Latest / Reformed Thinking / Application

Transcript

Application · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Reformed thinking, this is the deep dive.
• 0:03
  So today we're tackling a subject that, well, it really
• 0:07
  separates just academic Bible study from what you'd call a
• 0:10
  true Christian life. We're talking about the shift
• 0:12
  from, you know, just intellectual comprehension of
• 0:15
  Scripture to practical God honoring obedience.
• 0:18
  It's about moving past that question.
• 0:20
  What did this mean back then to the much harder one?
• 0:24
  What is God requiring of me right now?
• 0:26
  That's the core of it. And you know, we've looked at
• 0:29
  sources that really explain why application isn't just a nice
• 0:31
  add on, it's it's required. It's not optional.
• 0:35
  Not at all. I mean if interpreting scripture
• 0:37
  is say a precision craft, then applying it is more like
• 0:41
  spiritual architecture. So our mission for you is to lay
• 0:43
  out a really solid 4 stage method for for legitimately
• 0:48
  translating that fixed ancient message into a modern response
• 0:52
  that's alive and actionable. I like that idea, spiritual
• 0:54
  architecture. It really does get at the fact
• 0:56
  that the whole, the whole process is incomplete if you
• 0:58
  just stop at deciphering grammar and history.
• 1:01
  The entire purpose of God's Word is to get a response of
• 1:04
  obedience, right? To build that bridge between the
• 1:07
  ancient world and the life you're living today.
• 1:10
  So let's start by by laying that foundation.
• 1:14
  Why is just knowing what it says, even with incredible
• 1:19
  precision? Why is that not enough?
• 1:21
  What happens if we stop there? Well, the sources are pretty
• 1:24
  clear that stopping at just deciphering the meaning leaves
• 1:28
  the whole process. Well, it leaves it inadequate,
• 1:31
  incomplete. Fundamentally, application is
• 1:34
  the required response of obedience to the living God.
• 1:37
  I mean, studying Scripture was never meant to be an end in
• 1:40
  itself. You know, like you're analyzing
• 1:41
  some ancient artifact. It's always preparation for
• 1:44
  action, for change in behavior. That sounds less like an
• 1:47
  intellectual pursuit and much more like a moral obligation.
• 1:51
  It's absolutely both, and the stakes get a lot higher when you
• 1:54
  look at how the New Testament talks about this.
• 1:56
  There's a great analogy in the source material that helps make
• 1:58
  this clear. OK.
• 1:59
  It compares the Bible to a doctor's prescription.
• 2:01
  All right, tell us how that analogy breaks down for us, OK.
• 2:04
  So interpretation is like reading the label on the
• 2:07
  medicine bottle. You understand the dosage, you
• 2:10
  analyze all the ingredients. You might even memorize the
• 2:12
  instructions. You could, I don't know, write a
• 2:15
  brilliant medical paper on the chemistry involved.
• 2:18
  But none of that actually makes you better.
• 2:20
  Exactly. Analyzing the label perfectly
• 2:23
  does not bring healing. The healing only comes when you
• 2:25
  take the next step. An application is swallowing the
• 2:28
  medicine. If you analyze the instructions
• 2:30
  perfectly, but you refuse to actually ingest the pill, your
• 2:34
  health doesn't improve. You fail to get the doctor's
• 2:37
  intended result. And spiritually, that's what we
• 2:39
  do. We fail to glorify God through
• 2:41
  obedience if we just stay as intellectual observers of the
• 2:45
  text instead of, you know, active participants.
• 2:48
  James, in his letter, gives a really stark warning about this.
• 2:51
  He says a listener who fails to act is actually deceiving
• 2:54
  himself. Self deception.
• 2:57
  That sets a pretty serious tone for this whole discussion,
• 2:59
  doesn't it? It does.
• 3:00
  So let's get into the theological justifications the
• 3:02
  sources lay out for this. Why is application non
• 3:05
  negotiable? And let's start with the big
• 3:07
  one. It's central to glorifying God.
• 3:11
  It is God is glorified when his people don't just hear His word,
• 3:16
  but when they actively do it. And this runs all the way
• 3:18
  through the Old Testament covenants.
• 3:20
  It's not a new idea. Not at all.
• 3:22
  Look at Deuteronomy chapter 30. You have Moses standing before
• 3:25
  the people, and he's setting before them life and death,
• 3:27
  blessing and curse and the blessing, the prosperity he
• 3:30
  promises. It's all conditional.
• 3:33
  Conditional on what? On the people obeying the laws,
• 3:36
  God's favor was explicitly tied to them applying those laws in
• 3:40
  their daily lives and their business dealings in the
• 3:43
  personal conduct. So the idea is that knowledge
• 3:45
  without the corresponding action is basically a failure of the
• 3:49
  relationship, a covenant failure.
• 3:51
  Precisely. If they intellectually agreed,
• 3:52
  yeah, the law is good, but then failed to apply it by, say,
• 3:56
  caring for the poor or observing the Sabbath, they were breaking
• 4:00
  the covenant. They forfeited the blessing.
• 4:01
  And the New Testament picks this up.
• 4:03
  It does with even greater clarity.
• 4:05
  I mean, Jesus himself mandated putting his teachings into
• 4:08
  practice. At the end of the sermon on the
• 4:10
  mail, he gives that famous contrast.
• 4:12
  Right. The wise and foolish builders.
