Latest / Reformed Thinking / Reading Scripture Together under the Lordship of Christ: Removing Cultural Blinders without Losing Biblical Authority

Transcript

Reading Scripture Together under the Lordship of Christ: Removing Cultural Blinders without Losing Biblical Authority · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  You know, usually when we talk about a medical diagnosis, there
• 0:02
  is a very specific expectation of precision.
• 0:06
  Right. Yeah, like it is a hard science.
• 0:08
  Yeah, it is like engineering. If you fall and break your arm,
• 0:11
  you go to the hospital, they put you in that freezing cold room
• 0:14
  and they take an X-ray. All the worst rooms.
• 0:16
  Silk, right? And when the doctor comes back,
• 0:19
  they put that film up on the light board and they point to a
• 0:21
  jagged white line. The doctor just points and says,
• 0:24
  well, there it is. That is the fracture.
• 0:26
  It is completely binary. I mean it is either broken or
• 0:28
  not broken. It is just a clean diagnosis.
• 0:31
  And it is comforting. You know, we like things to be
• 0:33
  visible. We like things to be neatly
• 0:35
  categorized and instantly identifiable, for sure.
• 0:38
  But then you step into the world of biblical interpretation and
• 0:44
  suddenly that X-ray machine is broken.
• 0:46
  Yeah. The lines are blurred.
• 0:47
  We are looking at a diagnostic landscape that is entirely
• 0:51
  murky, so welcome everyone to a brand new deep dive on reformed
• 0:56
  thinking. We are so glad you were here
• 0:58
  with us. Yeah, really glad you are tuning
• 0:59
  in for this one. Today we are taking on a massive
• 1:02
  challenge presented in our source material.
• 1:04
  We are looking at how to read and interpret the Bible without
• 1:08
  letting our own cultural biases dictate the meaning.
• 1:11
  Which is way harder than it sounds.
• 1:13
  Oh yeah. So our mission today is to
• 1:15
  uncover how a grammatical historical method, combined with
• 1:19
  theological precision and spiritual discipline offers a
• 1:22
  vastly superior alternative to modern pragmatic checklists.
• 1:26
  And we are going to get into some really fascinating
• 1:29
  historical details to show this. Yeah, let's unpack this, because
• 1:32
  your mental image of the Christmas Nativity story,
• 1:34
  specifically the Three Wise Men, is about to be completely
• 1:38
  overturned by looking at the original Greek text and ancient
• 1:42
  political history. I love this part because you
• 1:44
  know what is fascinating here is that to fix a problem like
• 1:47
  cultural bias, people usually want a quick fix.
• 1:50
  Right, give me the steps. Yeah, we want a lift of steps to
• 1:52
  follow so we can check the box and feel like we have achieved
• 1:55
  objective clarity. No, but our sources aggressively
• 1:58
  reject this modern desire for a simple mechanical checklist.
• 2:02
  It is very much like wanting a microwave dinner.
• 2:05
  Let's think about how a microwave dinner functions.
• 2:08
  You have this frozen block of food in a plastic tray.
• 2:11
  Barely food sometimes. Right, barely food.
• 2:14
  You peel back the film, you punch in 3 minutes on the keypad
• 2:17
  and it is done. Modern pragmatic theology often
• 2:20
  acts like that. Frozen prepackaged meal, Fast
• 2:23
  and easy. It is fast, it feels efficient,
• 2:26
  and it is highly marketable. You can consume it on the go,
• 2:29
  but it is completely lacking in nutritional value.
• 2:31
  Right. You cannot replace a slow,
• 2:35
  carefully prepared, all day simmering home cooked meal with
• 2:39
  something you just ZAP in the microwave.
• 2:40
  Yeah, and the sources point out a rather striking irony here.
• 2:44
  The desire for three easy steps to remove cultural bias is it's
• 2:49
  itself a distinctively Western pragmatic desire.
• 2:51
  Yes, precisely. The assumption is that if we can
• 2:54
  just master the right sequence of actions, the problem of
• 2:57
  misinterpretation can be controlled and neutralized.
• 3:00
  We think of interpretation as an assembly line.
• 3:02
  Like it is just a factory process, right?
