Why be a teacher?

There may be no more frequent title by which the Lord Jesus Christ was addressed than that of "Teacher". To the common people, to the disciples, even to the very highest teachers of Israel He was a Teacher, if in that last case a disruptive, unmanageable, confrontational, uncompromising One.

Amazingly, in every generation and corner of the world He has called His disciples, those who call Him Teacher and Lord, to be teachers themselves. To teach His Scriptures, His Word, the Bible, then, is to seek to be a thoroughgoing disciple of the Teacher, and to be like Him when we are fully trained (Matt. 10:24-25). This endeavor will subject us to unholy harassment and insults (Matt. 10:25b.) And James, Lord Jesus Christ's own family member, warns of a different, holy cost to a teaching ministry, that of stricter judgment before God (James 3:1-2.)

So what's your reason for wanting to be a teacher?
And what do you want to get out of a class on teaching?

This is not the only way to teach the Bible, nor is it necessarily the best. It is, however, a method that in my experience is effective, faithful to the Scriptures, and, insofar as it goes, consistent with Lord Jesus Christ's own teaching methods.

• A Foundational Bible Teaching Framework
     Understanding Scripture's character; introducing a framework of effective teaching skills
• Personal Teaching Preparation Scripture Study
     Reading the Bible, studying and applying the Bible text, building questions
• Observational and Literary Interpretation Tools
     Observation's 4 C Interpretation Rules; Basic Literary Interpretation Rules
• Logic Inference Interpretation Tools
     Correctly detecting and interpreting the Bible's widespread use of logic inferences
• The Learning Environment
     Active listening skills, group dynamics, letting the Holy Spirit teach
• Discussion Facilitation
     Silence, yielding control, thinking on your feet, helping conceptual connections happen
• Interpretive Discernment
     Building strong thinking skills in seeing and making correct logic inferences
• Logic Fallacies
     Seeing and correcting common fallacies in Bible study
• A course wrapup and Supplemental Materials
     A brief course summary and a few significant quotations from well-known Bible scholars
• A Hebrews 12 Logic Trainer for use during the course

My essential views about the Bible and truth, in abbreviated form:

• I am a layman with no formal theological training, just lifelong careful Bible reading and study
• I hold truth to be absolute, not relative or subject to human modification
• I hold to the plenary inerrancy, infallibility and verbal inspiration of the Bible alone
• I hold orthodox, conservative views on Christian doctrine as the Bible reveals it
• I hold to the Bible's comprehensive description of God's attributes throughout its text
• I believe that the God Who breathed out the Scriptures safeguards the work of translation
• I hold the Bible to be understandable as normal human literature by God's gracious provision
• I hold all Bible content to be equally important, without any hierarchy of relevance or value
• I am grateful for godly scholarly theology over the centuries that holds the gate against error
• I repudiate any theology that to preserve its conclusions mistreats even one word of the Bible
• I hold to J. I. Packer's precept: in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity

Spiritual History: I was raised in Portland, Oregon where at the age of 14 Christ communicated very clearly to me His sacrifice for me in person, by name, and that He was calling me to follow Him as my Savior and King. Throughout my life I've done that steadily but very, very imperfectly. More on that below.

Professional History: After getting a Physics degree in college I worked as an industrial physicist and freelance technical trainer in the electronics industry until my job was eliminated in a mass layoff. Afterward I ran a web design business from which I retired in 2021.

Teaching History: My first public speaking event was in an oratorical contest in 7th grade, and they haven't been able to shut me up since. Besides professional public speaking and training, I had the deep privilege as a layperson to teach the Scriptures at First Baptist Church of Corvallis for twenty years. Shortly after becoming a believer as a teenager, I began to study NT Greek as a hobby. It has remained a hobby: after long years of self-study I can provide some accurate conclusions about the NT Greek text, but I am not formally trained. Check my work!

A Personal Note: I have lived a respectable, honorable life by all earthly measures. So, no doubt, have all of you. But inside we know better, don't we? I know better. Only the Lord Jesus Christ could redeem and make something of this respectable, honorable life of mine that, even after Christ claimed me for Himself, has been filled with sin, disobedience, self-centeredness and wrongdoing, and use that life for His purposes. And I cost Him His life to do it. That is why I love and teach His Scriptures. How about you?

Matthew 7:21-27 (NASB)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”

What is the Bible claiming for itself, its nature and characteristics, in these verses?

Discuss some specific implications of the statements in these passages:

"Inspiration is that concurrent act of the Holy Spirit and a human author (fallen) whereby the Holy Spirit so moves the human author
that God gets exactly what he wants without destroying or overwhelming the personality of the human author.
The resulting text is simultaneously divine and human."

Dr. Todd Miles
Professor of Theology
Program Director, Master of Theology Program
Western Seminary
Pastor of Teaching
Gresham Bible Church

Used by permission

Every passage of the Bible, whether Old or New Testaments, has two authors' names associated with it. The first name varies between books across the Bible, from Moses to Zechariah to Mark to John to Paul and all the rest. The second name is always the same person, the Holy Spirit.

No, with extremely rare (and always identifiable) exceptions, they do not differ. The Holy Spirit's work to inspire the human author meant that the human author's meaning was the same as the Holy Spirit's intended meaning.

This may seem obvious or tautological but is significant: the target audience for any given text of the Bible is the person or persons the author had in mind as the recipient when writing the content of the text.

Based on the answer to the previous question, this is asking whether the human author and the Holy Spirit had exactly the same target audience in mind for every text in the Bible. The answer to that is clearly "No." So the human author's intended audience and the Holy Spirit's intended audience will always differ in this way:

For the human author, the audience intended by the author will often be stated explicitly and concretely in the book or letter. If it isn't stated explicitly and concretely, the human author's intended audience in a more abstract and general form can be discovered from the internal content and, to a lesser degree, the historical context of the book.

For example, we can easily determine Paul's intended audience for his first letter to the Corinthians: he tells us this in the letter's greeting. Moses's intended audience for the book of Exodus, while not stated concretely, was clearly the nation of Israel, to provide a record of God's work on their behalf for all future generations.

For the divine author, that is, the Holy Spirit, we can see that the Bible's claims to be God's Word, and the implications of that total claim, indicate that all of humanity at all times and in all places and cultures are the Holy Spirit's intended audience. That always includes us, obviously.

Here is the significance of this: while we must always interpret any text in light of the human author's intended audience, it is even more important that we interpret the text in light of the Holy Spirit's intention that we hear, understand and follow what God is saying to us in every text we read, since we are always the Holy Spirit's intended audience.

Clearly the Holy Spirit will claim and exercise the right to apply His Word to my life or anyone's life however He sees fit, and is not constrained by some artificial requirement to match any other application He is pleased to make in anyone else's life. Lord Jesus Christ's post-resurrection comment to Peter about John reflects that reality: So Peter, upon seeing him, *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” Jesus *said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” (John 21:21-22).

We must first understand the human author's meaning for any text in light of the author's intended audience. The human author's intended audience is an important factor (though not above linguistic factors) in understanding the author's intended meaning.

Once we have our best understanding of that meaning, we are prepared to place ourselves in the proper relationship to that text and its meaning as the Holy Spirit's audience for that content. We are always to ask, what does the Holy Spirit want us specifically to learn from this text today?

1 Thess. 5:1-3

Now as to the periods and times, brothers and sisters, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord is coming just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction will come upon them like labor pains upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

Why might Paul have written these words highlighted in yellow? He seems to deny the need to do so in the very words themselves. One possible reason is that Paul is merely reminding them of what they already know. Does this fit with the meaning of Paul's statements?

There is another possibility, one that does not exclude the first explanation but coexists beautifully with it, and that is straight out of the palette of literary technique ancient and modern.

Frequently in television or movies, there will be dialogue in which one person makes some statement, and the second person responds, with a degree of irritation, "I'm perfectly aware of that!" or something similar. What possible purpose in the story could that dialogue even have? What could one person's statement of something already well-known to the other do for the storyline? The answer is not hard to see: the first person's statement is intended to inform you, the story's intended audience, who does not know what was being stated. The other person didn't need to know it, but for the sake of the story's plot and purpose, you the audience did!

Now, we cannot make that square with author Paul's intended audience for this comment: his intended audience is the Thessalonians, no more no less, and by his very words he declares and acknowledges that they do not need to be informed by his words.

So are there any other ways to make this second possibility also explain the motive for this text's writing? What missing pieces of the puzzle could make this second possibility fit like a glove? What readers of 1 Thessalonians do need to be informed of this content? And who would be doing the informing of those readers?

So you see that dual authorship, human and Divine, reveals itself not just through the canonical assertions of the Scriptures concerning their nature, but also in the warp and woof of the ordinary sayings and statements throughout the Scriptures themselves.

But don't take my word for it, see for yourself:

SBL Greek NT ca. AD 90

16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλὰ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

17 οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ’ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ.

Luther Bibel AD 1545

16 Also hat Gott die Welt geliebt, daß er seinen eingeborenen Sohn gab, auf daß alle, die an ihn glauben, nicht verloren werden, sondern das ewige Leben haben.

17 Denn Gott hat seinen Sohn nicht gesandt in die Welt, daß er die Welt richte, sondern daß die Welt durch ihn selig werde.

NASB ca. AD 1995

16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.


17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him.