• 4:13
  Exactly. Those who built on the rock,
• 4:15
  they heard and they obeyed. Those who built on the sand
• 4:18
  herd, but they failed to act and the failure of that second group
• 4:22
  was a failure of application and it led to total spiritual ruin
• 4:27
  when the storms came. OK, so the second justification
• 4:29
  our sources point to is about the author's intention, the idea
• 4:33
  that biblical authors actually designed their writings to be
• 4:36
  relevant for the long haul. This is such a critical point
• 4:40
  because it undergirds all valid application.
• 4:42
  The instructions, the stories. They were never intended for
• 4:46
  just one single audience frozen in time.
• 4:49
  So they were looking ahead. Absolutely.
• 4:51
  The Old Testament is full of commands for transgenerational
• 4:53
  instruction. Deuteronomy 6 is so clear on
• 4:56
  this. Parents must diligently teach
• 4:58
  the law to their children and to their grandchildren, and the law
• 5:02
  was also supposed to be read publicly to later generations.
• 5:05
  This whole system shows an inherent design for enduring
• 5:08
  relevance. So the stories of ancient
• 5:10
  Israel, they become a kind of living textbook for us today.
• 5:14
  That's a great way to put it. Paul basically affirms this when
• 5:17
  he's talking about the generation in the wilderness.
• 5:19
  He says that those Old Testament stories, their failures, their
• 5:23
  triumphs, they served as examples to keep us from setting
• 5:26
  our hearts on evil things. And he also says that those
• 5:29
  ancient texts provide us with encouragement and hope.
• 5:33
  This means the Holy Spirit made sure these historical records
• 5:36
  were preserved specifically for the instruction and application
• 5:39
  of believers living centuries later.
• 5:42
  We're not just history students. We're the intended audience.
• 5:45
  And Jesus himself had this future scope in mind.
• 5:48
  He did. You can see it so beautifully in
• 5:50
  his prayer in John 17. He prays not just for the
• 5:53
  disciples standing right there with him, but specifically for
• 5:56
  those who would believe in the future through their message.
• 5:59
  That means his teachings, his life, everything is meant to be
• 6:02
  applied by all believers across all of history.
• 6:05
  And that leads right into the third justification, doesn't it?
• 6:08
  The very nature of inspiration seems to demand application.
• 6:12
  If we believe all scripture is inspired, then we have to accept
• 6:16
  that it's useful. It's the logical follow through
• 6:19
  since all scripture is God breathed as Sect.
• 6:21
  Timothy 3.16 says it follows by divine design that it is useful
• 6:26
  for four specific things, teaching, rebuking, correcting,
• 6:30
  and training in righteousness. And every single one of those is
• 6:34
  an active application oriented. Word.
• 6:36
  Every single one. The goal of inspiration isn't
• 6:39
  static information. It's producing maturity and
• 6:41
  obedience and fitness for service.
• 6:44
  We should probably pause here, though, and add a little nuance.
• 6:47
  The sources are careful to say that while every part of
• 6:50
  Scripture is useful, that doesn't mean you're going to
• 6:52
  find a direct personal command in every single verse.
• 6:56
  That nuance is crucial. The type of usefulness and
• 6:58
  application can change dramatically depending on what
• 7:01
  you're reading. If you're in a letter like
• 7:03
  Romans, I mean, almost every paragraph places some kind of
• 7:06
  demand on your life, either for belief or for action.
• 7:09
  But if you're reading, say, the long genealogical lists in First
• 7:13
  Chronicles, you might have to read a few chapters before you
• 7:16
  can draw out a broader principle about God's Providence or his
• 7:19
  faithfulness. So the application might be
• 7:21
  indirect, but it's still there. Absolutely.
• 7:24
  And the consequence of not even looking for that application,
• 7:27
  even in those less obvious passages, It's severe.
• 7:31
  If we neglect the application side of things, we risk just
• 7:35
  increasing our biblical literacy without increasing our
• 7:37
  obedience. And we end up failing to really
• 7:40
  know and love God in the way he wants, which is.
• 7:42
  Always expressed through active obedience.
• 7:44
  OK. So we've established that
• 7:46
  application is mandatory. Now we have to set up the
• 7:48
  intellectual guardrails. This is where that distinction
• 7:51
  between meaning and significance comes in, right?
• 7:53
  It's the tool that keeps application from just becoming
• 7:56
  subjective. This.
• 7:57
  Distinction is the critical hermeneutical tool.
• 8:00
  It protects the objective authority of the Bible, the fact
• 8:03
  that it speaks a fixed truth, while also allowing for
• 8:06
  legitimate, diverse responses that are tailored to you and
• 8:09
  your culture. It separates the anchor from the
• 8:12
  response. Let's start.
• 8:13
  With the anchor then meaning, how exactly do the sources
• 8:17
  define that meaning? Is defined very strictly.
• 8:20
  It's the ideas, the concepts, the beliefs that the text
• 8:24
  originally intended to communicate to its very first
• 8:26
  readers in their own historical and literary context.
• 8:30
  So it's. Anchored in the author's intent
• 8:32
  entirely. And the critical characteristic
• 8:34
  here is consistency. Meaning is fixed.
• 8:37
  It's consistent for all readers across all time.
• 8:39
  It doesn't change based on how you feel or what your
• 8:42
  circumstances are. Our goal and interpretation is
• 8:45
  to figure out that one single meaning now.
