording of the text. 

But, in principle,

there may be differences, even if only very subtle differences of nuances.

Hence it would seem to be the case that we have


two separate


interpretations of any particular


biblical text. 


The first interpretation

sees the

words entirely in the

light of the human author,

his characteristics, his knowledge,

his social status. 


The second sees the same words entirely



in the light of the


divine author,


his characteristics, his knowledge, his status. 


In general, the results of these two interpretations

will differ.

But couldn’t we still stick to a single interpretation?  Couldn’t we say that interpretation in the light of the human author is all that we need?  Then, after we complete the interpretation, we assert that the product is,

pure and simple, what God says.


Well, that still leaves us with the earlier problems about applications.  But in addition to this, there are now several further objections.  First, the strongest starting point of the “single interpretation” approach is its insistence on the importance of grammatical-historical exegesis.  But it has now ended by hedging on one of the principles of grammatical-historical exegesis, namely the principle of taking into account the person of the author. 


When we come to interpreting the

Bible,  we must pay attention to

who God is.
​
Secondly, this view seems dangerously akin to the neo-orthodox view that when God speaks, his attributes of majesty are somehow wholly hidden under human words.  That is why the neo-orthodox think that they need not reckon with the divine attributes when they subject Scripture to the historical-critical method.  As evangelicals, we do not want to use the antisupernaturalist assumptions of historical-critical method.  We will not do that when it comes to miracles described in the Bible.  But are we going to do it when we deal with the actual reading of the Bible?

Third, we must remember that God’s speech involves his presence and power as well as propositional affirmations.  At the beginning of interpretation we cannot arbitrarily eliminate the power and presence of God in his word, in order to tack them on only at the end.  That automatically distorts what is happening in biblical communication from God.  Hence it is asking for skewed results at the end.

Fourth, this procedure virtually demands that, at the first stage, we not reckon with the fact that God is who he is in his speaking to us.  We must put wholly into the background that he is speaking to us.  We must simply and exclusively concentrate on the human author.  But how can we not reckon with all that we know of God as we hear what he says?  This seems to be at odds with the innate impulse of biblical piety.

But there may still be a way to save this “single interpretation” approach.  Namely, we can claim that God in his freedom decided to “limit” what he said to the human side.  Namely, God decided to say simply what we arrive at through the intepretation of biblical passages when treated as though simply human.

This is a valiant effort.  It is close to the truth.  But, myself, I think that it will not work.  First, it is difficult to see how one can justify this from Scripture.  Deut 5:22-33 is a natural passage with which to begin.  It describes the nature of God’s communication through Moses.  Since later Scripture builds on Moses, Deut 5:22-33 indirectly illuminates the nature of all God’s later communication through human beings.  Now Deut 5:22-33 starts first with divine communication.  The human instrument is taken up into the divine message, rather than the divine message being “trimmed down” to suit the human instrument.  If we were willing to use the analogy with the person and natures of Christ, we could say that Deut 5:22-33 is analogous to the Chalcedonian view (human nature taken up into the divine person), whereas the “single interpretation” approach is analogous to a kenotic view (divine person “losing” some attributes for the sake of assuming human nature).

Second, I find it psychologically impossible to maintain the


experience of God’s power and presence on the one hand, and on the other to exclude all reckoning with them when we come to assessing the referential aspect of biblical communication. 


It is not so easy thus to separate the referential from the expressive and the conative aspects of communication.  God speaks to us as whole people. 

Moreover, if one could separate them, one would have arrived back at an essentially neo-orthodox dichotomy between propositional content and

personal encounter

Third, I think that scholarly hesitation about emphasizing

God’s role in authorship,

though understandable, is groundless.  Perhaps some scholars are influenced by the modernist atmosphere.  Since modernists disbelieve in divine authorship, naturally their hermeneutical approach will demand its exclusion.  We may unknowingly have absorbed some of this atmosphere.

But scholars have another cause for hesitation.  Mention of God’s role easily leads to de-historicizing the message of the Bible.  Readers reason to themselves that since God wrote the book, and since God is not subject to the limitations of knowledge of any historical period, he can be expected to write to all historical periods equally.  Hence the historical circumstances in which the Bible appeared are irrelevant.  The Bible is just like a book dropped directly from heaven.

Against this argument we may point to Exodus 20. 

There God speaks without a human intermediary. 

But his speech is not simply a speech “for posterity.”  It is a speech directly to specific people in specific circumstances (Exod 20:2,12), people subject to specific temptations (Exod 20:17).  The most important factor leading to a historically-rooted message is not the human intermediary (though this further emphasizes it), but the fact that God chooses to speak to people where they are.  He can do so fluently because he is competent in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and is master of all the customs of each culture into which he chooses to speak.  Over against this, the de-historicizing approach not only neglects human intermediaries. 

It unwittingly denies God’s linguistic and cultural competence!

Hence, I conclude, the confinement to purely human meaning is not correct.  But if this is not the answer, what is?  If we do not collapse the two interpretations into one, do they simply exist side by side, with no necessary relation to one another? 