• 3:05
  But human beings do not simply use methods.
• 3:08
  We inhabit assumptions. We read with habits formed by
• 3:11
  our language, our family structure, our education, our
• 3:14
  economic status, and, well, our own personal sin.
• 3:18
  So the danger is not that culture exists.
• 3:21
  No, the danger is that culture becomes invisible to us.
• 3:24
  It is like water to a fish. The fish does not know it is
• 3:27
  wet. Spot on.
• 3:29
  When culture becomes invisible, the reader inevitably mistakes
• 3:32
  their inherited instincts for the voice of God.
• 3:35
  Oh wow. So what does this all mean for
• 3:37
  the modern church reader? Because the sources bring up the
• 3:39
  seeker sensitive movement and critique it for tailoring
• 3:43
  interpretation to consumer demands.
• 3:45
  Yeah, they point out that asking how can I make this relevant
• 3:48
  obviously forces cultural biases onto the text.
• 3:51
  It places the reader in the seat of the judge.
• 3:53
  Yeah. The reader becomes the final
• 3:54
  arbiter of the material, rather than asking what did the Holy
• 3:57
  Spirit intend to communicate when this was written?
• 3:59
  If we connect this to the bigger picture, the shift is moving
• 4:02
  away from spiritual repentance and moving towards a mechanical
• 4:05
  methodology. Right.
• 4:07
  And the sources insist the word should act as A2 edged sword,
• 4:11
  judging the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
• 4:13
  That is the imagery from Hebrews 4.
• 4:15
  The word is supposed to Pierce us.
• 4:17
  Yeah, instead, what happens often today is that sociological
• 4:20
  analysis ends up judging the Word.
• 4:22
  The pulpit becomes a place for sharing cultural insights,
• 4:26
  sharing practical life tips, rather than declaring objective
• 4:29
  truth from a sovereign God. Now I want to jump in here and
• 4:32
  make a quick note for you listening.
• 4:34
  The author here is making a very distinct theological critique of
• 4:37
  these sociological methods. Yes, they are arguing from a
• 4:40
  specific theological standpoint. Right, stating that truth they
• 4:44
  found in submitting completely to objective revelation, not in
• 4:47
  adopting A pluralistic lens. We are neutrally reporting the
• 4:51
  sources theological critique of these frameworks.
• 4:53
  Here we are neither endorsing nor condemning them, but solely
• 4:57
  relaying the arguments laid out in our provided material.
• 5:00
  That is correct. They argue that pragmatism must
• 5:03
  be rejected in favor of rigorous, ordinary means of
• 5:06
  grace to behold the unedited truth of the text.
• 5:09
  They're pushing against the idea that the text needs are help to
• 5:12
  be relevant. Yeah, the text is inherently
• 5:14
  relevant because it is the voice of the creator.
• 5:17
  So since pragmatic checklists failed clear our vision, the
• 5:21
  discussion has to shift to the actual tools the sources
• 5:24
  advocate for. Which are historical Protestant
• 5:26
  hermeneutics and the original biblical languages.
• 5:29
  But here is where I have to push back a little.
• 5:31
  If we look at the Westminster Confession, it states that the
• 5:34
  necessary parts of the Bible are clear for ordinary believers.
• 5:39
  This is the doctrine of perspicuity.
• 5:41
  Right, the clarity of Scripture. So why did the sources mandate
• 5:45
  such intense, rigorous study of ancient Greek and Hebrew?
• 5:50
  Does requiring A linguistics degree not contradict the idea
• 5:54
  of biblical clarity? Well, this raises a fantastic
• 5:56
  question, and it is a tension many readers feel.
• 5:59
  The Westminster Confession teaches that while not
• 6:01
  everything in Scripture is equally plain, things necessary
• 6:04
  for salvation are clear through the due use of ordinary means.
• 6:07
  Ordinary means that is the key phrase there.
• 6:09
  Yeah. The sources argue that these
• 6:11
  means involve diligent grammatical historical exegesis.
• 6:14
  They do not mean subjective mystical impressions.
• 6:17
  Like guessing based on modern sentiments.
• 6:19
  Right, or opening the Bible at random and putting a finger at a
• 6:22
  verse. The plainness of the text does
• 6:24
  not excuse historical laziness or careless reading.