• 8:48
  When we talk about authors intent, the sources bring in a
• 8:51
  technical concept from linguistics, speech act theory.
• 8:54
  They talk about locution and elocution.
• 8:57
  Can you ground those terms for us?
• 8:59
  Sure. This framework helps to see that
• 9:00
  meaning is more than just the dictionary definition of the
• 9:03
  words on the page. That's the locution, just what
• 9:05
  the text says, the literal. Words, right?
• 9:08
  The elocution, on the other hand, is the author's intended
• 9:11
  outcome or purpose in saying those words.
• 9:13
  It's what the author was trying to do with the words.
• 9:16
  So if a text says I command you to stop, the locution is the
• 9:20
  phrase itself, but the elocution is the fixed principle, the
• 9:24
  authoritative intent to stop a behavior.
• 9:26
  So the. Elocution is what we're trying
• 9:28
  to identify. Is that single fixed principle
• 9:31
  that's. Right.
• 9:32
  The elocution, the underlying command or promise or truth, is
• 9:36
  the objective anchor of the meaning.
• 9:39
  It's what makes the text authoritative and transferable.
• 9:42
  We're not just deciphering grammar, we're deciphering the
• 9:45
  author's fixed goal. OK, now.
• 9:46
  Let's contrast that with significance, which you said is
• 9:49
  the variable part, right? Significance refers to the
• 9:51
  implications or the relevance of that fixed meaning in different
• 9:54
  later situations. Since significance is applied to
• 9:57
  the reader's context, it can and often should vary from one
• 10:01
  person to the next and from one culture to the next, so.
• 10:04
  A single fixed meaning can actually lead to multiple valid
• 10:07
  applications, yes. Multiple valid significances.
• 10:12
  Significance is inherently response oriented.
• 10:15
  It takes that fixed principle and personalizes it.
• 10:18
  It moves you from just historical analysis to moral and
• 10:21
  practical action. It answers those key questions.
• 10:24
  What bearing does this have on my life and what do I need to
• 10:28
  do? This is what?
• 10:28
  People call principleizing. It is.
• 10:30
  It's that process of contextualization.
• 10:32
  We see this really clearly with the example of the holy kiss,
• 10:36
  right? That's.
• 10:36
  A great example it is. Because it clarifies the
• 10:38
  relationship between the fixed intent and the variable form.
• 10:43
  The meaning the elocution of the command to greet one another
• 10:46
  with a holy kiss is a fixed principle of warm, affectionate
• 10:50
  Christian greeting and hospitality.
• 10:52
  That principle never changes but the.
• 10:54
  Action itself can. Exactly.
• 10:56
  The significance is how that principle gets expressed in
• 10:59
  different cultures. In many western cultures today,
• 11:01
  the functional equivalent might be a Hardy handshake or a hug.
• 11:05
  The principle is constant. The specific culture bound
• 11:08
  action changes I think. This distinction is really
• 11:11
  powerful, but it also brings up a challenge that I bet a lot of
• 11:13
  our listeners struggle with. If significance can vary so
• 11:16
  widely, if one text can justify homeschooling for one family and
• 11:21
  Christian School for another, how do we stop that single fixed
• 11:25
  meaning from becoming so vague that it justifies pretty much
• 11:28
  anything? Doesn't this whole model risk
• 11:31
  slipping into pure subjectivity, that is?
• 11:34
  The essential critical question, and this distinction is
• 11:36
  specifically designed to prevent that.
• 11:39
  The safeguard is the direct subordination of significance to
• 11:42
  meaning. OK, so significance is never
• 11:45
  free floating. Never.
• 11:46
  It has to be controlled, constrained, and generated by
• 11:49
  the fixed meaning. If you haven't correctly
• 11:52
  determined the single objective meaning that elocution, then any
• 11:57
  application you come up with is illegitimate, no matter how
• 11:59
  sincere you feel about it. The moment a supposed
• 12:02
  application contradicts the fixed historical intent, it's
• 12:05
  not a valid significance anymore.
• 12:07
  It's just you imposing your own preference on the text.
• 12:09
  So. When people say this is what
• 12:11
  this passage means to me, they're actually using the wrong
• 12:13
  word. Precisely, they are mistakenly
• 12:15
  suggesting that the text definition is subjective.
• 12:19
  We have to gently correct that language.
• 12:21
  They're actually identifying a personal significance, a
• 12:24
  potential application, but they're incorrectly calling it
• 12:28
  meaning. And if we let meaning become
• 12:30
  subjective, the whole thing falls apart.
• 12:32
  The. Authority of the text is gone.
• 12:35
  The single objective meaning has to control the boundaries for
• 12:38
  all legitimate application let's.
• 12:41
  Ground this with that case study from the sources, The
• 12:43
  instruction in Deuteronomy 6 for parents to teach God's commands
• 12:46
  to their children. OK.
• 12:48
  The fixed meaning the divine elocution is clear.
• 12:51
  Parents have the primary non negotiable responsibility for
• 12:55
  the spiritual formation of their children.
• 12:57
  That principle is fixed. It applies to a family in 1500
• 13:00
  BC just as much as it applies to a family today and now.
• 13:04
  We get the variable significance right.
• 13:06
  This single meaning gets applied through different methods based
• 13:09
  on conviction, circumstance and culture to.
• 13:12
  Describe some of those different, but still valid
• 13:14
  significances that come from that one command well.