This would result in reproducing the problems of the old

​allegorical approach.



6.  Personal communion of authors

The Bible itself shows the way to a more satisfactory resolution of the difficulty.  In the Bible itself, the two authors,


human and divine,

do not simply stand side by side. 

Rather, each points to the other and

affirms the presence and operation of the other.


First, God himself points out the importance of the human authors.  For example, when God establishes Moses as the regular channel for conveying his word to the people of Israel, he makes it clear that Moses, not merely God, is to be active in teaching the people (Deut 5:31, 6:1).  Similarly, the commissioning of prophets in the OT often includes a mention of their own active role, not only in speaking God’s word to the people, but in actively absorbing it (Ezek 2:8-3:3, Dan 10:1-21, Jer 23:18).  This is still more clear in the case of Paul’s writings, where his own personality is so actively involved.  Now, what happens when we pay careful attention to God as the divine author?  We find that we must pay attention to what he says about the role of the human authors.  Sometimes he directly affirms the significance of their involvement; sometimes this is only implied.  But whichever is the case, it means that God himself requires us to interpret the words of Scripture against the background of what we know about the human author.  We cannot simply ignore the human author, when we concentrate on what God is saying.

Conversely, the human authors of the Bible indicate that they intend us to interpret their words as not merely words that they speak

as ordinary persons. 

For example, the book of Isaiah


claims to be a message from God,

not jus the personal thoughts of Isaiah. 

Isaiah reinforces this by using the phrase,


"Thus says the Lord.” 


What is the effect of a phrase like this? 

Would the inhabitants of Jerusalem in Isaiah’s time say,

“Now we must interpret what our friend Isaiah is saying

simply

in terms of everything we know about him:

his relations with his family, his opinions about

agriculture and politics, and so on.” 


Certainly not! 


When Isaiah says,


“Thus says the Lord,”


it is no doubt still Isaiah who is speaking. 

But Isaiah himself, by using these words,



has told people to

create a certain

distance between himself,

merely viewed as a private individual,

and

what

the Lord has commissioned

him to convey. 


In addition to this, consider what happens when Isaiah makes
detailed predictions about the distant future. 

If the hearers treat him simply as a

private human being,  they would say

, “Well, we know Isaiah, and we know the limits of his knowledge of the future. 

So, because of what we know about him,

it is obvious that he is simply expressing his dreams or making

artistically interesting guesses.” 


Again, such a reaction misunderstands

Isaiah’s claims.

We may try to focus as much as possible on Isaiah as a

human author. 



The more carefully we do our job,

the more we will realize that he is

not just any human author. 



He is one through whom God speaks. 


His own intentions are that we should reckon with this. 

It is not a denial of human authorship,

but an affirmation of it,


when we pay attention to God speaking. 

In particular, in the case of predictions, we pay attention


to all that we know

of God,

God’s knowledge of the future, the

wisdom of his plan,  and the

righteousness of his intentions. 


This is in accord with Isaiah’s intention,

not contrary to it. 

In fact, we might say that Isaiah’s intention was that we should understand whatever God intended by his words.13  Hence there is a unity of meaning and a unity of application here.  We do not have two diverse meanings, Isaiah’s and God’s, simply placed side by side with no relation to one another.

But the matter is complex.  What we have here is a situation of personal communion between God and prophet.  Each person affirms the significance of the other’s presence for proper interpretation. 


On the one hand,

God has formed the personality of the prophet,

has spoken to him in the heavenly counsel

(Jer 23:18),

has brought him into inner sympathy with the

thrust of his message. 


What the prophet says using his own particular idiom fits exactly what

God decided to say. 

On the other hand, the prophet affirms that what God is saying is true even where the prophet cannot see all its implications.
This situation therefore leaves open the question of how far a prophet understood God’s words at any particular point.  The Bible affirms the prophets’ inner participation in the message.  In addition extraordinary psychological experiences were sometimes involved.  Because of this, it would be presumptuous to limit dogmatically a prophet’s understanding to what is “ordinarily” possible. 

On the other hand,

it seems to me equally presumptuous to insist that at every point there must be complete understanding on the part of the prophet.  Particularly this is so for cases of visionary material (Daniel 7,10, Zechariah 1-6, Rev 4:1-22:5) or historical records of divine speech (e.g. the Gospel records of Jesus’ parables).  Why should we have to say, in the face of Dan 7:16, Zech 4:4-5, Rev 7:14, and the like, that the prophets came to understand everything that there was to understand, by the time that they wrote their visions down?  Isn’t it enough to stick with what is clear?  It is clear that the prophet faithfully recorded what he saw and heard.  He intended that we should understand from it whatever there is to understand when we treat it as a vision from God.  Similarly, there is no need to insist that Luke understood all the ramifications of each of Jesus’ parables.  He may have, but then again he may not have.  The results for our interpretation of the parables in the Gospel of Luke will be the same.

I have spoken primarily about the

role of prophets in

speaking the word of God. 


But, of course,

prophecy

is not the only form in which the Bible is written. 