Some beginning guidelines and requirements our interpretation process must follow and meet:

1) Interpret the human author's text faithfully according to normal literary interpretation rules (to be discussed further in an upcoming class)

2) Explicitly recognize God the Holy Spirit as the Divine author of the entire text of the Bible and specifically of the passage under study

3) Test our interpretation of the human author's meaning for consistency against God's verbal-inspiration authorship

4) present this interpretation for the Holy Spirit's current application to our lives and our class participants' lives

Whole-Bible Teaching and a new approach to Defending the Scriptures

Whole-Bible Teaching collects and applies the Bible's relevant truth and wisdom to topics that the Bible does not address directly. It uses a definite process of reviewing Scripture and humbly considering its implications for specific issues or questions in our experience in order to enable us to make informed decisions about those issues.

Defending the Scriptures: This apologetics approach makes room for the Bible to defend itself by showing how it provides the only self-consistent universal context for truth and then supplies that matching truth.

How would you describe the Lord Jesus Christ's teaching approach in this passage?

Mark 8:27-30 (NASB) Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?” They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And He continued questioning them: “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and *said to Him, “You are the Christ.” And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

· Where did Jesus get the material He was teaching?
· Was Jesus clear and direct here, or was he obscure, and why?
· Who was the Lord Jesus Christ's intended audience? Was there an additional audience who heard, or not?
· What form(s) of discourse did Jesus use: statement, question, command, discussion, inferential argument, or some other form?
· Did Jesus speak abstractly or concretely?
· What did Jesus select as His teaching venue for this session, and why?
· What present-day teaching environment does this resemble to you?

Let's identify some characteristics that describe the Lord Jesus Christ's teaching approach in this passage

Mt. 5:1-12 (NASB) Now when Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. And He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the gentle, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God...."

· Where did Jesus get the material He was teaching?
· Was Jesus clear and direct here, or was he obscure, and why?
· Who was the Lord Jesus Christ's intended audience? Was there an additional audience who heard, or not?
· What form(s) of discourse did Jesus use: statement, question, command, discussion, inferential argument, or some other form?
· Did Jesus speak abstractly or concretely?
· What did Jesus select as His teaching venue for this session, and why?
· What present-day teaching environment does this resemble to you?

How would you describe the Lord Jesus Christ's teaching approach in this passage?

Luke 18:1-8: Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not become discouraged, saying, "In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect any person. Now there was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, ‘Give me justice against my opponent.’ For a while he was unwilling; but later he said to himself, ‘Even though I do not fear God nor respect any person, yet because this widow is bothering me, I will give her justice; otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.’” And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unrighteous judge *said; now, will God not bring about justice for His elect who cry out to Him day and night, and will He delay long for them? I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly.”

· Where did Jesus get the material He was teaching?
· Was Jesus clear and direct here, or was he obscure, and why?
· Who was the Lord Jesus Christ's intended audience? Was there an additional audience who heard, or not?
· What form(s) of discourse did Jesus use: statement, question, command, discussion, inferential argument, or some other form?
· Did Jesus speak abstractly or concretely?
· What did Jesus select as His teaching venue for this session, and why?
· What present-day teaching environment does this resemble to you?

Finally, how would you describe the Lord Jesus Christ's teaching approach in this passage?

John 9:35-41: Jesus heard that they had put him [the blind man Jesus had just healed] out [of the synagogue], and upon finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered by saying, “And who is He, Sir, that I may believe in Him?” Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.” And he said, “I believe, Lord.” And he worshiped Him. And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Those who were with Him from the Pharisees heard these things and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now that you maintain, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.

· Where did Jesus get the material He was teaching?
· Was Jesus clear and direct here, or was he obscure, and why?
· Who was the Lord Jesus Christ's intended audience? Was there an additional audience who heard, or not?
· What form(s) of discourse did Jesus use: statement, question, command, discussion, inferential argument, or some other form?
· Did Jesus speak abstractly or concretely?
· What did Jesus select as His teaching venue for this session, and why?
· What present-day teaching environment does this resemble to you?

Some questions to answer as you prepare to teach:

· Where will you get the material you will be teaching?
· How will you determine the level of clarity or obscurity you will need to use?
· How will you identify your intended audience?
· How will you recognize and adapt to the presence of any audiences you did not intend?
· What form(s) of discourse will you use: statement, question, command, discussion, inferential argument, or some other form, and when will you use each?
· When will you speak abstractly and when concretely?
· How will you select a venue for your teaching, or adapt to the venue available?
· What teaching environment will best suit your teaching objective?

In this course we will be presenting ways to teach as Jesus taught His disciples (as in our second example.) Just as we asked probing questions to think clearly and in detail about His methods, we will need to think deeply and well about both the big picture and critical details of our own approaches as we work to teach as Jesus did.

It's just like tying your shoes.

What's the critical step, the crucial moment, in the process of tying your shoe? (I know, some of you will say, "combing the cat hair out of the velcro.") But if your laces come untied and your shoe starts to come off, it's almost certainly because you got sloppy on one step. What step is that?

Normally, it doesn't matter. You just stop, reach down, and tie your shoe again.

But it's a completely different situation if you're halfway up a free-climb of a 100-foot rock face. Then the mistake could become a matter of life and death.

So why study the "tiny" details of teaching preparation and delivery like semantic range of words, precise logic, Scripture's five main inference words, the limits of context, and so on?

Because teaching the Bible is teaching a book that saves both lives and souls.

It's the literary equivalent of that 100-foot free climb. Mistakes in the details of the process of teaching God's Word can be deeply costly to your hearers and also to you. So we'll try hard in this course to ensure ourselves that we're teaching the Bible faithfully and in a way that allows us all to hear what our Teacher and Lord wants us to learn.

I Thessalonians

1:1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.

2 We always give thanks to God for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers; 3 constantly keeping in mind your work of faith and labor of love and perseverance of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father, 4 knowing, brothers and sisters, beloved by God, His choice of you; 5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sakes. 6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word during great affliction with the joy of the Holy Spirit, 7 so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia.

8 For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place the news of your faith toward God has gone out, so that we have no need to say anything. 9 For they themselves report about us as to the kind of reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is, Jesus who rescues us from the wrath to come.

2:1 For you yourselves know, brothers and sisters, that our reception among you was not in vain, 2 but after we had already suffered and been treated abusively in Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel of God amid much opposition. 3 For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; 4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not intending to please people, but to please God, who examines our hearts.

9 For you recall, brothers and sisters, our labor and hardship: it was by working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, that we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. 10 You are witnesses, and so is God, of how devoutly and rightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers; 11 just as you know how we were exhorting and encouraging and imploring each one of you as a father would his own children, 12 so that you would walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory.

13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of mere men, but as what it really is, the word of God, which also is at work in you who believe. 14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all people, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always reach the limit of their sins. But wrath has come upon them fully.

17 But we, brothers and sisters, having been orphaned from you by absence for a short while—in person, not in spirit—were all the more eager with great desire to see your face. 18 For we wanted to come to you—I, Paul, more than once—and Satan hindered us. 19 For who is our hope, or joy or crown of pride, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming? Or is it not indeed you? 20 For you are our glory and joy.

3:1 Therefore, when we could no longer endure it, we thought it best to be left behind, alone at Athens, 2 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s fellow worker in the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you for the benefit of your faith, 3 so that no one would be disturbed by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we have been destined for this. 4 For even when we were with you, we kept telling you in advance that we were going to suffer affliction; and so it happened, as you know. 5 For this reason, when I could no longer endure it, I also sent to find out about your faith, for fear that the tempter might have tempted you, and our labor would be for nothing.

6 But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and has brought us good news of your faith and love, and that you always think kindly of us, longing to see us just as we also long to see you, 7 for this reason, brothers and sisters, in all our distress and affliction we were comforted about you through your faith; 8 for now we really live, if you stand firm in the Lord. 9 For what thanks can we give to God for you in return for all the joy with which we rejoice because of you before our God, 10 as we keep praying most earnestly night and day that we may see your faces, and may complete what is lacking in your faith?

11 Now may our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you; 12 and may the Lord cause you to increase and overflow in love for one another, and for all people, just as we also do for you; 13 so that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.

4:1 Finally then, brothers and sisters, we request and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received instruction from us as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you excel even more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 and that no one violate the rights and take advantage of his brother or sister in the matter, because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you previously and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in sanctification. 8 Therefore, the one who rejects this is not rejecting man, but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.

9 Now as to the love of the brothers and sisters, you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another; 10 for indeed you practice it toward all the brothers and sisters who are in all Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers and sisters, to excel even more, 11 and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we instructed you, 12 so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as indeed the rest of mankind do, who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead, so also God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. 15 For we say this to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore, comfort one another with these words.

5:1 Now as to the periods and times, brothers and sisters, you have no need of anything to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord is coming just like a thief in the night. 3 While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction will come upon them like labor pains upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness, so that the day would overtake you like a thief; 5 for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; 6 so then, let’s not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who are drunk, get drunk at night. 8 But since we are of the day, let’s be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation. 9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. 11 Therefore, encourage one another and build one another up, just as you also are doing.

12 But we ask you, brothers and sisters, to recognize those who diligently labor among you and are in leadership over you in the Lord, and give you instruction, 13 and that you regard them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another. 14 We urge you, brothers and sisters, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone. 15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek what is good for one another and for all people. 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not quench the Spirit, 20 do not utterly reject prophecies, 21 but examine everything; hold firmly to that which is good, 22 abstain from every form of evil.