• 13:17
  One family might apply this by choosing robust, structured
• 13:20
  homeschooling. They believe that's the best way
• 13:22
  to integrate faith into all of learning.
• 13:25
  Another family might choose a good Christian School, relying
• 13:28
  on some institutional help but staying deeply involved
• 13:31
  themselves. And a third family might choose
• 13:34
  public education, but they supplement it with extremely
• 13:37
  rigorous home catechism, family devotions, and intense church
• 13:41
  involvement. So.
• 13:42
  All three applications are different but.
• 13:44
  All three are potentially valid expressions, functional
• 13:47
  equivalents of the same fixed meaning, which is parental
• 13:50
  responsibility to teach. The meaning is the ultimate
• 13:53
  authority that judges whether the varying significance is
• 13:56
  legitimate. That makes the.
• 13:58
  Analogy to a constitutional amendment.
• 13:59
  Really clear. The original meaning is what the
• 14:02
  authors understood at the time it's fixed in history.
• 14:04
  The significance is how a judge applies that mandate to
• 14:07
  something new, like the Internet, which the authors
• 14:10
  never could have imagined and. The judge can't just say, well,
• 14:13
  this amendment means to me, they have to apply the fixed intent
• 14:17
  to a new situation. If their alication strays from
• 14:20
  that original intent, they're not interpreting the law,
• 14:23
  they're rewriting it, and the authority of the document is
• 14:26
  lost. It's the same intellectual
• 14:28
  safeguard we have to use with Scripture.
• 14:30
  So now that we have that framework of meaning and
• 14:32
  significance, we need the actual methodology to bridge that huge
• 14:37
  gap between the ancient culture then and our modern culture now.
• 14:42
  And the sources give us a rigorous 4 stage model designed
• 14:45
  to make sure that our contemporary application, our
• 14:47
  significance, stays fully tethered to that original fixed
• 14:51
  meaning. OK, this is where.
• 14:52
  The rubber meets the road. How do we actually move from
• 14:55
  historical analysis to required action without, you know,
• 14:59
  messing it up? We begin.
• 15:00
  Where all faithful exegesis has to begin in the text's own
• 15:04
  historical reality. So stage 1 is determine the
• 15:06
  original application. The goal here is pretty
• 15:09
  straightforward. You have to figure out how the
• 15:11
  primary audience was supposed to respond to that ilocution we
• 15:14
  just talked about. This step stops us from
• 15:17
  projecting our modern ideas onto ancient texts.
• 15:20
  What are the main? Questions we should be asking
• 15:22
  ourselves in stage one you're asking.
• 15:24
  Was the original audience supposed to respond by obeying a
• 15:27
  command, by following or avoiding a specific example, by
• 15:31
  claiming a promise, or by changing their worldview to
• 15:35
  believe a specific truth? This helps you identify the main
• 15:39
  function of that section of text.
• 15:41
  Let's go back to. That example of the prohibition
• 15:43
  against coveting OK in Exodus. 20 The original application was
• 15:46
  about restraining that internal desire for your neighbor's
• 15:49
  property, and it explicitly lists things like his
• 15:52
  manservant, his ox, or his donkey, right?
• 15:55
  Very. Specific thing Very.
• 15:56
  Specific high value assets that were essential for the economic
• 16:00
  and social stability of an ancient household.
• 16:02
  The original application was do not desire your neighbors
• 16:05
  specific essential possessions, so you anchor.
• 16:08
  The feeling of covetousness to the economic reality of that
• 16:11
  time. Precisely.
• 16:13
  And figuring out that original application leads you directly
• 16:16
  to the next critical step, Stage 2.
• 16:19
  Evaluate the level of specificity and transferability
• 16:23
  this stage. Feels key because it forces us
• 16:25
  to deal with the culture gap. How do we figure out if an
• 16:28
  original application is directly transferable or if it's culture
• 16:32
  bound and we need to translate it?
• 16:34
  We have to rely. On a set of practical diagnostic
• 16:36
  questions, for instance, if the instruction is based on God's
• 16:39
  unchanging character, or on creation ordinances like
• 16:43
  marriage or the prohibition against murder, then the
• 16:45
  application is directly transferable.
• 16:47
  You apply the rule against theft directly.
• 16:49
  You don't have to translate it, but not everything.
• 16:52
  Is like that, no? If the command is tied to a
• 16:54
  specific cultural form or a temporary period in redemptive
• 16:58
  history like the Mosaic law for Israel, or a custom that just
• 17:02
  doesn't carry the same social meaning today like head
• 17:04
  coverings in First Corinthians, then the instruction is non
• 17:07
  transferable and we have to move to stage 3.
• 17:10
  Can you walk us? Through some of those diagnostic
• 17:12
  questions that help us make that call, Absolutely.
• 17:15
  The sources imply several questions you have to ask.
• 17:17
  First, is this commander rooted in the moral character of God,
• 17:21
  which never changes? If yes, it's transferable.
• 17:24
  Second, is this command tied to a unique moment in Redemptive of
• 17:27
  history that's now been fulfilled by Christ, like this
• 17:30
  sacrificial system? If yes, the form is non
• 17:33
  transferable even though the underlying truth about atonement
• 17:36
  remains. And 3rd, is the command just a
• 17:40
  cultural custom being used to express a timeless principle?
• 17:44
  For example, if it involves a type of garment or a ritual
• 17:46
  greeting, that doesn't mean the same thing today.