The different genres of biblical writings,

prophecy, law, history, wisdom, song,

each call for different nuances in our approach. 

The relation between

divine and human participation

in the writing is not always exactly the same.14


For instance, consider the case of

Mosaic law. 

The background of the meeting at


Mt. Sinai

forms a framework


for Moses’s later writings,

and leads us to reckon more directly with the

divine source of the law. 

On the other hand, Moses’s close communion with God

(Num 12:6-8)

hints at his inner

understanding of the law.

In the case of prophecy,

narrowly speaking,

the prophet’s pronouncement “Thus says the Lord,” and the predictive elements in his message, frequently have the effect of


highlighting the distinction

between the prophet

as mere human being


and

the prophet as channel


for the Lord’s message.



  The prophet himself steps into the



background, as it were, in order

to put all the emphasis
On 

God’s speaking



In visionary experiences this may be all the more the case,

inasmuch as it is often

not clear


how much the

prophet understands.



With the psalms and the New Testament epistles, on the other hand, the human author and his understanding come much more to the front.  The apostle Paul does not continually say, “Thus says the Lord.”  That is not because he has no divine message.  Rather, it is (largely) because he has so thoroughly absorbed the message into his own person. 


He has “the mind of Christ”

(1 Cor 2:16,13),

as a man indwelt by the Spirit


Here we confront still another complexity.  What is human nature, and what does it mean to analyze a passage as the expression of a human author?  If the human author is Paul, that means Paul filled with the Holy Spirit.  We are not dealing with “bare” human nature (as if human beings ever existed outside of a relationship to God of one kind or another).  We are already dealing with the divine, namely the Holy Spirit.  Paul as a human being may not be immediately, analytically self-conscious of all the implications of what he is saying.  But people always know more and imply more than what they are perfectly self-conscious of.  How far does this “more” extend?  We are dealing with a person restored in the image of Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit, having the mind of Christ.  There are incalculable depths here.  We cannot calculate the limits of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of Christ.  Neither can we perform a perfect analytical separation of our knowledge from our union with Christ through the Holy Spirit.



7.  Christological fulness in interpretation

The complexities that we meet here are only a shadow of the

greatest complexity of all:

the speeches of the incarnate Christ. 


Here God is speaking,

not through a

mere human being


distinct from God,


but in his own person!



The eternal Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, speaks.  Hence we must interpret what he says in the light of all that we know of God the author.  At the same time a man speaks, Jesus of Nazareth.  With respect to his human nature, he has limited knowledge (Luke 2:52). 


Hence we must interpret what he says

in the light

of  all that we know

of

Jesus of Nazareth

in his  humanity


This is a permanent mystery! 


Yet we know that we do not have

two antithetical interpretations,

one for the human nature speaking and one for the divine nature speaking. 

We know that there is a unity, based on the

unity of the one person of Christ. 

However, it is possible,


with respect to his human nature,

that Jesus Christ is not exhaustively self-conscious of all the ramifications, nuances, and implications of what he says. 

He nevertheless does take responsibility for those ramifications, as does any other human speaker. 

As the divine Son, Jesus Christ does know all things, including all ramifications, applications, etc., of his speech. 
There is a distinction here, but nevertheless no disharmony.

In addition to this, we may say that Jesus in his human nature was especially endowed with the Spirit to perform his prophetic work, as planned by God the Father (Luke 4:18-19, 3:22).  When we interpret his speech, we should take into account that the Holy Spirit speaks through him.  Thus, we are saying that we must take into account the ultimately Trinitarian character of revelation, as well as the unique fulness of the Spirit’s endowment in



Christ’s

Messianic calling



In short, when we interpret Christ’s speech, we interpret it (as we do all speech) in the light of the author.  That is, we interpret it as the speech of the divine Son.  But Christ says that the Father speaks through him (John 14:10, 12:48-50).  Hence it is the speech of the Father.  Since the Holy Spirit comes upon Jesus to equip him for his Messianic work, we also conclude that it is the speech of the Spirit.  And of course it is the speech of the man Jesus of Nazareth.  Each of these aspects of interpretation is in harmony with the ohters.  But they are distinct, at least in nuance!

What we meet in Christ is verbal communication undergirded

by a communion and fellowship of understanding. 

In Christ’s being there is no pure mathematical identity of divine persons or identity of two natures, but harmony.  The result is that there is no pure mathematical identity in the interpretive product.  That is, we cannot in a pure way analyze simply what the words mean as (for instance) proceeding from the human nature of Christ, and then say that precisely that, no more, no less, is the exhaustive interpretation of his words.


The case of

divine speech through apostles and prophets

is, of course, secondary, but none the less analogous. 


The

revelation of Jesus Christ  is the  pinnacle


(Heb 1:1-3). 


All other revelations through prophets and apostles are secondary


to this supreme revelation. 

There is ultimately no other way to

gain deeper insight into the secondary

than through the pinnacle. 

Hence we cannot expect to collapse the richness of divine presence into a mathematical point, when we are dealing with the words of the Bible.