23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will do it. 25 Brothers and sisters, pray for us. 26 Greet all the brothers and sisters with a holy kiss. 27 I put you under oath by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers and sisters. 28 May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

I Thessalonians

1:1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.

2 We always give thanks to God for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers; 3 constantly keeping in mind your work of faith and labor of love and perseverance of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father, 4 knowing, brothers and sisters, beloved by God, His choice of you; 5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sakes. 6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word during great affliction with the joy of the Holy Spirit, 7 so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia.

8 For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place the news of your faith toward God has gone out, so that we have no need to say anything. 9 For they themselves report about us as to the kind of reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is, Jesus who rescues us from the wrath to come.

2:1 For you yourselves know, brothers and sisters, that our reception among you was not in vain, 2 but after we had already suffered and been treated abusively in Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel of God amid much opposition. 3 For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; 4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not intending to please people, but to please God, who examines our hearts.

9 For you recall, brothers and sisters, our labor and hardship: it was by working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, that we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. 10 You are witnesses, and so is God, of how devoutly and rightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers; 11 just as you know how we were exhorting and encouraging and imploring each one of you as a father would his own children, 12 so that you would walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory.

13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of mere men, but as what it really is, the word of God, which also is at work in you who believe. 14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all people, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always reach the limit of their sins. But wrath has come upon them fully.

17 But we, brothers and sisters, having been orphaned from you by absence for a short while—in person, not in spirit—were all the more eager with great desire to see your face. 18 For we wanted to come to you—I, Paul, more than once—and Satan hindered us. 19 For who is our hope, or joy or crown of pride, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming? Or is it not indeed you? 20 For you are our glory and joy.

3:1 Therefore, when we could no longer endure it, we thought it best to be left behind, alone at Athens, 2 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s fellow worker in the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you for the benefit of your faith, 3 so that no one would be disturbed by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we have been destined for this. 4 For even when we were with you, we kept telling you in advance that we were going to suffer affliction; and so it happened, as you know. 5 For this reason, when I could no longer endure it, I also sent to find out about your faith, for fear that the tempter might have tempted you, and our labor would be for nothing.

6 But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and has brought us good news of your faith and love, and that you always think kindly of us, longing to see us just as we also long to see you, 7 for this reason, brothers and sisters, in all our distress and affliction we were comforted about you through your faith; 8 for now we really live, if you stand firm in the Lord. 9 For what thanks can we give to God for you in return for all the joy with which we rejoice because of you before our God, 10 as we keep praying most earnestly night and day that we may see your faces, and may complete what is lacking in your faith?

11 Now may our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you; 12 and may the Lord cause you to increase and overflow in love for one another, and for all people, just as we also do for you; 13 so that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.

4:1 Finally then, brothers and sisters, we request and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received instruction from us as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you excel even more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 and that no one violate the rights and take advantage of his brother or sister in the matter, because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you previously and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in sanctification. 8 Therefore, the one who rejects this is not rejecting man, but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.

9 Now as to the love of the brothers and sisters, you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another; 10 for indeed you practice it toward all the brothers and sisters who are in all Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers and sisters, to excel even more, 11 and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we instructed you, 12 so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as indeed the rest of mankind do, who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead, so also God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. 15 For we say this to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore, comfort one another with these words.

5:1 Now as to the periods and times, brothers and sisters, you have no need of anything to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord is coming just like a thief in the night. 3 While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction will come upon them like labor pains upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness, so that the day would overtake you like a thief; 5 for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; 6 so then, let’s not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who are drunk, get drunk at night. 8 But since we are of the day, let’s be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation. 9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. 11 Therefore, encourage one another and build one another up, just as you also are doing.

12 But we ask you, brothers and sisters, to recognize those who diligently labor among you and are in leadership over you in the Lord, and give you instruction, 13 and that you regard them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another. 14 We urge you, brothers and sisters, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone. 15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek what is good for one another and for all people. 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not quench the Spirit, 20 do not utterly reject prophecies, 21 but examine everything; hold firmly to that which is good, 22 abstain from every form of evil.

23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will do it. 25 Brothers and sisters, pray for us. 26 Greet all the brothers and sisters with a holy kiss. 27 I put you under oath by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers and sisters. 28 May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Putting Scripture in your own words is a necessary, nonoptional step for you and any teacher. Why? Because it is the step that delivers your first and possibly best understanding of the author's intended meaning. That understanding is the entire reason you study the text.

But there's an important but apparently trivial distinction to make. Are we asking you to paraphrase the text? No. You are not paraphrasing the text, you are putting it into your own words.

What's the difference, you ask? Ownership. Anybody can produce a paraphrase, and it's a paraphrase to them, to you, and to everyone else. But only you can put something in your own words. No one else can do that.

So inherent in this step of putting it into your own words must be a great sense of responsibility for accuracy and truthfulness on your part. Scripture warns severely against handling its content in an irresponsible or even merely negligent way.

This responsibility is clearly stated in James 3:1-2, and as a teacher the Scripture itself promises that you will be judged by God regarding how you handled His Word.

Inspiration versus inference: When you put the text in your own words, you are performing a logic inference of the form, "If the author writes [the text under study] then the author means [my restatement in my own words]." The Scripture is inspired ("God-breathed") and inerrant; your restatement is not. You must never lose mental track of this distinction any time you put Scripture in your own words.

But on the other hand, it bears repeating that putting Scripture in your own words is a necessary, nonoptional step for you and any teacher. Why? Because it is the step that delivers your first and possibly best understanding of the author's intended meaning. That understanding is the entire reason you study the text.

But in a sense, as a teacher you're between a rock and a hard place. You may not skip this step. if you neglect this step, or even just perform it casually or without adequate focus and attention, you invalidate the entire process of studying the text.

Broader Theme	Text references
Thessalonians' receptivity to God's Word	1:6, 1:9, 2:1, 2:13, 3:8
Paul's concern about his relationship with the Thessalonians	2:1-20, 3:6 (inferred in 1:2, 3:7-10)
Christ's return	1:10, 3:13, 4:13-18, 5:1-11, 5:23
Satan's tactics and efforts	2:14-16, 2:18, 3:3-5
Going forward from the church's strengths	1:2, 1:6, 4:1, 5:12-22

Why recommend against building a provisional controlling purpose for an entire letter or book or Gospel account?

A provisional controlling purpose comes from the final step in extracting themes from larger and larger portions of a Bible book, and produces what is considered the author's single overall theme of the book.

Many exegesis training resources recommend this step, but my first concern is that the step stretches our trust in our exegetical abilities beyond a reasonable limit

Beyond even this, however, the idea of building a provisional controlling purpose has a serious logic flaw: it requires the existence of such a single overarching theme in every human author's plan for every Bible book written. But there is nothing to prevent an author from composing a book with two or even more top-level purposes, and often this is not only desirable but necessary in normal human communication. So the assumption behind this exegetical step seems unreliable.

There is no prohibition against attempting to discern such a provisional controlling purpose for a book of the Bible, but if this is attempted, the most stringent tests of the validity of the conclusion, more stringent than any other Interpretive step, must be rigorously applied without failure or error.

The stakes are extremely high: if a faulty provisional controlling purpose is obtained, and then applied (as is its purpose) to the entire text beneath it, every portion of that text may be corruptly modified to a greater or lesser degree, rendering the entire interpretation effort useless.

· Provide context with maps from Acts for Paul’s first visit to Thessalonica, and also his situation when this letter is written

· Which missionary journey founded this church? Where was his team when he sent Timothy (3:1)? Who was with him at the time? Where are they when Timothy has returned and Paul writes this letter? Are they under persecution? (3:7) Who's on the team?

· How does Timothy's return and report fuel the content of this letter?

· Establish how long from visit to letter to assess how much time the Ts had to travel and spread the Gospel

· Evaluate the cultural changes in that timeframe (was the famine over or ahead? which missionary journey? etc.)

· Review the Jewish opposition to Paul’s ministry in prep for 2:14ff

· Review the inter-city and inter-journey timing of Paul's missionary work to assess whether he held those planted churches loosely or tightly (2:17-20 questions)

· How long was it from Christ's resurrection to the date of this letter, as it reflects the question of how long it would be until Christ's return? (4:13-18)

What do we mean by "facts" and which of these are "key facts"? First, facts are not putting the text in our own words: they are somewhat looser than that. They are our own more abstract but carefully-true factual observations about the text. They do not involve any significant interpretation. "Key" facts are those facts which clearly tie in to themes you have observed in the rest of the book or just in the lesson text. But first you must identify the larger set of facts, whether or not they are key facts.

Some overall facts we can observe in 1:2-7 include, for example, that Paul expresses a highly-positive attitude toward the Thessalonians; he recognizes God's election of the Thessalonian believers; he reveals that he has gotten feedback from others about the Thessalonians while he has been separated from them, and so on.