• 6:27
  To make this concrete, the sources use the example of
• 6:30
  spiritual beings. They highlight how the Western
• 6:33
  idol of efficiency inaccurately lumps all spiritual beings into
• 6:37
  a single generic category. Angels.
• 6:40
  We just call them all angels, yeah.
• 6:41
  We just use that one word to describe anything supernatural
• 6:44
  that isn't God. Right.
• 6:45
  And when you look at the Hebrew distinctions, the nuance is
• 6:49
  staggering. A curve or cherub is intimately
• 6:53
  associated with guarding God's holiness.
• 6:55
  You see this in Genesis, right? Yeah, guarding the entrance to
• 6:57
  Eden with a flaming sword. Or you see them serving as the
• 7:01
  imagery of God's throne chariot in Ezekiel 1.
• 7:04
  And those descriptions in Ezekiel are wild.
• 7:06
  Oh. Yeah, they have four faces.
• 7:08
  They're associated with wheels within wheels covered in eyes
• 7:11
  and their appearances like burning coals of fire.
• 7:14
  They're terrifying entities of divine justice.
• 7:16
  So they're not simply delivering mail.
• 7:19
  No, and they are certainly not the chubby little babies with
• 7:22
  wings you see on Valentine's Day cards.
• 7:24
  A Malik, on the other hand, functions specifically as a
• 7:27
  dispatched messenger. Their job is communication.
• 7:31
  OK, and the Greek distinctions in the New Testament are just as
• 7:34
  specific. The text separates Agilos, which
• 7:38
  is a messenger or Angel, from Daemonian, a demon, and Pneuma,
• 7:41
  A Catharton, an unclean spirit. They are not interchangeable
• 7:45
  terms at all, right? The specific syntax analysis of
• 7:48
  Tepeter 2.4 is incredibly illuminating.
• 7:51
  Here, the sources show that fallen angels are described as
• 7:54
  being bound in chains of gloomy darkness in a place called
• 7:57
  Tartarus, awaiting judgment. Meanwhile, demons actively roam
• 8:01
  the earth, afflicting humanity in the gospel accounts.
• 8:03
  Yeah, these are two distinct classifications of spiritual
• 8:07
  rebellion. If a reader skips the lexicon
• 8:09
  work in the block diagramming of the Greek sentences, they leave
• 8:12
  a massive void in their understanding and.
• 8:14
  What fills that void? Cultural assumptions
• 8:17
  automatically. Yeah, if you do not know the
• 8:19
  difference between a cherub guarding the throne of God and a
• 8:22
  dispatched messenger bringing news to Mary, you just picture
• 8:26
  whatever pop culture has handed to you.
• 8:28
  You picture a guy with a Halo sitting on a cloud playing a
• 8:30
  harp. Because that is what Renaissance
• 8:33
  art and modern cartoons trained you to see.
• 8:36
  Your culture fills in the blank spaces.
• 8:38
  And when the pulpit is divorced from the rigorous study of the
• 8:41
  original languages, the preacher's cultural assumptions
• 8:45
  govern the text. Which is dangerous.
• 8:47
  Very. The grammatical historical
• 8:49
  approach corrects this by comparing authorial word choices
• 8:52
  against other possible Hebrew or Greek words that were not used.
• 8:57
  It analyzes the reasoning behind the inspiration of the text
• 9:00
  like. Why did the Holy Spirit inspire
• 9:02
  the writer to use this specific noun and not that one?
• 9:04
  Spawn on. OK, let's look at another
• 9:06
  structural tool. Precision and vocabulary has to
• 9:09
  be paired with precision in historical timelines.
• 9:12
  Without understanding who God is speaking to, readers swing
• 9:15
  wildly between interpretive extremes.
• 9:17
  Let's use an analogy for you listening.
• 9:19
  Reading the Bible without understanding these historical
• 9:22
  timelines is like reading someone else's mail.
• 9:24
  Specifically, it is like reading your neighbor's bills and
• 9:27
  assuming those debts are yours to pay.
• 9:30
  Oh, that is a stressful thought. Right.