8.  Progressive understanding

A further complication arises because the many human authors of the Bible write over a long period of time.  None of the human authors except the very last can survey the entire product in order to arrive at an interpretation of the whole.

Once again, we may throw light on the situation by starting with a simpler case.  Suppose that we have a single uninspired human author speaking or writing to a single audience over a period of time.  Even if we are dealing with only a single long oral discourse, the discourse is spread out in time. 

Individual statements and individual paragraphs near the

beginning of the discourse are understood first,

then those near the end. 


Moreover,

an audience is in a better position to draw

more inferences from earlier parts

of a discourse once they have

reached the end. 


Typically, all the parts of a discourse qualify and color each other.  We understand more by reading the whole than we do from reading any one part, or even from all the parts separately.  The effect is somewhat like the effect of different parts of an artist’s picture.  If we just attend to small bits of paint within the picture, one by one, we may miss many implications of the whole.  The “meaning” of the picture does not reside merely in a mechanical, mathematical sum of the blobs of paint.  Rather, it arises from the joint effect of the individual pieces.  Their joint effect arises from the relations between the pieces. 

Likewise, the import of an author’s discourse arises

partly

from the reinforcements,

qualifications, tensions, complementations, and other relations between the individual words and sentences,

as well as from the effects of each sentence “in itself.”

The over-all effect of this is that an audience may understand what the first part of a discourse means, and then have that understanding modified and deepened by the last of the discourse.


Now consider a particular example


of two

people in communication

over a long

period of time. 


Suppose a father teaches his young son to sing

“Jesus loves me.” 

Later on,

he tells the story of the life of Christ from a children’s Bible story book. 

Still later, he explains how the Old Testament


sacrificial system depicted aspects of


Christ’s purpose in dying for us. 


Finally, the son becomes an adult
and does extended Bible study for himself. 

Suppose then that the son remembers how his father taught him

“Jesus loves me.” 

He asks,

“What was my father saying in telling me the words of the song?” 

At the time,


did I understand whathe was saying? 


The answer may well be yes. 


The son understood

what the father expected that he would have the

capacity to understand at that point. 



But the father knew as well that the child’s

initial understanding was

not the end point. 


The father intended that the

earlier words should be recalled later. 


He intended that the son should understand his father’s mind better and better by comparing those earlier words with later words that the father would share.

Now, suppose that there was no misunderstanding, no misjudgement at any point.  There is still more than one level of understanding of the father’s words.  There is what one may understand on the basis of those words more or less by themselves, when not supplemented by further words, and when seen as words adapted to the capacity of the young child.  And there is what one may understand on the basis of comparing and relating those words to many later words (and actions) of the father.  The first of these understandings is a legitimate one, an understanding not to be underestimated.  As long as the child has only those words of the father, and not all the later history, it would be unfair of him to build up an exact, elaborate analysis of all the ramified implications of the statements.  But once the father has said a lot more, it throws more light on what the father intended all along that those words should do: they should contribute along with many other words to form and engender an enormously rich understanding of Christ’s love, an understanding capable of being evoked and alluded to by the words of the song.
The complexity arises, as before, from the dynamic and relational character of communicative meaning.  The understanding we achieve from listening arises not only from individual words or sentences in the discourse but from the complex relations that they have to one another and to the larger situation, including what we know of the author himself.  In particular, the song, “Jesus loves me,” conveys meaning not simply in virtue of the internal arrangement of the words, but also in virtue of the context of who is saying it, what else is being said by way of explanation, and so on.  True, there is something like a “common core” of meaning shared by all or nearly all uses of the song.  But the implications that we may see around that common core may differ.  (Imagine the song being used by a liberal who believes that in fact Jesus is merely human, and therefore still dead.  In his mouth, the song is only a metaphorical expression of an ideal of human love.)


9.  Progressive revelation

Now we are ready to raise the crucial question: does something analogous to this happen with God’s communication to his people over the period of time from Adam onwards?  Is God like a human father speaking to his child?
The basic answer is obviously yes.  But, for those who do not think it is so obvious, we can supply reasons.

(1) Israel is called God’s son (Exod 4:22, Deut 8:5), and Paul explicitly likens the OT period to the time when a child is still a minor (Gal 4:3-4).  These passages are not directly discussing the question of biblical interpretation, but they are nevertheless suggestive.

(2) From very early in the history of the human race God indicates in his speeches to us that more is to come.  History and the promises of God are forward-looking.  The story is yet to be completed.  It is altogether natural to construe this as implying that earlier promissory statements of God may be more deeply understood once the promises begin to be fulfilled, and especially when they are completely fulfilled.  Similar reflections evidently apply even to the hope we now have as Christians (1 Cor 13:12).