• 17:49
  The form itself is non transferable.
• 17:51
  Your answers to these questions tell you whether to apply the
• 17:53
  text directly or start principalizing and if we.
• 17:56
  Decide the form is non transferable.
• 17:58
  We get to the really challenging part.
• 18:00
  Stage 3 Identify cross cultural principles.
• 18:03
  This is what the source is called principalizing.
• 18:05
  We're stripping away the temporary expression to find
• 18:07
  that fixed. In doing truth, this is.
• 18:10
  The core intellectual move right here we're identifying the
• 18:13
  spiritual, moral, or theological illusion that goes beyond the
• 18:17
  original cultural setting. And this step requires the most
• 18:21
  diligence, because if you abstract too high, you lose the
• 18:23
  text authority. But if you stay too low, the
• 18:26
  text just stays stuck in the past and it's useless to us.
• 18:30
  This brings up. That critical ladder of
• 18:31
  abstraction warning? We need to elaborate on that.
• 18:34
  How can you avoid generalizing a specific truth into something,
• 18:38
  well, something? So vague it's kind of toothless,
• 18:40
  the warning is. Severe principalizing should
• 18:42
  only climb as high up that ladder as necessary to bridge
• 18:46
  the cultural gap, and no higher. For example, let's look at
• 18:49
  Abraham sacrificing Isaac in Genesis 22.
• 18:52
  The specific act is non transferable.
• 18:54
  God is not telling us to literally sacrifice our
• 18:57
  children. Now if we abstract too broadly,
• 18:59
  we might get a principle like God tests us, sometimes a trust
• 19:02
  in God's sovereignty. And that's true, but it's so
• 19:04
  generic you could get it from almost any story in the Bible.
• 19:07
  It loses the specific authority of Genesis 22.
• 19:10
  So what's a better high confidence principle from that
• 19:13
  text that stays faithful to its specific dynamics?
• 19:17
  We can, actually. Look to the New Testament's own
• 19:19
  inspired commentary for help here.
• 19:21
  Hebrews 11 tells us that Abraham reasoned that God was able to
• 19:25
  raise Isaac even from the dead. So the high confidence principle
• 19:29
  is rooted in a specific theological understanding.
• 19:33
  God requires absolute obedience even when it seems to contradict
• 19:37
  a previous promise, because he is powerful enough to reverse
• 19:40
  death and uphold his covenants. That's much more.
• 19:43
  Specific and powerful, and it's. Authoritative and transferable.
• 19:46
  Let's apply this. Principalizing method to the
• 19:48
  example of gleaning in the Mosaic law, OK.
• 19:50
  The law of gleaning in Leviticus commanded farmers not to harvest
• 19:54
  the very corners of their fields or go back for drop sheaves.
• 19:58
  This was to make sure that the poor, the sojourner, the widow
• 20:00
  had a way to get food right. The form that specific agrarian
• 20:04
  act is non transferable to a modern urban society.
• 20:08
  But the timeless principle is clear.
• 20:10
  Care for the poor and prevent the selfish hoarding of
• 20:12
  resources. That's the elocution and the.
• 20:14
  Significance. Then is the modern functional
• 20:17
  equivalent of that care exactly. For someone living in a city or
• 20:21
  suburb today, the application the significance could be
• 20:25
  supporting a local food bank or actively working to reduce waste
• 20:28
  in our consumer culture, or being involved in corporate acts
• 20:31
  of charity. The original meaning of
• 20:34
  compassionate provision is preserved and fulfilled through
• 20:37
  a totally different action. The other key.
• 20:39
  Example was the early churches struggle with meat sacrificed to
• 20:43
  idols in First Corinthians. That's pretty irrelevant for
• 20:46
  most of us in the West, but the principle is still mandatory,
• 20:50
  right The. Specific cultural conflict.
• 20:52
  Is it OK for a Christian to eat meat sold in the market that
• 20:55
  came from a Pagan temple? That's a non transferable
• 20:58
  cultural form. But the fixed timeless principle
• 21:01
  is this. Exercise your Christian freedom
• 21:04
  in morally neutral practices, but always, always subordinate
• 21:07
  that freedom to the love and conscience of a weaker believer
• 21:10
  so you don't cause him to stumble.
• 21:12
  And that. Principle gets applied to some
• 21:14
  very modern internal church debates all the time.
• 21:17
  The contemporary application, the functional equivalent is
• 21:20
  often seen in issues like the use of alcohol.
• 21:23
  The principle is that drinking is permissible for those with
• 21:26
  Christian liberty, but the application might be total
• 21:30
  moderation or even total abstinence when you're with
• 21:32
  someone who struggles with addiction or a new believer
• 21:35
  whose conscience is offended by it, so the.
• 21:38
  Fixed principal love for your brother dictates the variable
• 21:41
  application exactly your. Personal choice about alcohol is
• 21:44
  governed by that higher principle, so once we.
• 21:47
  Have that cross cultural principle.
• 21:48
  We move to the final step, Stage 4.
• 21:51
  Find appropriate contemporary alications.
• 21:53
  The functional equivalence this last.
• 21:55
  Stage is where we implement that timeless principle in new,
• 21:58
  specific ways that fit our current culture.
• 22:01
  And this requires us to do what the source is called, exegeting
• 22:04
  the culture just as seriously as we exegete the scripture.
• 22:08
  You have to understand the current social architecture to
• 22:10
  find a truly functional equivalent.