• 9:32
  Imagine going to your mailbox, pulling out an envelope and
• 9:35
  opening it to find a final notice from the IRS demanding
• 9:38
  $50,000. I would panic.
• 9:41
  Your heart would drop, you would start planning how to sell your
• 9:43
  house. But then you look at the name on
• 9:45
  the envelope and you realize it is addressed to the guy living
• 9:48
  next door. The letter is real, the demand
• 9:51
  is real, but it is not addressed to you.
• 9:54
  That is a brilliant illustration of the trap of overcorrection.
• 9:58
  The sources warned that when a believer realizes they cannot
• 10:01
  apply every single promise or command in the Bible directly to
• 10:04
  themselves, they often overcorrect.
• 10:07
  They swing the pendulum all the way across the spectrum.
• 10:09
  Yeah, and assume no promises apply to them at all.
• 10:12
  They think, well if I am not supposed to build an ark like
• 10:14
  Noah, maybe I cannot trust anything God says.
• 10:18
  And the cure for this pendulum swing, according to the text, is
• 10:21
  robust dispensational precision, specifically distinguishing
• 10:26
  national Israel from the New Testament church.
• 10:29
  Let's look at the illustrative content the author provides to
• 10:32
  make this point. They use Psalm 44.9 which says,
• 10:36
  But you have rejected us and disgraced us and have not gone
• 10:39
  out with our armies. That is a tough verse.
• 10:41
  It is. This was a corporate lament for
• 10:44
  theocratic Israel under the Mosaic Covenant.
• 10:47
  That covenant contained earthly national promises.
• 10:49
  I like the Abrahamic land and Davidic covenants.
• 10:52
  Yes, they guaranteed physical land, a literal Kingdom, and
• 10:56
  national supremacy over their geopolitical enemies.
• 10:59
  If Israel obeyed, God promised their crops would yield
• 11:02
  abundantly and their armies would crush their foes.
• 11:04
  But the church possesses spiritual and heavenly promises
• 11:08
  like in Ephesians 1.3 which says God has blessed us in Christ
• 11:11
  with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.
• 11:13
  We are not guaranteed military victory.
• 11:16
  We are not guaranteed A flourishing bank account or
• 11:18
  perfect physical health. And this is where the sources
• 11:21
  argue that indiscriminate blending of these covenants lead
• 11:24
  straight to the prosperity gospel.
• 11:26
  Oh yeah, If you take an earthly national promise meant for
• 11:30
  theocratic Israel under the Old Covenant and you apply it to a
• 11:34
  modern individual believer in the 21st century, you end up
• 11:37
  teaching that God guarantees physical wealth and health right
• 11:41
  now. You tell people that if they
• 11:42
  just have enough faith, God will give them a promotion at work.
• 11:45
  Based on a verse meant for ancient Israel's agricultural
• 11:49
  harvest. It is taking it completely out
• 11:51
  of context. The sources argue forcefully for
• 11:53
  premillennialism and per tribulationism as a safeguard.
• 11:56
  Here they assert that God is immutable and his covenants with
• 12:00
  Israel are unilateral. Therefore, he will literally
• 12:03
  fulfill his promises to ethnic Israel during a future
• 12:06
  millennial Kingdom on earth. And applying the literal,
• 12:10
  grammatical, historical method across all of redemptive history
• 12:13
  prevents cultural relativism. It keeps the interpretive train
• 12:17
  on the tracks. Yeah, it creates a boundary.
• 12:19
  Now, again, as reporters of this material, we are just laying out
• 12:23
  the sources, theological framework, this specific
• 12:27
  dispensational view as the opposed solution to biblical
• 12:30
  misinterpretation. We are neutrally conveying the
• 12:33
  author's claims here. And the author claims this
• 12:36
  structure prevents the reader from manipulating the text to
• 12:39
  fit their desires. The argument is that this
• 12:41
  precision clarifies the relationship between law and
• 12:44
  gospel. It honors authorial intent
• 12:47
  without discarding the Old Testament or falling into
• 12:49
  legalism. You do not have to throw away
• 12:51
  Psalm 44, you just have to know what envelope it came in.