(3) In at least a few cases, within the pages of the OT, we find prophecies whose fulfillments take unexpected form.  One of the most striking is Jacob’s prophecy about the dispersion of Simeon and Levi (Gen 49:7b).16  If we attend only to the immediate context (49:7a), we are bound to conclude that God undertakes to disgrace both tribes by giving them no connected spot of settlement.  The actual fulfillment is therefore quite surprising in the case of Levi.  But it is not out of accord with God’s character of turning cursings into blessings.  What we know about him includes his right to exceed our expectations.  This whole affair is more easily understood when we take into account the fact that Gen 49:7 is not an isolated word of God, but part of a long history of God’s communications, yet to be completed.  We cannot expect to draw all our conclusions until we have heard the whole.
In short, God’s actual ways of bringing fulfillments may vary.  Some of them may be straightforward, others may be surprising.  This is true just as it is true that an author may continue a discourse in a straightforward way, or in a surprising way that causes us to reassess the exact point of the first part of what he says.

(4) The symbolic aspects of OT institutions proclaim their own inadequacy (Heb 10:1, 4).  They are not only analogous to the final revelation of God, but at some points disanalogous (Heb 10:4).  Suppose that people stand in the OT situation, trying to understand what is symbolized.  They will inevitably continue with some questions unanswered until they are able to relate what is said and done earlier to what God does at the coming of Christ.  Until the point of completion, the interpretation must remain open-ended (but not contentless).

(5) Likewise, the speech of God is not complete until the coming of Christ (Heb 1:1-3).  We must, as it were, hear the end of the discourse before we are in a position to weigh the total context in terms of which we may achieve the most profound understanding of each part of the discourse.
I conclude, then, that any particular passage of the Bible is to be read in three progressively larger contexts, as follows.

(a) Any passage is to be read in the context of the particular book of the Bible in which it appears, and in the context of the human author and historical circumstances of the book.  God speaks truly to the people in particular times and circumstances.

(b) Any passage is to be read in the context of the total canon of Scripture available up to that point in time.17  The people originally addressed by God must take into account that God’s speech does not start with them, but presupposes and builds on previous utterances of God.
(c) Any passage is to be read in the context of the entire Bible (the completed canon).  God intended from the beginning that his later words should build on and enrich earlier words, so that in some sense the whole of the Bible represents one long, complex process of communication from one author.
For example, Ezekiel 34 is to be understood (a) in terms of the immediate context of the book of Ezekiel and the historical circumstances in which the book first appeared; (b) in terms of its continuation of the word of God recorded in the law of Moses and the pre-exilic prophets; (c) in terms of what we can understand in the light of the whole completed Bible, including the New Testament.18

In addition to these three analyses of the passage we may, in more fine-grained reflection, distinguish still other possibilities.  In principle, we may ask what the passage contributes at any point during the progressive additions to canon through further revelation.  For example, Bruce K. Waltke argues that in the case of the psalms (and presumably many other OT books), it is illuminating to ask about their meaning at the time when the OT canon was complete but before the dawn of the NT era.19  This is still another approach alongside all the rest.  For simplicity we confine the subsequent discussion to the approaches (a), (b), and (c).

As we have said again and again, what we understand from a passage depends not only on the sequence of words of the passage, but the context in which it occurs.  Hence the three readings (a), (b), and (c) can, in principle, lead to three different results.  Some people might want to speak of three meanings.  Meaning (a) would be the meaning obtained from focusing the most on the human author and his circumstances.  Meaning (c) would be the meaning obtained from focusing the most on the divine author and all that we know about him from the whole of the Bible.

However, for most purposes I myself would prefer to avoid calling these three results three “meanings.”  To do that suggests that three unrelated and perhaps even contradictory things are being said.  But these three approaches are complementary, not contradictory.  The difference between these three approaches is quite like the difference between reading one chapter of a book and reading the whole of the book.  After taking into account the whole book, we understand the one chapter as well as the whole book more deeply.  But it does not mean that our understanding of the one chapter by itself was incorrect.  Remember again the example of “Jesus loves me.”



10.  Psalm 22:12-18 as an example


To see how this works,

let us consider Ps 22:12-18.  Let us begin with approach (a), focusing on the human author. 

The passage speaks of

the distress of a person who trusts in God

(22:2-5,8-10),

but is nevertheless abandoned to his enemies. 


In a series of shifting metaphors


the psalmist compares his suffering to being
surrounded by bulls

(22:12-13),

to being sick or weak in body through emotional distress

(22:14-15),

to being caught by ravening dogs
(22:16),

to being treated virtually like a carcass
(22:17-18).20 

The psalmist’s words evidently spring

from his own experience of a situation of abandonment.

We

encounter a special complexity

in the case of psalms. 


The actual author

(David, according to the title of Psalm 22)21  and the

collector or collectors who under inspiration

included Psalm 22 

in the larger collection


both have a role. 


The psalm receives a  new setting

when it is included  in

the Book of Psalms. 


This provides a  new context  for

interpretation. 


In my opinion, it means that the collector invites us to see Psalm 22 


not simply  as the

experience of an individual

at

one time,

but a

typical or model experience

with which the

whole congregation of Israel is to identify

as they sing and

meditate on the psalm.22 



Hence, in the context of the Book of Psalms

(the context with divine authority),

we compare this psalm of lament and praise
(22:25-31) with other psalms. 