Among all the facts you observe in the lesson text, identify for yourself the key facts in the lesson text based on both the text and also on your overall reading of the book. Here are two examples:

  1. Paul is practicing a high, even extreme, level of prayer for every one of the Thessalonians individually. Note for yourself why this a key fact: in your preparation by an initial careful reading of the entire book of I Thessalonians you will have noticed that Paul has been deeply concerned about the Thessalonians (see 3:1-5) and desperately trying to visit them and check on their spiritual health. You will want to bring out the above fact in 1:2 now to help the group connect it later with Paul's concern for their spiritual health, and tie these very first verses to that major theme of the book. (This also helps avoid the quick and lazy-thinking conclusion that Paul's statements are mere exaggerations, which regrettably I have heard one Bible teacher imply.)

  2. Paul states his attitude in prayer for them to be a constant mental focus on their outstanding spiritual life and health. Note again for yourself why this a key fact: Paul is thrilled at their spiritual maturity, growth and character as a church and as individuals; yet later he expresses the great worries he has had about them as mentioned above. This contrast represents a tension that promises to help shed light on the overall letter throughout the study.

Instead of stating what are the facts in the text, you will want to use closed questions you have developed beforehand that lead the group to observe those facts for themselves.

What is a "closed" question? A closed question is a question that has a definite right or wrong answer. In a group it's a question useful for helping the group get their heads around the text and grasp its basic factual content.

Tip on constructing closed questions: Closed questions will ask, "What is...", "Who are....", "What does...." and similar indicative questions, using helper verbs like "is" and "does" to indicate you're looking for a specific answer.

In your preparation plan, construct and write down basic closed questions whose answers lead the group to state those important facts.

After your closed-question discussion helps the class becomes familiar with the basic factual content of the text under study, then you will want to use open questions you have developed beforehand. These open questions will enable the group to discover truth from the text themselves instead of hearing it from you in lecture mode. Open questions are necessary to this step, since they are a key tool to open people's receptiveness to the Holy Spirit's teaching.

What is an "open" question?

An "open" question is a question without a right or wrong answer, although technically it may have a possible or impossible answer. In a group it's a question useful for prompting the group to do extended thinking and careful consideration of the text's implications and discuss the results.

Tip on constructing open questions: Open ques­tions will ask, "What might....", "Who could....", "What would possibly....", using the helper verbs like "could" or "might" to ex­press a degree of possibility and uncertainty allowed in the answer to the question.

Open questions have two important functions in discussion. One is easy, the other is harder to accomplish.

The easy function is to simply give the group permission to share whatever ideas and thoughts they have about the passage. This is always very valuable and should be pursued at every good opportunity.

The second, harder function of an open question is to avoid a facilitation "no-no" called a "leading question" while still obtaining a leading question's benefits.

There are times when you want your participants to see a subtle point or recognize an insight just below the surface of the passage. A leading question in this instance will quash discussion and make it very hard to restart.

But a properly-constructed open question will leave lots of scope for individuals to give a range of answers, and at the same time maximize the chance that the question will draw them to the insight that's not immediately obvious. The way this is done is to make the question just abstract enough to not show your hand that you have a hoped-for answer, but concrete enough that it might suggest the hoped-for answer to some participants.

This can also be made more likely by a series of open questions that together provide a "logical-argument-by-suggestion" and can bring out the insight. One example insight: the discovery that the writing of Paul's letter to the Thessalonians happened because Satan blocked Paul's travel to Thessalonica, and as a result, 1 Thessalonians became part of the canon and as God's Word taught believers for twenty centuries, no doubt to Satan's great frustration.

Additional examples of closed questions:

Examples of open questions:

Here is an example Text Lesson Plan from the class on 1 Thessalonians we've been referencing. The plan is for a different lesson text in the book to widen our range of examples. The full course text lesson plan set is available in the Supplements at the end of the sessions.

Example 1 Thessalonians Text Lesson Guide

The Bible sits at the top of its own interpretive hierarchy.

The Bible itself is the final test of anything anyone claims about what it means. Every resource we turn to and apply to understand the Bible must live completely under the authority of that Book which the resource claims to explain and expound.

If someone ever states about a Bible text or passage, "It looks like it's saying this, but it's really not: it's saying that", you put yourself at great risk if you believe that statement.

Yet that is the single greatest Bible study error that sincere believers commit on a regular basis, whether a new believer, a believer with decades of following Christ, a professional minister, or a seminary professor or other academic. I make that claim based only on my years of experience interacting with many believers in all those categories, but that experience is sufficient to provide that warning here.

If you yourself make a claim about the Bible, always ask yourself, "Did the Bible teach me that about itself, or did some resource outside the Bible teach it to me?" If the answer is the latter, then before accepting that outside resource's claim, require whatever resource you consult to prove that the Bible teaches what it claims the Bible teaches.

A pastor with many years of experience heard my challenge and asked, "But what about lexicons? Are we not even supposed to use a Greek or Hebrew lexicon?" My answer was the same: if the Bible doesn't demonstrate the truth of your resource, then you are violating the Bible's own interpretive hierarchy, even for tools as essential as lexicons. But a moment's thought will make that clear. If the Bible's content does not precisely define and govern what gets put in a lexicon, how is that a Bible lexicon? If the Bible does define what goes in the lexicon, we can conclude that our lexicon is in submission to the Bible's interpretive hierarchy, and sits under the Bible in that hierarchy.

The problem is, we rarely if ever ask the question, whether about lexicons, or commentaries, or pastoral public statements, or topical books about the Bible, or really any outside resource. So even using a lexicon without asking that question puts us in danger of habitually trusting resources without respectfully but skeptically demanding that they demonstrate their submission to the Bible's authority at all points from general to specific. Then, when the next resource we consult fails to submit to that authority, we have no practice or habit that allows us to detect that dangerous situation and disallow that resource.

Contemporary Thought-For-Thought Translation This type of translation considers the original words to discern the thought of the author, then puts that thought in contemporary language.
Examples	Reader's workload	Benefits of use	Disadvantages
New International Version (NIV), New Living Translation (NLT), Christian Standard Bible (CSB)	Relatively easy, suitable for devotional or casual reading	Readable, no special work required for a basic understanding of the content	Translation does a lot of the thinking for you and lessening focus, study and analysis
NIV 1 Peter 1:14	As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.
NLT 1 Peter 1:14	So you must live as God’s obedient children. Don’t slip back into your old ways of living to satisfy your own desires. You didn’t know any better then.
CSB 1 Peter 1:14	As obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires of your former ignorance.

Contemporary Word-For-Word Translation This type of translation works to preserve the original words and sentence structure while expressing the meaning in the reader's language
Examples	Reader's workload	Benefits of use	Disadvantages
New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV), New King James Version (NKJV)	Reading of the content with some work to navigate wording that may be less smooth; careful attention to words and phrasing during study	Fair readability for devotional purposes, supports more detailed thinking about and study of passages	Casual reading may be more likely to miss some ideas expressed in the text than thought-for-thought versions
NASB 1 Peter 1:14	As [k]obedient children, do not [l]be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance,...
ESV 1 Peter 1:14	As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance,...
NKJV 1 Peter 1:14	...as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance;...

American Standard Version This word-for-word translation, from 1901, still has some archaic English but also has outstanding linguistic accuracy. It's in the public domain, so it can be obtained at no cost.
Instance	Reader's workload	Benefits of use	Disadvantages
American Standard Version (ASV)	Reading the text takes somewhat more concentration than more modern translations, and cannot be done casually with any ease	Manageably readable, remains close to the original language wording. Some instances of archaic pronouns, particularly "ye" remove some ambiguity about whether the pronoun is singular or plural.	Archaic English pronouns, thees and thous are jarring to the modern ear, can be distracting in casual reading
ASV 1 Peter 1:14	...as children of obedience, not fashioning yourselves according to your former lusts in the time of your ignorance:...

Original Languages Our current editions of the original Hebrew and Greek of the Bible have tremendous reliability and much evidence of outstanding faithfulness to the original writings two to four thousand years ago.
NT Greek Examples	Reader's workload	Benefits of use	Disadvantages
United Bible Societies (UBS), Society of Biblical Literature (SBL)	Learning the basics of Hebrew and Greek takes 2-3 years. Becoming proficient in the languages probably takes decades of dedicated study and use.	The process of learning Hebrew and Greek includes the process of learning the cultures' thought processes. This allows the reader to "pre-translate" the thoughts of the writer much more reliably.	"Hobbyists" like your teacher must be very careful not to overuse or promote their language backgrounds, since our hearers won't know when we're incorrect. And hobbyists will be incorrect much of the time.
UBS 1 Peter 1:14	ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις,
SBL 1 Peter 1:14	ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις,
Transliteration of 1 Peter 1:14	ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις, As children of obedience, not fashioning yourselves to the former in the ignorance of you passions,

Comparison of 1 Peter 1:14 in all the above versions
NIV	As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.
NLT	So you must live as God’s obedient children. Don’t slip back into your old ways of living to satisfy your own desires. You didn’t know any better then.
CSB	As obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires of your former ignorance.
NASB	As [k]obedient children, do not [l]be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance,...
ESV	As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance,...
NKJV	...as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance;...
ASV	...as children of obedience, not fashioning yourselves according to your former lusts in the time of your ignorance:...
UBS	ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις,
SBL	ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις,
Xltrn	As children of obedience, not fashioning yourselves to the former in the ignorance of you passions,

A basic example was the John 19 Bible study I attended where we were debating the details of Joseph and Nicodemus's recovery of the Lord Jesus Christ's body. An older and very intelligent Ph.D looked in his interlinear Greek New Testament at verse 40 ("So they took the body of Jesus...") and announced that our English word "they" was not present in the Greek text.