• 12:54
  I love that. OK, so we have established these
• 12:56
  structural tools, we have the original languages and we have
• 12:59
  dispensational timelines. But the sources argue these
• 13:02
  structural tools are totally useless without the correct
• 13:05
  spiritual posture. Yeah, Greek lexicon will not
• 13:08
  save you from your own pride. This brings us to the exegetical
• 13:11
  breakdown of Colossians 3.1 through 17.
• 13:15
  Now I have a question here. How do character traits like
• 13:18
  patience or kindness actually function as tools for reading a
• 13:21
  text? It seems disconnected at first
• 13:23
  glance. Yeah, if I am trying to
• 13:25
  translate ancient syntax, my personal patience seems
• 13:29
  irrelevant. It sounds more like relationship
• 13:32
  advice for a married couple than rigorous theological study.
• 13:35
  It does sound like relationship advice on the surface, but the
• 13:38
  historical context of Colossae changed the entire picture.
• 13:41
  OK, set the scene for us. Colossae was a city situated at
• 13:45
  a major cultural crossroads in the Lycus Valley.
• 13:48
  It was facing ascetic severity, human tradition, local Pagan
• 13:52
  religious practices and massive imperial loyalties to Rome.
• 13:56
  So it was a melting pot. Very much so.
• 13:58
  It was a place where human identity was fiercely negotiated
• 14:01
  through household status, ethnicity and public allegiance.
• 14:04
  Everyone knew their place on the social ladder.
• 14:06
  And into that tense environment, Paul declares that in the new
• 14:09
  humanity, identities like Greek and Jew, circumcised and
• 14:12
  uncircumcised, barbarian, citian, slave and free are
• 14:16
  relativized. Christ is all and in all.
• 14:18
  Yeah. Notice carefully that these
• 14:20
  distinctions aren't erased as historical facts.
• 14:23
  Paul is not pretending society vanished.
• 14:25
  Right, a slave and a master still woke up in the exact same
• 14:28
  societal structure the next morning after hearing this
• 14:30
  letter read aloud. Yes, but these identities are
• 14:34
  dethroned as grounds for superiority or interpretive
• 14:38
  authority within the church. The master could not imagine his
• 14:42
  social power made him a privileged interpreter of the
• 14:45
  Gospel. The Roman citizen did not have a
• 14:47
  better angle on the truth just because he had legal status.
• 14:50
  Precisely so the verse she is listed by Paul.
• 14:53
  Compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, forgiveness,
• 14:56
  and love are actual hermeneutical tools.
• 14:59
  They are the lenses through which we must read.
• 15:01
  And the sources define humility not as uncertainty about God's
• 15:05
  Word, which is how modern society often defines it, but
• 15:08
  uncertainty about ourselves when the text corrects us.
• 15:10
  Think about a reader approaching the text without humility that
• 15:13
  cannot be corrected. No, if the text contradicts
• 15:16
  their lifestyle, they will bend the text to fit their lifestyle.
• 15:19
  Meekness is defined as strength restrained by obedience.
• 15:24
  Patience is the willingness to labor along with slow learners,
• 15:27
  including oneself. Because an impatient reader will
• 15:30
  demand instant answers, they might prefer a simplistic,
• 15:34
  incorrect answer over a faithful, difficult one that
• 15:37
  requires years of study. And love prevents theological
• 15:41
  precision from turning into a weapon.
• 15:43
  We have all seen people use correct theology to bludgeon
• 15:47
  others. Oh, absolutely.
• 15:49
  The sources emphasize that removing cultural biases
• 15:52
  requires the mortification of sin.
• 15:55
  This is an old Puritan concept. You have to kill the sin in your
• 15:58
  own heart. A proud heart produces proud
• 16:00
  readings, and a moral reader will instinctively resist texts
• 16:04
  on holiness and purity. And a covetous reader will twist
• 16:07
  promises of spiritual grace into guarantees of financial
• 16:10
  prosperity. Interpretation itself must be
• 16:13
  sanctified. The mind of the reader must be
• 16:15
  renewed. The sources state that the
• 16:16
  modern church often prizes efficiency, therapeutic comfort
• 16:20
  and self-expression. We want 10 easy steps rather
• 16:22
  than painful sanctification. We want practical takeaways
• 16:26
  rather than trembling before a holy God.