• 22:12
  So if. The principle is evangelism in
• 22:14
  the social hub, like we see in Acts 17.
• 22:17
  How does that play out today? Well, in Acts. 17 Paul went to
• 22:20
  the Areopagus in the marketplace.
• 22:22
  Those were the central places for philosophical debate and
• 22:25
  social life. So the principle is, take the
• 22:28
  gospel to the prevailing marketplace of ideas.
• 22:30
  OK, now if we look at the modern world, a shopping mall is not
• 22:34
  the functional equivalent. It's a center of commerce, not
• 22:37
  debate. The true modern marketplace of
• 22:39
  ideas is probably the Internet, college campuses, and
• 22:42
  professional networks. So the application compels us to
• 22:45
  adapt our method. Maybe that's using social media,
• 22:48
  engaging academic thought, or publishing, even though the
• 22:51
  command to evangelize is fixed another.
• 22:54
  Powerful example of that cultural adaptation is the
• 22:57
  ancient safety law in Deuteronomy 22.
• 22:59
  Yeah, Deuteronomy. 22.8 commands you to build a parapet, a low
• 23:03
  railing around the roof of your house.
• 23:05
  That's because ancient roofs were flat and people use them
• 23:07
  for socializing and sleeping. People could easily fall off,
• 23:10
  right? The fixed timeless principle is
• 23:12
  the duty to ensure the physical safety of your family and your
• 23:15
  guests from foreseeable hazards. The application is clearly non
• 23:18
  transferable. Most of us don't hang out on
• 23:20
  flat roofs, but what's the modern?
• 23:22
  Functional equivalent. It's mandatory.
• 23:24
  It means installing smoke detectors, or making sure you're
• 23:26
  wiring a safe, or putting a fence around your pool.
• 23:29
  The form changes completely, but the obedience to the principle
• 23:32
  is preserved. To sum up this.
• 23:34
  Whole 4 stage process. That analogy of adapting a power
• 23:37
  outlet for international travel is really helpful.
• 23:40
  It is. The electrical current itself,
• 23:43
  that invisible force, is the fixed meaning or principle.
• 23:47
  It's constant and powerful. The shape of the original wall
• 23:50
  socket is the ancient cultural context.
• 23:53
  It's specific and it's different from ours.
• 23:55
  I'm the adapter. The adapter.
• 23:56
  Is the process of principalizing.
• 23:58
  It's the mechanism that channels that fixed powerful current
• 24:02
  safely into a modern appliance, which is your application.
• 24:05
  If you don't use the adapter, you just short circuit the whole
• 24:07
  system. This discipline.
• 24:09
  Method is so necessary because application, even though it's
• 24:11
  required, is also filled with dangers.
• 24:15
  The sources list three major pitfalls that happen when people
• 24:18
  fail to follow this kind of systemic approach.
• 24:21
  Yeah, these. Are serious warnings against
• 24:22
  getting lazy with this The 1st and most radical failure is the
• 24:26
  total neglect of context. Some call it the Ouija board
• 24:30
  approach to the Bible. This is when you.
• 24:32
  Bypass the entire interpretive process.
• 24:34
  You just treat the Bible like a magic book for instant personal
• 24:37
  guidance without any regard for what the author meant.
• 24:40
  That's the. Defining feature The reader
• 24:42
  comes to the text believing God is going to speak directly to
• 24:45
  their specific immediate problem with a random verse.
• 24:48
  They pray, they open the Bible with their eyes closed, and they
• 24:51
  point to the first sentence they see and treat it as a divine
• 24:54
  command. And the examples?
• 24:56
  The sources give show just how bizarre and even dangerous this
• 24:59
  could be. Tell us that story about the
• 25:01
  Navy enlistment decision again. Right So.
• 25:03
  This young man is trying to decide on his career, opens his
• 25:07
  Bible randomly and his finger lands on Ezekiel 27.25 which
• 25:11
  says the ships of Tarshish were the carriers of your
• 25:15
  merchandise, and he concludes this is God commanding him to
• 25:18
  join the Navy. The context.
• 25:19
  If he had. Read even one sentence before
• 25:22
  that. He would have realized the text
• 25:24
  is a poetic lament. It's a prophecy about the
• 25:27
  devastating fall and commercial ruin of the city of Tyre.
• 25:30
  It was a judgement, not a command, and certainly not a
• 25:33
  recruitment flyer for a modern military.
• 25:35
  And the case of the. Baseball pitcher is just as bad
• 25:37
  it. Is the team owner was struggling
• 25:40
  with a personal decision so she opens her Bible and reads
• 25:42
  Ezekiel 12.3. Therefore, Son of Man prepare
• 25:47
  these stuff for removing and remove by day in their sight.
• 25:50
  And she claims this was God's orders to fire the pitcher who
• 25:53
  had asked for a raise. Again, the context is completely
• 25:56
  missed. This verse is describing the
• 25:58
  prophet Ezekiel packing a bag to act out an object lesson about
• 26:02
  the coming Babylonian exile. It has absolute 0 relevance to
• 26:06
  human resources in a 21st century sports team.
• 26:09
  This kind of proof. Texting abuse happens even with
• 26:11
  familiar beloved verses, doesn't it?
• 26:13
  Like Philippians 4.13 that verse.
• 26:16
  I can do all things through. Him who strengthens me is
• 26:20
  probably one of the most misused in the entire Bible.