His resource was not adequate to explain to him that as with many languages Greek verbs include the person (I, you, he/she/it, we, they) in the word as a verb form. As a result, he saw no specific word for "they" in the Greek text, and concluded incorrectly that it was not there.

He was immediately corrected by others in the study, and, being the wise man that he is known by all to be, gained more appreciation for his location on the dangerous knowledge curve.

1. Paul says "all of you" in v. 2. When does he pray for the Thessalonians? How particularly do you think Paul would be able to pray for each one? (Keep this question in mind in the following questions.) [Whenever he prays; to be elucidated below]

2. What does Paul mean by praying "in the presence of our God and Father" in v. 3? Does all prayer happen this way--is it normal, or is it something special? [Open]

3. What about their election leads Paul to pray so intensely for them? It would almost seem as though he could ease up on the intensity a bit, since God was clearly directing their lives. [Their election clearly indicated God was strongly focused on them; Paul was following God's lead]

4. Finally, as of v. 4, what do you think Paul is praying for them? [Open: Paul doesn't say specifically!]

5. How does the experience Paul recounts in v. 5a relate to Paul's statement in v. 4? What do you think is the connection between these two ideas? [The events, experience and character of the Thessalonians' reception of the Gospel were a testimony of God's choice of them]

6. If the events surrounding the Thessalonians' conversion testified to God's elective intervention, what kinds of things might have been happening to demonstrate that? ["power:" possible miraculous events; "the Holy Spirit:" possible charismatic gifts including prophetic utterances; "full conviction:" a falling-off-a-cliff conversion event; an unexpectedly large number of people choosing to follow Christ; an immediate strength to disregard the clear cultural opposition that was demonstrated simultaneously with their conversions]

7. How does the second half of v. 7 relate to everything previous? [Up to that point, Paul is recounting many important (and positive) things he and his team know about the Thessalonians. At that point, he reminds them that they know positive things about him and his team as well.]

8. What process or experiences do you think led to this mutual discovery and understanding between Paul and the Thessalonians? What kinds of things might they have gone through to bring this about? [Open; affliction mentioned below in v. 6; history of Paul's work always included opposition and persecution; there was also Paul's spirit and personality that showed outstanding character, strength, wisdom, trust, meekness, etc.]

9. Paul immediately in v. 6 turns the subject back to the Thessalonians, and that's his topic throughout the rest of the section. So the whole section is about the Thessalonians...except for half of one verse. Does that seem odd to you, or is that just what Paul happened to want to say at that point? [Raise point to begin to note this kind of content, potentially leading to a sense of self-defense that should be considered later in the letter.]

10. Based on what we've read , what do you think about our first question? How particularly do you think Paul would be able to pray for each one?

11. From that picture of the possible experiences Paul and his team shared with the Thessalonians, as well as Paul's comments in v. 6, what might have motivated them so strongly to imitate Paul and his team, and to imitate the Lord? What do you think the relationship between those two imitiations might have been? [Open; Paul's character as described above and in v. 5b; opposition; firm rooting in God's message and Word; practical reliance on God's providence and power in daily life; engagement in His mission and work on a routine basis]

12. Things sort of blow up in v. 7, don't they? It's the Paul-Harvey-rest-of-the-story moment. How does Paul know this? [Because he's traveling through all those areas or at least has connections!] Why has this happened, do you think? What concrete outcomes might have caused the story of the Thessalonians to travel far and wide? What was so amazingly special about the Thessalonians? [Not clear at this point to us, but well-known to Paul and the Thessalonians at this point in the letter! We will need to tease out the answers from the rest of the letter.]

13. Do the Thessalonians know all these things Paul has just recounted? Are they news or rhetorical statements? [They're clearly rhetorical as shown by lack of detail.] If they're rhetorical, why does Paul say them? What seems to be his objective in this entire passage? [Top level: ministry of encouragement. Underlayers: look carefully through the letter for Paul's more detailed objectives that get hinted at in this section.]

Application Questions: What leadership characteristics exhibited by Paul in his letter's style, choice of content, and tone can serve as examples to us as we do our leadership tasks? How can we learn, attend to, focus on and elevate the relationships' characteristics that Paul and the Thessalonians shared to move toward thos characteristics within FBC? How can we as church members perform some practical, constructive comparison of our attitudes as church members against the Thessalonians' approach and spirit? Does it take the difficulties and afflictions these folks experienced to build these results? If so, what do we do about that? If not, what do we do to help bring those results about?

Consider a common interpretation of Matt. 18:19-20:

Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.

That common interpretation leads many believers to gather for prayer and ensure they explicitly agree on the request, whereupon they can be certain that the Father will do what they ask.

The Completeness Rule states that a correct interpretation must explain every word in the text. Is there a single key word whose meaning is critical to a correct interpretation, that any correct interpretation must explain?

Remember, the 4C Observational rules are about us, and what constitutes a good ability to read a text intelligently.

Given the context below, what is the role of the emphasized word below in vv. 19-20, and how does it affect the common interpretation of vv. 19-20 that we mentioned in the previous slide?

Now if your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, he is to be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.

What was the role of that highlighted word when we looked only at vv. 19-20?

What is your assessment of that common interpretation based on the wider context we read? Can you describe a better interpretation that this single word we almost neglected drives us to consider?

Warning: Controversial Subject Ahead! Keep In Scripture Text Lane Only: No Passing!

Some time ago a pastor with many decades' experience preached in a major church on 1 Peter 3:1-2 and subsequent verses:

In the same way, you wives, be subject to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won over without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your pure and respectful behavior.

The pastor stated definitively based on verse 1 that while all of us as believers are to be in submission to one another, Peter wrote this passage only to wives with unbelieving husbands.

Is this linguistically correct, do you think? If it violates the Correctness Rule, what word or words are misdefined?

Warning: Controversial Subject In Progress! Keep In Linguistic Lane Only: No Passing!

Perhaps you felt like the interpretation didn't violate the Correctness Rule at all: it was more like the Completeness Rule: some words in the text were not explained by the interpretation. Why would Peter have written "even if", expressing an optional possibility, if he only had one possibility in mind, that of an unbelieving husband?

You would not be wrong in this thinking, but there's actually a Correctness Rule violation when you look in the Greek. Without getting technical, our word "even" comes about because the Greek text uses a word that must here be translated "also" or "in addition". Our pastor apparently instead incorrectly took the standard definition of the word, "and" (which is far and away its most common definition) to remove the idea that his words applied to both believing husbands and in addition, unbelieving husbands, keeping the command applicable to all husbands. So in the Greek, the error came because the word definition used was in error, a violation of the Correctness Rule.

Warning: Another Controversial Subject Ahead! Keep In Scripture Text Lane Only: No Passing!

Again a pastor with many decades' experience preached in a major church on Luke 12:42-46:

And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will take a long time to come,’ and he begins to beat the other slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; then the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect, and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in two, and assign him a place with the unbelievers...."

In this passage, the pastor's congregation was told, we have Jesus telling us about two servants, one good, one evil.

Is this linguistically correct, do you think? Are their any word meanings in any verses that don't match up to other local instances of the same word, causing a Consistency Rule error?

Warning: Controversial Subject In Progress! Keep In Scripture text Lane Only: No Passing!

In this case, we don't need to go to the Greek, since, while the problem is there in the Greek, it's immediately evident in the English as well.

Jesus uses the exact same phrase "that servant" for the servant behaving well and the servant behaving badly. The word "that" (ekeinos) is precisely the same, and specifies the same servant in both cases. So we have not two servants here as the pastor indicated, but only one servant who is in one case good and in the other case evil. Moreover, it appears that Jesus clearly intends to paint the picture that the servant goes from doing well to doing ill, changing from a good servant to an evil one.

Our restriction to our Scripture text lane, staying out of the passing lane of theological topics, keeps us from exploring what might motivate that pastor's arithmetic Consistency Rule error. Suffice it to say that any theology that requires us to redefine Scripture's words to preserve the tenets of the theology built on those very words definitely needs review and revision.

Sigh....another Warning: Controversial Subject Ahead! Keep In Scripture Text Lane Only: No Passing!

At least this specific difficulty we're about to address is not stuck back in some sermon preached somewhere. This difficulty is quite public, and has been the subject of much fair-minded debate for centuries. Nonetheless, it is crucial that we build our Biblical worldviews, whatever they may be, on correctly-interpreted Biblical texts, and not let them be weakened by errors of interpretation.

On the question of election, 2 Peter 3:3-9 is frequently used to rule out that doctrine by those who disallow God's election of believers.

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly people. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

The proof-text usage here is that if God is not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance, how can we imagine Him electing only some individuals to receive salvation?

Here again we'll stay in our Scripture text lane and out of the theology lane, but we will evaluate the argument from a famous, highly-respected and solidly-trustworthy source, Ligonier Ministries (source: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/lord-patient).

The commentator writes: "Peter is not speaking to all people in general in this verse. He is addressing an audience of believers, telling them that the Lord is patient with “you” (the believing audience) and not willing that anyone in this audience should perish but instead find repentance."

Is there a Coherence Rule violation here? Does this interpretation use the context to alter the words that created that context?