• 16:28
  But Colossians calls the Church back to the supremacy of Christ,
• 16:30
  where the dwells abundantly in a gathered holy people who are
• 16:34
  actively killing their sin. And you mentioned a gathered
• 16:36
  people. The virtues of Colossians 3
• 16:39
  demand that we read scripture within a community.
• 16:42
  We're not supposed to do this alone in a vacuum.
• 16:44
  Right. But here is where the
• 16:46
  conversation gets incredibly challenging for the modern ear.
• 16:49
  The sources define this community very differently than
• 16:52
  modern secular models of intersectionality.
• 16:55
  Yeah, there is a sharp contrast here.
• 16:57
  A common argument today is that we need input from every
• 17:00
  possible cultural background to truly understand a text and find
• 17:04
  our blind spots. So why do the sources reject
• 17:08
  elevating sociological viewpoints if we all agree that
• 17:11
  we have cultural blind spots? The sources argue forcefully
• 17:14
  against the idea that all cultural interpretations are
• 17:17
  equally valid. They explicitly reject the
• 17:19
  sociological hermeneutic. And this includes critical race
• 17:22
  theory frameworks, right? Yes, it includes those
• 17:24
  frameworks that elevate a reader's ethnicity, gender, or
• 17:27
  social status to a position of interpretive authority.
• 17:30
  Now, just stepping back as reporters for a second, the
• 17:33
  author is taking a very specific hardline theological stance
• 17:36
  against modern sociological frameworks here.
• 17:39
  They are. They're arguing that the text
• 17:41
  means what the Holy Spirit intended, entirely apart from
• 17:44
  the reader's cultural background.
• 17:46
  Right. We are reporting their argument
• 17:48
  that that truth is revealed objectively, not democratized by
• 17:51
  a panel of cultural representatives.
• 17:54
  According to the material, while an Asian Christian might
• 17:57
  culturally value community and an American Christian might
• 18:00
  culturally value individuality, neither culture sits in judgment
• 18:04
  of the text. The syntactical realities of
• 18:07
  Colossians 3 objectively condemn hyperindividualism without
• 18:11
  needing a specific cultural corrective from the East to
• 18:13
  prove it. The grammar itself carries the
• 18:16
  authority. So instead of just reading
• 18:17
  horizontally across modern cultures to find balance, the
• 18:21
  reform the proto advocated by the sources reads vertically
• 18:25
  through church history. This is what we call the
• 18:26
  Communion of Saints. Reading vertically.
• 18:28
  So this involves studying alongside the Puritans and the
• 18:31
  Reformers. We are talking about figures
• 18:33
  like John Calvin, John Owen, Charles Spurgeon, Ji Packer and
• 18:37
  RC Sprawl. The sources state that the works
• 18:39
  of these historical figures act as a stabilizing anchor against
• 18:43
  modern fads, subjective mysticism and pragmatic
• 18:46
  methodologies. And why these specific men from
• 18:49
  the past? Because they are dead.
• 18:51
  Yeah, they are entirely outside of our current cultural moment.
• 18:55
  They do not care about our modern political debates.
• 18:57
  Right reading together in this framework means reading with the
• 19:01
  Saints under Scripture strictly within the bounds of orthodox
• 19:05
  Protestant, confessional Christianity.
• 19:08
  The sources advocate for a hard line on Orthodoxy.
• 19:11
  They reject false ecumenical unity with Rome, as well as
• 19:15
  cults or liberal scholars who deny biblical inerrancy or the
• 19:18
  historical reality of Adam. The isolation of a single reader
• 19:21
  sitting alone with their Bible leaves them highly vulnerable to
• 19:24
  private blinders and private sins.
• 19:26
  But a homogeneous modern church, where everyone votes the same
• 19:29
  way and drives the same cars, is vulnerable to collective
• 19:32
  blindness. So the solution provided by the
• 19:34
  author is serious teaching, serious admonition, and learning
• 19:38
  from the test voices of the Orthodox tradition, while
• 19:41
  ensuring all of those voices kneel beneath the final
• 19:43
  authority of the biblical text. It is a rigorous, deeply
• 19:47
  disciplined approach. OK, let's bring all of these
• 19:49
  principles together. We have the original languages,
• 19:51
  the historical context, the rejection of modern
• 19:54
  sentimentality, the need for covet until precision, and the
• 19:58
  mortification of sin. The sources provide a
• 20:00
  comprehensive case study to show us what this looks like in
• 20:03
  practice. They provide a sermon outline on
• 20:06
  the Nativity story, specifically Matthew 2.1 through 12.