We

understand that there is a


general pattern  of


suffering, trust, vindication, and praise


that is to characterize the people

of Israel to

communicate a message of

God's saving Grace

through Christ's Sacrifice 



Now we move to approach (b). 

We

consider Psalm 22 



in the light  of the

entire canon of Scripture


given up until the

time when the

Book of Psalms was compiled. 


But there is some problem with this. 


The Book of Psalms may

have been compiled

in stages

(e.g., many scholars think that Book 1, Psalms 1-41,


may have been

gathered

into a

single collection before some of the

other psalms had been written). 


Whatever the details,

we do not know exactly when the compilation took place. 

Hence we do not know exactly

what other canonical books

had

already been written.


We may still


proceed in a general way. 



We read Psalm 22 

in

the light of

the

promise to David


(2 Sam 7:8-16), and its relation


to the earlier promises

through

Abraham and Moses. 


Then we understand that the people of Israel are
represented preeminently by a
king in the line of David. 


The deficiencies and failures of

David’s immediate descendents

also point

to the need for a perfect,

righteous king who will

truly establish David’s line for ever. 



Old Testament prophecies

make it progressively clear that the

hopes centered in David’s line will

ultimately be fulfilled in a single great descendent,

the Branch

(Isa 11:1ff, Zech 6:12, Isa 9:6-7). 


The experiences

of suffering, trust, and vindication

expressed in Psalm 22 

and other psalms we expect to be

fulfilled in a climactic way

in a

messianic figure,

the Branch who is the kingly Davidic
representative

of all Israel.


What the messianic mediator


will be like

becomes progressively revealed

in

the course

of the Old Testament. 



Yet it is never made

very clear

just how the

experience of the Messiah


ties in with

Psalm 22 in detail. 



We know that Psalm 22 

is related to the prophetic passages,

but just how is not so clear.



Finally,

let us proceed to approach (c). 

Let us consider Psalm 22 

in the light

of the

completed canon. 



In this light,

we know that Christ has come

to

fulfill

all righteousness

(Matt 3:15),



to fulfill all God’s promises

(2 Cor 1:20, Rom 15:8, Luke 24:45-48). 



We know too


that Christ used

the opening words of

Psalm 22 


when he was


on the cross


(Matt 27:46). 



This already suggests that he is in a brief way indicating

the relevance of the 

wholepsalm to himself. 

If we remain in doubt, other



New Testament passages


assure us that that is indeed the case


(Matt 27:35, John 19:24, Heb 2:12).



We proceed,  then,  to read through Psalm 22  afresh. 


We compare it with the

accounts of the crucifixion

in the New Testament,

and

with New Testament

theology explaining the


​significance

of

Christ’s death

 


We see that in 22:12-18


Christ describes his

own distress,


and in 22:25-31


he expresses the


"fruit of the travail of his soul”

(Isa 53:11),


the benefits that will follow. 


In particular, certain details in the psalm
which appeared to besimply metaphorical in the original OT
context strike home with
particular vividness

(22:16,18).24



11.  What is “in” a verse

Now let us ask,


"What is the correct understanding


of

what God is saying

in a verse like Ps 22:16, 22:18, or 22:1?” 


Is it the understanding that we

gain from approach (a), or


the understanding that we gain from approach (c)? 



The answer,

I think, is


both. 


If we simply confine

ourselves to approach (a), or even to approach (b),


we neglect what can be learned by

reading the whole of the


Bible as the


word of the single divine author. 



On the other hand, if we simply confine ourselves to approach (c),


we neglect the fact that


God’s revelation was

progressive. 


We need to remember that God was
interested in edifying people in OT times. 

Moreover, what he made clear and what he did not make so clear are both of interest to us, because they


show us the ways


in which our own understanding

agrees

with and sometimes


exceeds previous

understanding,


due to the

progress in revelation

and

the progress in the


execution


of God’s


redemptive  program.


Moreover, certain dangers arise if we simply confine ourselves to approach (a) or to approach (c).  If we neglect approach (a),

we miss

the advantage of having the

control of a rigorous attention

to the historical particulars

associated with each

text of the Bible. 

Then we run the danger that our


systematic


understanding


of the Bible


as a whole,


or our subjective hunches, will simply dictate

what any particular

text means.

On the other hand, if we neglect approach (c), we miss the advantage of having the rest of the Bible to control the inferences that we may draw in the direction of applications.  Perhaps we may refuse to apply the text at all, saying to ourselves, “It was just written for those people back there.”  Or we may apply it woodenly, not reckoning with the way in which it is qualified by the larger purposes of God.  We miss the Christocentric character of the Bible, proclaimed in Luke 24:45-48.  We refuse to see the particulars in the light of the whole, and so we may repeat an error of the Pharisees, who meticulously attended to detail, but neglected “justice and the love of God” (Luke 11:42).

But how can these approaches be combined? 

They combine in a way analogous to the way in


which a human son combined earlier

and later understandings of

“
Jesus loves me.” 


There is a complex interplay.