Warning: Controversial Subject In Progress! Keep In Scripture Text Lane Only: No Passing!

It seems that one of two options must be true, and both seem to pose an Interpretive problem. Whether either poses a Coherence Rule violation remains to be seen.

First, as Ligonier interprets the verse, the word "you" makes "any" and "all" refer to believers. This is a Coherence Rule violation unless some argument can be found that forces "any" and "all" not to mean what they clearly mean elsewhere and in general. The Ligonier author is using the contextual word "you" to alter the words "any" and "all" that stand independently and are equally-valid constructors of the verse's meaning itself. This also poses the Interpretive problem that Peter thinks these "beloved" ones are in danger of perishing and need to come to repentance. This hardly seems consistent with the fundamental doctrine of election (and its consequence, eternal security) that's being defended. So this interpretation problem is a very severe internal consistency issue.

The second possibility is that "any" and "all" mean exactly what those words sound like they mean: "any" and "all", both believers and unbelievers. Then in the prior phrase "patient toward you", the "you" must refer not only to believers but to unbelievers also.

This reinterpretation of the "you" is the Interpretive problem with the second possibility. Can Peter's "you" conceivably include any number of unbelievers, however small? If so, the verse can be understood perfectly well: Peter's readers, composed of faithful believers, also include some number of unbelievers. In this case, the Interpretive problem is resolved: if the Lord is patient toward unbelievers who are at risk of perishing, and the church contains some of these unbelievers, then Peter's use of the word "you" is fitting and normal. Peter can very naturally mean both believers and those unbelievers also to be found in the church.

Is this second interpretation a plausible possibility? The context of vv. 3-9a in this case works without a Coherence Rule violation to suggest that mockers and skeptics are present there in real time as Peter writes. (His words, "...in the last days" can easily accommodate an unwritten parenthetical "...in which we live...") He speaks in the present tense in verse 5, and even echoes a warning to the beloved that they should not let key facts "escape their notice" as Peter says the mockers and skeptics do.

It is also supported by tracing the antecedents to Peter's "you" in this verse (h/t to Mr GT), which takes us from v. 9 back to v. 8, picking up the identifier "beloved", and from there back to 3:1, and, importantly, from there back to 2:1, where Peter explicitly states that false teachers among them are to be expected. If they were to expect them in their midst, perhaps we are justified in expecting them in our text interpretation. (For further thought: are we stretching the range of context too far by this antecedent-connection argument? If so, how? If not, why not?)

So to review: the two possibilities are 1) that Peter's "you", "any" and "all" refer to believers, creating a Coherence Rule violation and, what is worse, putting the idea of election's eternal security in question; or 2) Peter's "any" and "all" mean everyone (J. Vernon McGee would approve), and Peter's "you" allows for the possibility of unbelievers in the church, which avoids a Coherence Rule violation and remains a reasonable possibility consistent with the context.

It should be noted that in pursuing a resolution to the question of a Coherence Rule violation, we were forced into a deeper analysis of the passage and consequently were able to achieve a preliminary interpretation that provisionally resolves the larger Interpretive conflict at the level of the verse. Use of these observational rules not only avoids error, but brings insights from our deeper consideration of God's Word.

Context Filter Collapse of Semantic Range

What does the word "Heart" mean?
What does the word "Beat" mean?
What does the phrase "Heart Beat" mean?
Suppose we added the word "South" before the phrase, and the word "Belleville" after? That would look like

"South Heart Beat Belleville"

which could be a headline from the sports section of a local newspaper. (What's a newspaper, you ask?) We've added more words to the context, and as a result we conclude that the word "Heart" is part of the name of a small town in North Dakota, and the word "Beat" means won a game against the other team. Our added words have acted like a context filter to narrow the full semantic range down to the specific correct meanings. Suppose we then added another couple of sentences:

"South Heart Beat Belleville. The South Heart team captain and the rest of the team were arrested after the game. The Belleville team members were expected to recover."

Suddenly this new large number of added words makes a new context filter and we have a new meaning for the word "beat," don't we? The new context filter has collapsed the full semantic range down to a new single meaning.

So what are words for, then? After conveying their own semantic range of meanings, the main function of words is to act as a context filter to collapse the semantic range of other nearby words in the text. Collapse each of them to what? To the author's intended word definition for every word in the text.

We tie our shoes without thinking. We also compose sentences according to grammatical rules and word definitions almost without thinking. But what any author in virtually any language, culture and era automatically does during sentence composition is assemble words which have a semantic range which contain the desired definition, but which also intentionally serve to interact with each other reciprocally as a context filter to mask all the incorrect definitions of all the other words. The result is that the words convey a consistent, cohesive sentence–indeed, even a paragraph, chapter, book or volume–that contains the author's intended meaning. This is no small feat, yet our minds perform it hundreds or thousands of times a day when either speaking or writing. Yet...we'll see another linguistic tool beyond context that locks down text clarity.

What is an abstract idea? What is a concrete idea? It turns out that both types of ideas have proved difficult to define throughout history. The best we have come up with is "definition by example," which, ironically, takes lists of things and for both abstract and concrete ideas, abstracts a kind of sense of the definition. But then, we write down all the candidates, both abstract and concrete, as concrete objects called words. So you can see it gets confusing!

Distinguishing Abstract versus Concrete Ideas

How can you decide with good certainty whether an idea is abstract or concrete? One useful test asks, How readily would you be able to decide that a specific known-concrete concept does not correlate with, or fall under, the idea you are testing for abstract or concrete status?

From the book of Acts, the concept of an angel striking Peter a hard blow (a specific concrete event with a concrete character) is at first hard to reconcile with the idea that Peter was loved. But because love is definitely an abstract idea, it becomes clear on a little thought that the angel's action could easily be consistent with Christ's love for Peter. That ability to bring our initially-difficult concept under the umbrella of love as an idea helps clarify love's abstract character as an idea. Love as an idea is sufficiently broadly-defined that we can bring a hard blow into consistency with love as a motivation.

On the other hand, the idea of a hammer that meets the most common definition of the word definitely has a concrete character. We may wonder whether an angel's hard blow might communicate love, but we won't wonder whether a bouquet of flowers will drive a nail into wood. Why won't we wonder? Because a hammer is well- and narrowly-defined, and is never a bouquet. More to the point, neither is a hammer ever any other tool, nor is it anything that's not a tool. We can demarcate the boundary between hammers and all other objects easily, crisply and indisputably. This helps us understand the idea of a hammer as concrete.

Why does it matter in Biblical interpretation? Because themes are Biblically-abstract ideas. Biblically-abstract ideas including themes still have the character of abstract ideas: they can be brought down to concrete meanings in many ways, and unless that is done accurately for any given text or passage through related Biblical context (at many levels) they can be misinterpreted and misunderstood. We can even get wrong themes.

More than that, we must rightly place our interpretation on the scale of abstract ideas versus concrete ideas. The abstract idea that God is love does not excuse us from the duty to bring down our idea of God's love to God's concrete character, which, without compromising His character as love, also includes intolerance for sin (as demonstrated in Ananias and Sapphira's case.)

John 1:1 (NASB)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1 John 4:7-8 (NASB)
7 Beloved, let’s love one another; for love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

	Christ & God	Love
Demarcation	Exact God and Christ are not ideas but specific realities, living Persons with their own specific characteristics and no others	Inexact Love is an idea which we hold, and whose definition may at any time need to adapt to truth and to the realities of our experience
Definition	Directly (self-)defined God and Christ define themselves, they do not rely on any outside definition of their character or nature	Only indirectly defined In fact, according to the Scripture we just read, love itself relies entirely on God for its definition
Dependency	Necessary God and Christ are eternal, self-existing Persons, Who cannot not exist and Who are not dependent on anything else	Contingent Love is contingent on God's character: where God is absent, as in hell, there can be no example, expression or existence of love
Abstract or Concrete?	Concrete	Abstract

What is Logic for?

Logic is used to process truth claims about statements whose truth is not known. That's really all it's for. Any claim of truth that someone makes about a statement immediately invokes a known, some say eternal, set of criteria and requirements that, rightly done, tests the truth claim and comes up with an independent and absolutely-trustworthy verdict about the truth or falsehood of the statement.

How is Logic different?

Logic is different from everything that could be otherwise. Logic is a fixed, absolute, unchanging set of rules that apply the same way every time. As a result, while Logic sits out there silently, never intruding on our thinking unless we allow it to do so, it is a body of rules not only different from, but highly-threatening to our favorite ideas. As a result, it is highly disliked by everyone at some point in life. Some people make a career and life-goal out of battling to undo the rules of logic, but all these efforts eventually fail. Logic is a major component and foundation of what the Bible calls "Wisdom".

How does Logic work?

Logic defines two abstract ideas, a "condition" and a "verdict", that are related by Logic's rules. When we hear a statement and someone claims truth for it, Logic works to help us validate whether that truth claim is correct or not. Logic is standing ready to have us insert that statement into the "condition" slot and allow us to uncover the actual valid consequences or effects of that statement.

We then can independently examine the truth or falsehood of those consequences or effects, and from that Logic's rules spit out the truth or falsehood of the original statement. So while we don't know initially whether the original statement is true or not, the truth or falsehood of those consequences or effects tells us immediately whether the statement is true or false.

So Logic is a powerful tool to break down ignorance and provide accurate assessment of the actual truth of statements claimed to be true but otherwise unverifiable.