• 20:10
  This is the story of the magic. Yes, this is where the
• 20:13
  application of all these rigorous tools becomes
• 20:15
  incredibly vivid. It strips away all the cultural
• 20:18
  paint we have slept onto the text.
• 20:20
  Let's use an analogy to set the stage.
• 20:21
  The typical Western view of the nativity is it is like a
• 20:25
  sanitized, quiet snow globe. You shake it up.
• 20:29
  The glitter falls gently over a peaceful wooden barn. 3 Kings in
• 20:34
  pristine Rd. wait patiently outside with perfectly wrapped
• 20:37
  boxes and the animals are all quiet and well behaved.
• 20:40
  Mary looks refreshed somehow. Right Mary looks perfectly
• 20:43
  rested and everything is calm and bright, but the historical
• 20:46
  reality the text reveals is much closer to a gritty, high stakes
• 20:49
  political thriller. The Greek word used is McCoy.
• 20:53
  They were not 3 Kings riding camel singing carols.
• 20:55
  They were a powerful elite cast of Zoroastrian priests,
• 21:00
  astrologers, and king of makers from the Parthian Empire.
• 21:03
  Which completely changes the tone of their arrival.
• 21:05
  Let's talk about the geopolitics of the Parthian Empire for a
• 21:07
  second. They were Romes greatest rival
• 21:10
  to the east. The Romans and the Parthians had
• 21:12
  fought massive, bloody wars. Right.
• 21:15
  The Parthian cavalry was legendary.
• 21:17
  Their arrival in Jerusalem was not a quiet visit from three
• 21:20
  guys on donkeys. It was a massive diplomatic
• 21:23
  crisis. Historically, they likely
• 21:26
  traveled with a substantial military escort to protect the
• 21:29
  immense wealth they were carrying.
• 21:30
  The text says their arrival troubled Herod and all Jerusalem
• 21:33
  with him. Now Herod was a paranoid,
• 21:36
  bloodthirsty tyrant who had already murdered his own wife
• 21:39
  and his own sons to protect his throne.
• 21:41
  Yeah, imagine an envoy of foreign kingmakers from an enemy
• 21:44
  empire riding into his capital city, bypassing his palace and
• 21:48
  asking where is he who's been born King of the Jews?
• 21:51
  It would have been utterly terrifying for the entire city.
• 21:54
  They knew Herod's reaction would be violent.
• 21:56
  And think about the profound irony in this narrative.
• 22:00
  God sovereignly used Pagan starjazers to announce the birth
• 22:04
  of the Messiah. These were men whose
• 22:06
  astrological practices were completely outlawed under the
• 22:09
  Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 18. Yeah, God uses a star to draw
• 22:13
  them to the true King. God's grace reaches all the way
• 22:17
  into the dark idolatry of the East to summon worshippers.
• 22:20
  We see the precision of the Greek text shining here again.
• 22:23
  The Greek verb tikthais, meaning born, is used by the magi.
• 22:27
  They're asking about one who was born a king.
• 22:30
  This is a direct calculated contrast to Herod.
• 22:32
  Yeah, Herod was an Edumian, not a Jew, and he essentially bought
• 22:35
  his title from the Roman Senate. Herod was appointed.
• 22:38
  Jesus was born with the cosmic right to rule.
• 22:40
  And when the magi finally see the child, the verb prosecunizon
• 22:44
  is used. This specific word denotes total
• 22:46
  prostration. It is a posture of absolute
• 22:48
  submission and reverence reserved strictly for deity.
• 22:51
  These powerful kingmakers fell on their faces in the dirt
• 22:54
  before a toddler. The narrative sets up the
• 22:56
  striking, convicting contrast. On one side you have the
• 22:59
  religious rebellion of the scribes and the religious elite
• 23:01
  in Jerusalem. They knew the scriptures
• 23:03
  perfectly. They could quote Micah 5.2 and
• 23:07
  point right to Bethlehem. They had all the theological
• 23:09
  facts right, but they lack the faith to travel a few miles down
• 23:13
  the road to worship Him. While on the other side you have
• 23:16
  the joyful submission of the Pagan Magi.