• 26:24
  It gets ripped out of its context to suggest a universal
• 26:26
  guarantee of success in any task, whether that's running a
• 26:30
  marathon without training or winning a business deal against
• 26:32
  all odds. When the.
• 26:34
  Actual context is about contentment.
• 26:36
  It's about. Contentment Paul is reflecting
• 26:38
  on learning to be content, whether he's well fed or hungry,
• 26:41
  rich or poor. The strength Christ gives is for
• 26:44
  endurance and circumstances, not guaranteed success in your
• 26:48
  endeavors. That specific context is total
• 26:50
  neglect. OK, let's move to the second.
• 26:52
  More subtle error, partial neglect of literary or
• 26:56
  historical context. Here the reader tries to do
• 26:59
  exegesis, but they failed to see the larger constraints that
• 27:02
  limit how the text can be applied.
• 27:04
  This is the error you fall into. When you get in the habit of
• 27:06
  reading the Bible in tiny, isolated chunks, one verse at a
• 27:09
  time, you might correctly understand the words in a single
• 27:12
  sentence, but you failed to look before or after it, so you miss
• 27:15
  the specific audience or the cultural framework that
• 27:17
  restricts how broadly that text can be applied.
• 27:20
  The classic example of this is. Jeremiah 29.11, You see that
• 27:23
  verse everywhere. It's the ultimate.
• 27:25
  Example of literary context. Neglect the verse for I know the
• 27:29
  plans I have for you, plans for welfare and not for evil, to
• 27:33
  give you a future and a hope. Sounds like a universal promise
• 27:36
  for your own personal prosperity, right?
• 27:38
  But the literary context is absolutely vital.
• 27:41
  This promise was delivered to the Babylonian exiles, and the
• 27:44
  key restriction is in the verse right before it, Jeremiah 29.0,
• 27:49
  which says the promise will be fulfilled after 70 years of
• 27:51
  exile when the corporate body of Israel is restored to their
• 27:55
  land. So the promise was corporate.
• 27:56
  It was delayed and it was conditioned by 70 years of
• 28:00
  suffering. It wasn't an immediate
• 28:02
  individual guarantee of a comfortable life precisely to.
• 28:05
  Apply that as a guarantee that you specifically will get
• 28:08
  immediate material success or that God plans for you.
• 28:10
  To have 0 suffering is to neglect the huge historical
• 28:14
  weight of the Babylonian exile that the original promise was
• 28:17
  meant to sustain them through, and missing the historical.
• 28:20
  Contest can also be a problem, right?
• 28:22
  Turning a practical custom into a divine universal mandate?
• 28:26
  Yes, exactly. Look at.
• 28:27
  Psalm 127, which praises the man whose quiver is full of them,
• 28:31
  referring to sons. This is often used today as a
• 28:34
  mandate for modern couples to have large families.
• 28:37
  But if we neglect the historical context, we miss the specific
• 28:42
  role sons played in that ancient agrarian society.
• 28:45
  What was that role they provided?
• 28:46
  Military defense. In an age of constant threat,
• 28:49
  they were agricultural labor and, critically, they guaranteed
• 28:52
  the care and legal defense of their elderly parents.
• 28:54
  In a society with no state-run Social Security, the text is
• 28:58
  about ensuring defense and provision in an age of high
• 29:02
  mortality. So the general wisdom.
• 29:04
  That raising godly children is a blessing, That's valid.
• 29:07
  But applying it as a universal mandate to maximize family size
• 29:10
  based on the need for a quiver full of male heirs is historical
• 29:14
  neglect. Right?
• 29:15
  The social structure. Has changed, so the specific
• 29:17
  historical purpose behind that praise is gone.
• 29:20
  The application has to adapt. To insist on the literal
• 29:23
  original requirement ignores how the Spirit intends for
• 29:25
  application to be dynamic across time.
• 29:28
  OK, the third and final. Error is the most subtle.
• 29:31
  It affects readers who are otherwise pretty competent
• 29:33
  interpreters. Insufficiently analogous
• 29:36
  situations. This is the error of confusing
• 29:40
  similar situations with morally identical ones.
• 29:43
  This happens when the interpreter.
• 29:44
  Correctly figures out the fixed meaning, but then applies it to
• 29:48
  a modern situation that isn't really a true parallel to the
• 29:51
  biblical 1. They assume a text that applies
• 29:54
  to one specific type of crisis applies to all superficially
• 29:57
  similar crises. The sources cite the ultimate
• 30:00
  archetype of this error, Satan tempting Jesus, Satan the
• 30:04
  masterproof. Texture exactly when he's
• 30:06
  tempting. Jesus to throw himself off the
• 30:08
  temple. Satan correctly quotes Psalm 91,
• 30:10
  which promises divine protection.
• 30:13
  He will command his angels concerning you to guard you in
• 30:15
  all your ways. The meaning of the Psalm is
• 30:18
  correct. God protects his faithful people
• 30:20
  from unintentional harm, but Satan misapplied it completely.
• 30:24
  What was the breakdown? The analogy.
• 30:25
  Satan applied a promise. Of protection against
• 30:28
  unintentional stumbling, which is the context of the Psalm, to
• 30:32
  a situation of deliberate presumption upon God's power.
• 30:36
  Jesus was being tempted to manufacture a crisis just to
• 30:39
  test God. That situation was not analogous
• 30:42
  to what the psalmist intended, so the principle doesn't apply.