The Basics of the If-Then Inference

• What's an inference? Just a twenty-dollar word for an "if-then" statement.
• It has two parts, a "Condition" and a "Verdict": if (Condition) then (Verdict)
• The if-then is valid only if the Condition always makes the Verdict true
• Bible inferences are key to learning to make our fallible inferences valid
• Just a very few examples of the Bible's internal, self-contained if-then inferences:
  • 1 Corinthians 15:16: For if the dead are not raised, [then] not even Christ has been raised;
  • Luke 12:26: If ... you cannot do even a very little thing, [then] why do you worry about other matters?
  • Hebrews 12:25: For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned on earth, [then] much less we who turn away from Him who warns from heaven.
  • 1 John 3:21: Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, [then] we have confidence before God
• Every inference the Bible asserts as true must be received as true, since it is in fact true.
• The Big Bible Application Inference: "If the Bible says __, then I must __"

While we are to trust the Bible's asserted inferences, outside of Holy Scripture we face inferences brought to us all the time that are at best doubtful and need to be reliably tested. But how?

If you can't validate someone's claim just by looking, there is only one logic method for disproving a claim, and only one logic method for proving a claim. Logic inferences alone do both jobs.

I claim that I heat my house with wood in the winter. Am I lying? How can you tell if so?

Step 1. Build a valid If-Then logic inference using my claim as the Condition, "If he heats his house with wood in the winter..." and a logically-valid Verdict that you can validate in reality, "...then he has a chimney."

Step 2. Look for a chimney. If there's no chimney anywhere at my house, I'm lying. You've successfully disproved my claim.

This first method, by which a claim is disproved, is called the Contrapositive Test. It's simply disproving a claim by finding a sure and valid counterexample. "If he heats his house with wood in the winter, then he has a chimney. He doesn't have a chimney, so he doesn't heat his house with wood in the winter."

If you do find a chimney, have you proved my claim? No, clearly not. Our first method was only good for disproving my claim, not proving it, and it failed to do the only thing it's good for. So my claim might be true or might not be. To prove it true, we need our second method.

This second method is to run the Contrapositive Test again with a new valid inference that uses a new Verdict. "If he heats his house with wood in the winter, there'll be evidence of wood storage."

Did you find evidence like that? Yes? OK, does that prove my claim? No. Fine: build a third inference, and a fourth, and a fifth: look for Verdicts like, he's frequently heard using a chainsaw, large volumes of split wood have appeared on his driveway, he's an expert at swinging a maul, there's smoke from the chimney in winter, and so on.

Important: each Verdict has to be necessary to my claim. Heating with wood has a logic prerequisite of obtaining split firewood. That will in turn require either firewood delivery or expertise with chainsaw or maul or both. It will also require evident wood storage space. Heating with wood also has a logic consequence, a side-effect, of smoke up the chimney. These necessary prerequisites or consequences make them good Verdicts for your inferences to use in your Contrapositive Tests.

Build your inferences and test each one, one at a time. If any inference fails your Contrapositive Test, your work is done: you've undeniably disproved my claim.

But what if they all pass? What if you've counted up every single inference test and they all were validated without even one exception? Can you be absolutely positively sure that my claim is true? You've done everything but stand in front of my woodstove all winter and verify that I've heated my house with it that day. And you can't do that because I'm not going to let you.

You eventually come to a point where you say, "There's not a single shred of evidence that he's lying. I'm tired of this, and besides, I'm convinced." That's as good a level of proof as you will be able to obtain. But it's not chopped liver: at this point, if someone comes along and says, "Your buddy over there who claims he heats with wood? He's lying," then you have a basis on which to say, "If you want me to believe that, the burden of proof is on you."

This second method is called Logical Induction. The logic textbook definition of this is "Sufficent enumeration without exception." Short of being able to directly validate someone's claim with our own eyes ourselves, it's the best we can do to determine that someone is telling the truth. And you recognize the Duck argument in this, right? We use both these methods all the time.

You may well say, Okay, fine, you just taught us two logic processes we already know and use. if we already know this stuff, why spend so much time on it in a Bible Teaching course? The reason is that during our study of the Bible we fail clear logical thinking tests like this all the time, when we already know how to do it right. So the subject of clear, logical thinking deserves some focus and attention: our accurate Bible Teaching will require it!

1. The first point to be made as we look at logic in the Bible is that all logical expressions the Bible claims as true are in fact precisely true logically. What does this make the Bible but the world's most trustworthy textbook in inferential logic? So the Bible's own logic can teach us to think clearly and logically.

Some examples that can teach us not just correct logic, but truth for life:

• 1 Jn 1:9: If we confess our sins, [then] He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (The logic term "then" is implied by the sentence structure.)
• Isaiah 58:10: If you give yourself to the hungry And satisfy the desire of the afflicted, Then your light will rise in darkness And your gloom will become like midday.
• 1 Tim 3:10: These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.
• Matt. 6:15: But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.
• Psalm 119:92: If Your law had not been my delight, Then I would have perished in my affliction.

Every logical inference like these in the Bible is a devotional truth!

2. When we learn clear logical thinking from the Bible, it impacts everything about our interaction with the Bible. Why is this true? Because everything we learn from the Bible comes through the same logical inference structure: If the Bible says that, Then I must do this. (I may need to do a thing, or say a thing, or believe a thing, or any other response of obedience.)

3. Some logical inferences in the Bible are not claimed to be true by the Bible, to be clear. But true or false, every logical inference contains a second logical inference with different wording that has the identical truth or falsehood as the first. This inference is called the "Contrapositive". The Contrapositive is often very useful for restating a Bible inference and clarifying its meaning for ourselves.

4. We will discover later that a logical inference in a passage has a literary power and effect that no other literary device has. It can do something no other literary device can do.

1. Consequences of v. 2: Since v. 2 is true, what else must then be true?





2. Logical Prerequisites of v. 2: What else must be true before v. 2, which is true, can be true?

We just took a text, God's inerrant Word, and drew logical conclusions from it. Are these conclusions reliably inerrant?

No, there are errors. Let's list every single mistake that introduces any such errors in our study of the passage, and show all the ways to avoid each one.

How much time do you have? Can it even be done completely? No! We will always miss some! That's a dilemma!

We will make errors in drawing inferences from Scripture, but those inferences are how we think about and apply Scripture to our lives!

Can we then ever understand and apply what God is communicating? If so, how?

Yes, we can, but we must constantly work hard to detect and avoid known thinking errors. If we're not willing to do that, we're not doing what we can do to hear God aright.

If we are willing to do that, as we do we can rely on the Holy Spirit to guide our thinking and discussion and lead us into all the truth (John 16:13). Contrary to what is taught in some respected ministry circles, we can correctly interpret Scripture and apply it to our lives.

We must hold our conclusions humbly in all cases.

Scripture's Five Main Inference Flag Words

• If and Then
• Galatians 4:7: Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
• Since
• Matthew 22:29: But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, since you do not understand the Scriptures nor the power of God."
• Therefore
• 2 Corinthians 12:9: And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
• For
• Hebrews 12:17b: ...he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance...

Why transform Scripture's inferences into the standard "If Condition Then Verdict" form? Because several important benefits come with it:

• You clearly understand the meaning Scripture intends to convey in the text through its use of that inference
• Relationships of other parts of the text to the inference passage (including other inferences) become more evident
• You submit yourself to the logic constraints of the text instead of keeping the door open to your own interpretation
• You train yourself in logic inference using the world's best textbook in that art
• You build further clear and logical thinking into your regular mindset and intellectual habits

There is one major caveat: our old friend "inerrancy loss". When you transform the Scriptures' literal wording into our standard form, you should expect to retain and clarify the meaning of the text, but you are still departing from the inerrant Scriptures. Therefore, always test your conclusion against the original text to be sure you have a valid conclusion about its meaning that comes through your transformation process.

Scripture Inference Flag Word Transform Rules

IF:
"If Condition, Verdict" becomes "If Condition, Then Verdict"

SINCE: "
Since Condition, Verdict" becomes "If Condition, Then Verdict, and Condition is true"

THEREFORE:
This form usually has the Condition before the "Therefore": you have to go find it.
"[Condition] Therefore Verdict" becomes "Since Condition, Then Verdict".

FOR:
This usually has the Verdict (not the Condition) before the "For"
"[Verdict] For Condition" becomes If / Since Condition, Then Verdict

Tip: if there are nested inferences, one inside the other, start with the inner inference, unpack that, then unpack the outer one based on the entire content of the inner inference.

Logic inferences in the text do something powerful that no other literary device can do.

In all other literary environments, the writer relies on grammar rules and word definitions, sentence conventions and literary styles that each contribute to what the author wants to communicate, but do not achieve it on their own. Using those tools, the author can provide a text that is understandable to the reader, but that occasionally leaves room for more than one interpretation by that reader. This violates the literary principle that there is one correct interpretation of the author's intended meaning.

Jesus in John 3:14-15 said, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life." If we had only that text, we would want to know what in the world made this Son of Man, Jesus, so special as to be able to give people eternal life. The next verse would fill in more details, but apart from one word in that verse, we would still not have clear answers: “... God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. To make my point, I've omitted that key word.