• 23:18
  Who traveled hundreds of miles through dangerous, hostile
• 23:22
  territory, fell down in complete prostration and offered
• 23:25
  treasures. The application of this text
• 23:28
  completely shatters dead orthodoxy.
• 23:31
  Having the Bible, knowing the theology, memorizing the
• 23:34
  catechism, and being culturally close to the religion means
• 23:37
  absolutely nothing if it does not result in joyful submission
• 23:40
  to the Sovereign King. The original intended effect of
• 23:43
  Matthew's Gospel was to shock his Jewish readers, right?
• 23:45
  Yes, to provoke them to introspection and jealousy by
• 23:48
  showing pagans worshipping their Messiah while their own leaders
• 23:52
  plotted his death. The gifts they brought, gold,
• 23:54
  frankincense and myrrh, weren't just cultural party favors, They
• 23:58
  were prophetic acknowledgments of his royalty.
• 24:01
  His his priesthood and his impending sacrificial death.
• 24:04
  And God's Providence used that very gold to fund the imminent
• 24:08
  flight to Egypt, preserving the Savior from Herod's slaughter.
• 24:12
  When you strip away the cultural scales of a sanitized children's
• 24:16
  story, you are left with a majestic, disruptive reality of
• 24:19
  the incarnation. Preaching Christ, not culture,
• 24:23
  means bringing the congregation face to face with the sovereign
• 24:26
  King who commands absolute allegiance.
• 24:29
  It is not about giving people 3 practical tips for a better
• 24:32
  week, it is about confronting them with the Lord of glory.
• 24:35
  Which is a much heavier reality. Which brings us back to the core
• 24:38
  thesis of our deep dive today. Escaping cultural bias isn't
• 24:42
  about finding a new sociological framework or tweaking our modern
• 24:46
  categories. It requires the rigorous
• 24:48
  grammatical historical method. It requires historical and
• 24:51
  covenantal precision to understand exactly what God
• 24:54
  promised and to whom. And above all, it requires the
• 24:57
  spiritual discipline of committing to Christ.
• 24:59
  Absolute Lordship. You have to actively mortify the
• 25:02
  pride that assumes your modern 21st century lens is
• 25:06
  automatically superior to the text.
• 25:08
  The world says to trust your own perspective.
• 25:11
  The religious market says to find a method that works
• 25:14
  efficiently and makes people feel good.
• 25:17
  But the text calls for the Word to dwell abundantly among a
• 25:20
  holy, forgiving and thankful people.
• 25:23
  There are No 3 easy steps to mastery.
• 25:26
  There is only the lifelong discipline of repentance, faith
• 25:29
  and obedience under the living Christ.
• 25:31
  Yeah, that is the core of it all.
• 25:33
  We want to leave you with a final provocative thought.
• 25:36
  Today, consider the biblical texts you find most boring, the
• 25:40
  passages you find most irrelevant to your daily life,
• 25:43
  or perhaps the verses you find most offensive.
• 25:45
  The ones you tend to skim over. Yeah, those exact ones.
• 25:49
  Could those specific passages be the exact places where your own
• 25:52
  cultural scales are the thickest?
• 25:54
  If we solely love the verses that affirm our modern Western
• 25:58
  sensibilities, are we truly worshipping the sovereign king
• 26:01
  of the text? Or are we just worshipping a
• 26:03
  reflection of ourselves? That is a tough question to sit
• 26:05
  with. It really is.
• 26:07
  We invite you to read the Bible this week, asking the text to
• 26:10
  judge your culture rather than letting your culture judge the
• 26:12
  text. Because until you were willing
• 26:14
  to let the ancient text break your modern assumptions, you
• 26:18
  will always be looking at murky waters.
• 26:20
  Wishing for a clean X-ray that your own biases prevent you from
• 26:24
  seeing? Thanks for joining us on this
• 26:25
  deep dive everyone. We will catch you next time.