But I think that we can be more precise.  There are several legitimate ways of organizing our research.  In a typical case of scholarly research, we may begin with approach (a) as a control.  For Psalm 22, we focus narrowly on the original historical context, and what is known within that context.  We do grammatical-historical exegesis as the foundation for all later systematizing reflection.  We try to avoid simply “reading in” our total knowledge of Scripture, or else we lose the opportunity for the Bible to criticize our views.  As a second, later step, we relate Psalm 22 to earlier canonical books and finally to the New Testament.  Whatever we find at this stage must harmonize with the results of approach (a).  But we come to “extra” insights and deeper understanding as we relate Psalm 22 to the NT.  These extra things are not “in” Psalm 22 in itself.  They are not somehow mystically hidden in the psalm, so that someone with some esoteric key to interpretation could have come up with them just by reading the psalm in isolation from the rest of the Bible.  Psalm 22 in itself gives us only what we get from approach (a).  The extra things arise from the relations that Psalm 22 has with earlier canonical books (approach (b)), with the NT, and with the events of Christ’s death.  These relations, established by God, provide the basis for our

proceeding another

stage forward in understanding.

Hence, we are not talking about some purely subjective process of letting one’s imagination run wild.  Nor are we talking about a traditional Roman Catholic view of authority, where church tradition provides extra input with divine authority to enrich biblical understanding.25  Rather, the “extra” understanding comes from the biblical canon itself, taken as a whole.

But now suppose we consider the case of nonscholars and laypeople.  Suppose that we are not scholars ourselves, but that we have been Christians for many years.  Suppose that through the aid of the Holy Spirit we have been growing spiritually and studying the Bible diligently for the whole time.  From our pastors and from other scholarly sources we have gained some knowledge of OT and NT times, but not elaborate knowledge.  But we have gained a thorough knowledge of the Bible as a whole.  Much of this knowledge might be called unconscious or subconscious knowledge.  Especially when it is a matter of large themes of the Bible, we may not be able to say clearly what we know, and exactly what texts of the Bible have given us our knowledge.
When we read Psalm 22, we read it against the background of all that unconscious knowledge of biblical truths.  When we see the opening words of 22:1, we naturally assume that the psalm speaks of Christ’s suffering.  We read the rest of the psalm as a psalm about Christ.  In each verse we see Christ’s love, his suffering, his rejection by his enemies.

The results we gain may be very similar to the results gained by scholars who go through all the distinct “steps.”  But scholars know that their understanding arises from the relations of Psalm 22 to the rest of the Bible.  They self-consciously distinguish between what arises from the psalm viewed more or less in itself, and what arises from other passages of the Bible as they illumine the significance of the psalm.  Laypeople may have the same “results,” but without being able to say exactly what all the stages were by which they could logically come to those results.

The psychological perception of what is “in” the text of Psalm 22 may also be different.  Lay readers are not consciously aware of the immense and important role played by our general knowledge of the rest of the Bible.  Hence it seems that all the depth of insight that laypeople receive as they read Psalm 22 comes from Psalm 22.  It is all “in” the psalm.  By contrast, the scholar knows where things come from, and prefers to speaking of the depth of insight as arising from the relations between many, many individual texts of the whole Bible, as these are brought into relation to Psalm 22 in a systematizing process.

But now consider once more the central question: what is God saying in Psalm 22?  Well, he is saying what he said to the original OT readers of the psalm.  He speaks the truth to them.  Hence, scholars are correct in taking care to distinguish what comes from the psalm itself and what comes from the psalm seen in the light of the whole Bible.

But God also intends that we should read Psalm 22 in the light of the rest of what he says.  Scholars are correct in going on to a second stage in which they relate the psalm to the whole Bible.  And laypeople are correct when they do the same thing.  Of course, we must suppose that the laypeople are sober, godly readers, well versed in the Scripture.  Then, as they read Psalm 22, all the depth that they receive is a depth that God intends them to receive.  God is saying all that richness to them as they read.  But that means that their psychological and spiritual perception is correct.  All that richness is “in” the psalm as a speech that God is speaking to them now.

Hence, I believe that we are confronted with an extremely complex and rich process of communication from God.  The scholarly psychological process of making the distinctions is important as a check and refinement of laypeople’s understanding.  But that lay understanding, at its best, is not to be despised.  We are not to be elitists who insist that everyone become a self-conscious scholar in reading the Bible.  Laypeople have a correct perception, even psychologically, of what God intends a passage like Psalm 22 to say.  God does say more, now, through that passage, than he said to the OT readers.  The “more” arises from the stage of fuller revelation, and consequent fuller illumination of the Holy Spirit, in which we live.