• 30:45
  The principle of Divine. Protection applies to faithful
• 30:47
  living. It doesn't apply to self created
• 30:50
  unnecessary risks that you take specifically to demand a miracle
• 30:54
  and this subtle error happens. A lot in modern church settings,
• 30:57
  doesn't it? Especially with something like
• 30:59
  the common use of Matthew 18.20. Oh, absolutely that.
• 31:02
  Passage for where two or three are gathered in my name, there
• 31:05
  am I among them is used almost universally today to assure
• 31:09
  small prayer groups of Jesus presence.
• 31:11
  And while the theological principle that Christ is
• 31:13
  omnipresent is true, applying this specific verse here is an
• 31:16
  insufficient analogy. It misses the precise judicial
• 31:20
  context. So what is the true literary?
• 31:22
  Context of Matthew 18.20 if you just read the surrounding.
• 31:25
  Verses Matthew 18.14 to 17. The entire passage is about the
• 31:31
  rigorous step by step process of church discipline.
• 31:34
  The two or three refers specifically to the minimum
• 31:38
  number of judicial witnesses required to establish proof and
• 31:41
  ratify a decision about a sinning brother.
• 31:44
  It's a legal requirement. It's a.
• 31:45
  Highly specific. Legally focused context
• 31:48
  referencing back to the requirements and Deuteronomy.
• 31:51
  So to take that specific judicial requirement and
• 31:54
  generalize it to all small Christian gatherings is a
• 31:57
  classic case of applying rules from one domain to a situation
• 32:01
  that is analogous but distinct. The application is insane.
• 32:04
  Insufficient. Wow, that distinction alone.
• 32:07
  Just highlights the care that's required in this whole process
• 32:10
  to bring these three areas together.
• 32:12
  Total neglect, partial neglect, and insufficient analogy.
• 32:15
  Let's use that map analogy one last time.
• 32:17
  Sure, Total neglect is like. Pointing blindly to a map of,
• 32:20
  say, Paris while you're standing in Chicago and expecting the
• 32:23
  streets to match up, You're just ignoring the geographical and
• 32:26
  historical location of the text. Partial neglect is like using an
• 32:29
  old map of Chicago from 1890 to find a bridge that was torn down
• 32:33
  50 years ago. You use some context, but you
• 32:35
  ignored the updated reality that the historical and literary
• 32:38
  constraints that limit the texts current application and
• 32:42
  insufficient analogy is like trying to use a map of the city
• 32:46
  sewer system to plan a road trip.
• 32:48
  Both are maps, both are true, but the specific rules and
• 32:51
  features of one domain can't be transferred to the other without
• 32:54
  leading you completely astray. This deep dive has really.
• 32:57
  Shown us that obedience starts not with some random feeling,
• 33:01
  but with discipline, theological thought.
• 33:03
  We started by confirming the mandate for active obedience,
• 33:06
  recognizing that interpretation is just insufficient without
• 33:09
  application. Then we laid that necessary
• 33:12
  groundwork by insisting that the single fixed fistance, meaning
• 33:16
  the author's elocution, has to absolutely control the variable
• 33:20
  significance which is our contemporary application and
• 33:22
  most critically. We provided that four stage
• 33:25
  methodology needed to bridge the ancient texts to your modern
• 33:28
  life, determining the original response, evaluating its
• 33:32
  transferability, identifying the timeless principle, and finally
• 33:36
  finding the functional equivalent for today.
• 33:38
  And that process acts. As the guardrail against those 3
• 33:41
  common pitfalls that lead to misusing scripture, it does.
• 33:45
  There's one. Final.
• 33:46
  Vital observation for the sources we should revisit.
• 33:49
  Because application or significance can legitimately
• 33:53
  vary by individual circumstances and cultural contexts, we have
• 33:56
  to exercise a deep tolerance among fellow believers, even
• 34:00
  when we all derive different applications from the exact same
• 34:03
  fixed meaning. That's the necessary.
• 34:05
  Conclusion of this whole framework.
• 34:06
  We saw it in that discussion about alcohol consumption,
• 34:09
  right? It's derived from the fixed
• 34:10
  principle of loving the weaker brother.
• 34:12
  From Pers Corinthians. One person may be compelled by
• 34:14
  that principle to exercise their freedom in moderation, another
• 34:18
  might be compelled to abstain entirely in certain settings,
• 34:20
  and both can be legitimate. Both applications are.
• 34:23
  Legitimate ways of honoring the fixed principle, even though
• 34:26
  they result in opposite actions. So we have to demand diligence
• 34:30
  and study to find the fixed meaning, but we must exercise
• 34:33
  humility and patience toward others when we're evaluating the
• 34:36
  variable significance with all of that in mind.
• 34:39
  Let me leave you with a final thought to reflect on.
• 34:42
  We noted that effective application requires exegeting
• 34:45
  the culture as much as exegeting the Scripture.
• 34:49
  If the New Testament apostles consistently found ways to
• 34:51
  preach in the marketplace of ideas, the Areopagus, the
• 34:54
  synagogues, the public squares to engage their culture, what is
• 34:58
  the true functional equivalent of the marketplace for you
• 35:00
  today? And how does the unchanging
• 35:02
  command to share the faith compel you to adapt your
• 35:05
  methods, your language, and your platform to reach that modern
• 35:09
  arena will leave you to discern what your personalized
• 35:11
  functional equivalent should be.