All this is true without any need to postulate an extra, “mystical” sense.  That is, we do not postulate an extra meaning which we can uncover only by using some esoteric hermeneutical method.  Rather, our understanding is analogous to the way that a son’s understanding of “Jesus loves me” arises and grows.  At the end of a long period of reading and digesting a rich communication, we see each particular part of the communication through eyes of knowledge that have been enlightened by the whole.  Through that enlightenment, each part of the whole is rich.
What relation does all this have to the discussions of sensus plenior?26  Raymond E. Brown’s dissertation defines sensus plenior as follows:
The sensus plenior is that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation.27

My distinction between the intention of the human author and divine intention, as well as my discussion of the role of later revelation, shows affinities with this definition.  But I am also concerned to  distinguish, from a scholarly point of view, between what is “in” the passage and what arises from comparison of the passage with later revelation.  This shows affinities with the rejection of sensus plenior by John P. Weisengoff.28  Weisengoff rejects sensus plenior precisely in order to protect the idea that the added knowledge comes from the new revelation.29  In fact, the situation is complex enough to include the major concerns of both points of view.30



12.  NT interpretation of the OT

Our reflections up to this point also throw light on some of the problems arising from NT interpretation of  the OT.31  I would claim that the NT authors characteristically do not aim merely at grammatical-historical exegesis of the OT. 

If we expect this of them, we expect something

too narrow  and something with too exclusively a scholarly interest. 

The NT authors are not scholars but church leaders. 

They are interested in showing how OT passages apply to the church and to the NT situation.  Hence, when they discuss an OT text,

they consider it

in the light

of the rest of the OT,


in the light

of the events of salvation that God has accomplished


in Christ,

and in the light of the

teaching of Jesus himself


during his


earthly life. 


They bring

all this knowledge

to bear on their situation,

in the light of all that they know

about that situation. 


In this process they are not concerned, as scholars would be, to distinguish with nicety all the various sources that contribute to their understanding. 

Both they and their readers typically presuppose

the context of later revelation. 

Hence, what they say using an OT passage may not always be based on the OT text alone, but on relations that the text has with this greater context.  There is nothing odd about this process, any more than there is anything odd about laypeople who read Psalm 22 in the light of their knowledge of the whole of Scripture.



13.  Scholarly use of grammatical-historical exegesis

In conclusion, let us ask what implications we may draw concerning scholarly grammatical-historical exegesis.  By grammatical-historical exegesis I mean an approach like approach (a), which self-consciously focuses on each biblical book as a product of a human author, in a particular historical setting.  On the positive side, we have seen that grammatical-historical exegesis has an important illumining role.  Several points can be mentioned.

(1)  In writing the Bible God spoke to people in human language, in human situations, through human authors. 



God himself in the Bible indicates that we

should


pay attention to these human factors

in order to

understand what he is saying and doing.


(2)  On a practical level, grammatical-historical exegesis serves to

warn the church against being swallowed up

by traditionalism,

in which people merely read in a system of understanding

which afterwards is read out. 

It alerts us to nuances

in meaning that we otherwise

overlook or even misread.

(3)  It serves to sensitize us to the genuinely progressive character of revelation. 



God did not say everything

all at once. 


We understand him better

the more we appreciate the

wisdom involved

in the partial and preliminary character

of what came earlier

(Heb 1:1).

On the other hand, grammatical-historical exegesis is not all that there is to responsible biblical interpretation.  Again, we can summarize the results in several points.

(1)  If grammatical-historical exegesis pretends to pay attention to the human author alone, it distorts the nature of the human author’s intention.  Whether or not they were perfectly self-conscious about it, the human authors intended that their words should be received as words of the Spirit.

(2)  God’s meets us and speaks to us in power as we read the Bible.  God’s power and presence must be taken into account from the beginning, just as we take into account all that characterizes a human author of any human text.  We cannot, with perfect precision, analytically isolate God’s propositional content from his personal communion.  To attempt to perform grammatical-historical exegesis by such an isolating procedure is impious.

(3)  It is legitimate to

explore the relations

between what God says in

all the parts of the Bible. 


When we perform such a synthesis, what we conclude may go beyond what we could derive from any one text in isolation.  Yet it should not be in tension with the results of a narrow grammatical-historical exegesis.  (Of course, sometimes because of the limitations of our knowledge we may find no way to resolve all tensions.)

(4)  We are not to despise laypeople’s understanding of the Bible.  We are not to reject it just because on the surface it appears to “read in” too much.  Of course, laypeople may sometimes have overworked imaginations.  But sometimes their conclusions may be the result of a

synthesis of Bible knowledge

due to the work

of the Holy Spirit. 

Scholars cannot reject such a possibility

without having

achieved a profound synthetic

and even practical knowledge

of the

Bible for themselves.
​
(5)  When later human writers of Scripture

interpret earlier parts of Scripture,

they typically do so without making
fine scholarly distinctions concerning the

basis of their knowledge. 

Hence we ought

not to require them to
confine themselves to a narrow grammatical-historical exegesis. 

In many respects

their interpretations may be similar to
valid uses of Scripture by nonscholars today.

(6)  God intends that the Bible's words should
be applied in people’s lives today. 

In complex personal,

social and political situations,
we may not always be sure what the

correct applications are. 


But applications genuinely in accord with

God’s word are part of God’s intention. 

Hence, in a broad sense, they are part of what God is saying to us through the Bible as a whole.  God continues to speak today.  When we read the Bible aware that it is God’s word, we understand that he is speaking to us now. 

We are constrained to obey, to rejoice in him, and to worship.

​