If you put both those two sayings together, things still don't clearly line up. Son of Man in vv. 14-15, God's only-begotten Son in v.16, are they the same person? At best they're mentioned right next to each other, but the names are different. We have what needed to happen in vv. 14-15, Jesus being lifted up, but nothing about that in v. 16. Conversely, in vv. 14-15 God isn't mentioned, in v. 16 He is. There's a believing and perishing connection between the two passages, but it's circumstantial: two very similar ideas right next to each other, but no explicit connection between them, only their proximity.

The hinge word, the single key to getting what Jesus was saying, is the inference word "For". That one little three-letter word encapsulates a cause-effect relationship between v. 16 and vv. 14-15. In our standard form we would write something like, "Since God so loved the world, therefore He gave His Son, the Son of Man, to be lifted up ..."

That single logic flag word makes everything click into place. The Son of Man, Jesus, is God's Son. God gave Him to the world. He did so to bring eternal life to everyone who believes in the Son. Just like with the serpent in the wilderness, those who don't look on God's Son, the Son of Man, with believing hearts, will perish.

That is why good writing is so hard: it must do the difficult task of communicating the author's unique intended meaning using guidelines like word definitions, grammatical rules, and especially context construction. These guidelines are soft, not hard (think semantic range of word definition); malleable, not unyielding (some words can be flat-out omitted but must be read in anyway); even ambiguous rather than well-defined. Nonetheless, these guidelines do the job, and effectively convey meaning accurately in almost every case.

But when the author inserts a Logic inference, and so invokes the unyielding rules of logic right in the text, the degree of precision and control over the context increases dramatically. Logic inferences clamp a firm grip over the context of the statement, and force us to read it according to much firmer, more unyielding Logic rules exactly as the author intends. These rules enable the author to dramatically clarify meanings and connect statements together much more precisely, in well-defined relationships like cause-and-effect, oppositeness, interdependence and so forth.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,
but do not have love,
I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy,
and know all mysteries and all knowledge;
and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains,
but do not have love, I am nothing.

And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor,
and if I surrender my body to be burned,
but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

Some small Logic Flag words which are disproportionately large in importance.

AND: Eph. 1:2: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul is calling on the Godhead to do four distinct things: he is asking God the Father to grant grace, the Lord Jesus Christ to grant grace, God the Father to grant peace, and the Lord Jesus Christ to grant peace. While we reasonably perceive the Godhead to work in unity, that must never make the activity of the Persons of the Trinity indistinguishable, or blur the distinction between Their provision of grace and Their provision of peace. All this is bound up in the little word "AND". To forget, de-emphasize or mismanage any of the content combined using AND is to fail to interpret the text correctly.

OR: (Controversial topic warning!) 1 Tim 2:12: But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man...

This unfortunately is one of the most common instances where the simple meaning of the text's basic logic is mishandled. Proper understanding of the text recognizes Paul's intent to prohibit two independent activities which have no necessary relationship to each other. That is the precise purpose of the word OR. If the two were to have been read as related, the word AND would have been used. Since Paul avoided the word AND, specifically choosing the word OR ("oude" in the Greek), we are doubly warned by the text's language not to require either of the two prohibited actions to restrict the meaning of the other. The logic of the OR means that Paul could have equivalently written two separate prohibition sentences, one against women teaching men in the church and another against women exercising authority over men in the church. The teaching Paul contemplates in the first clause is unmodified by some particular exercise of authority in the second clause, and vice-versa. Teaching, whether or not associated with some special authority, is prohibited in Paul's statement. Similarly, exercising of authority over men in any area, not just teaching, is also prohibited. Although many in the church today find these prohibitions jarring, submission to the Scriptures makes us bound to adhere to them.

NOT: Gen 2:16-17: The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Matt 26:39: And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”

The point has been made that the word NOT has been the most disastrous and the most blessed word in human experience. This word always negates: whether its negating action indicates disaster and death or eternal life depends on the context. With such a range of significance, pay extremely close attention to this word's place in the text so that you correctly apply the negation to the proper part of any text. If you get it wrong, you get it completely, irredeemably wrong!

Matt 8:2-3: And a man with leprosy came to Him and bowed down before Him, and said,
“Lord, if You are willing, [then] You can make me clean.”
Jesus reached out with His hand and touched him, saying,
“I am willing; be cleansed.”













h/t https://logiccurriculum.com/2015/05/27/more-logic-in-scripture/

1 Cor 15:16-17: ... if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, [then] your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

John 18:36: Jesus answered, “... If My kingdom were of this world, [then] My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is [that is, since my servants are not fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews], My kingdom is not of this realm.”

Acts 5:34-39: ... But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, be careful as to what you are about to do with these men. For, some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee appeared in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he also perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and leave them alone, for if the source of this plan or movement is men, it will be overthrown; but if the source is God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”

The inductive argument: the leaders of uprisings are killed and the uprising dies with them. Instance 1: Theudas. Instance 2: Judas of Galilee. Now, instance 3: Jesus of Nazareth. Inductive proof says it will be the same with this uprising....unless....

Matt 5:33-37: “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I say to you, take no oath at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God, nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you take an oath by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. But make sure your statement is, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil origin."

An oath appropriates the strength, certainty or reliability of the object by which the oath is taken and applies it to the claim or promise made by the oath-taker. The Lord Jesus Christ makes an a Fortiori argument to point out that there is nothing to such an appropriation: we are not even able to do so little a thing like make our hair change color, let alone guarantee our commitments by objects and personages that far, far exceed us in strength, power and trustworthiness.

Paul's argument in the passage below is a two-pronged example of this logic structure: he achieves two absurd outcomes from the tested starting proposition!

1 Cor 15:12-17: 12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised;

and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain.

Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. [Absurdity 1.]

For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised; [here Paul repeats his starting point]

and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. [Absurdity 2].

Rom 14:7-8: For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.

What logic forms, structures and arguments do you see in these passages?

Gal 2:17: But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin?

Rom 1:7b: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom 1:13a: I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you

Acts 2:15-16 (ASV): 15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day; 16 but this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel:

Gal 4:7: Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

Matt 7:16-17: 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.

Matt 6:26: Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?

The 4C Observational Interpretation Tool

• Completeness: Your interpretation must explain every word in the text and add nothing extra
• Correctness: Your interpretation must give every single word its correct meaning
• Consistency: Your interpretation must match word meanings to their other local instances
• Coherence: Your interpretation may not use context to alter the words that create that context

What do we mean by "facts" and which of these are "key facts"? First, facts are not putting the text in our own words: they are somewhat looser than that. They are our own more abstract but carefully-true factual observations about the text. They do not involve any significant interpretation. "Key" facts are those facts which clearly tie in to themes you have observed in the rest of the book or just in the lesson text. But first you must identify the larger set of facts, whether or not they are key facts.

What is a "closed" question? A closed question is a question that has a definite right or wrong answer. In a group it's a question useful for helping the group get their heads around the text and grasp its basic factual content. Closed questions will ask, "What is...", "Who are....", "What does...." and similar indicative questions, using helper verbs like "is" and "does" to indicate you're looking for a specific answer.

What is an "open" question? An "open" question is a question without a right or wrong answer, although technically it may have a possible or impossible answer. In a group it's a question useful for prompting extended thinking and careful consideration of the text's implications into the group discussion. Open ques­tions will ask, "What might....", "Who could....", "What would possibly....", using the helper verbs like "could" or "might" to ex­press a degree of possibility and uncertainty allowed in the answer to the question.

Use a large, preferably two-sided whiteboard to write down your participants' comments, answers and group discussion content and points, and also to help keep your own thinking organized. An example from a class on 1 Thessalonians:
The many important benefits of using a sufficiently-large whiteboard during class make it an essential teaching tool. Here are some main ones:

• It acts as session-long (or longer) group memory storage
  It lets the entire group access all participants' insights throughout the class session and even between sessions
• It elevates and rewards group participation by preserving participants' thinking
  Write down most or all participant comments! This helps encourage participation by even those most reticent to speak
• It helps those who are visual learners to better grasp the discovered lesson content
  You will want to make sure you have good penmanship to maintain readability of participants key points☺
• It can help organize the broad ideas of the lesson and show their relationships visually
  Book themes and their source verses, details of word definitions, implications of the text all fit here
• It single-handedly provides a canvas for diagrams and other graphical learning helps
  Line drawings, hand-drawn tables and maps, Venn Diagrams and the like will clarify ideas and their relationships
• A two-sided whiteboard permits flexible preparation of content before class starts
  For example, the back side of the board can contain an application question set to use at the end of class
• Your whiteboard content can be photographed as a record of the entire core class discussion
  The shepherding and learning process is real-time: this captures all group-developed learnings available only at class end

More on Closed and Open Questions

A closed question is one that has a right answer, whereas an open question asks for answers that may be tenta­tively right but don't have to be clearly right before they are expressed. Closed questions ask for facts, open questions ask for opinions. While closed question answers can be right or wrong, open question answers can only be possible or impossible.

What happens if you use the wrong one in the wrong place?

If you try to use an open question instead of a closed question in the first part of the lesson, when you're working to help the group grasp the simple factual content of the text, then you weaken the foundation of the group's understanding by encouraging non-factual, opinion-based answers about the facts about the text.

The "What is... Who are... What does..." type of wording of a closed question instead correctly prompts your listeners to look for facts, and then to test the answers that they think of by whether those answers really do deliver the facts about the text.

If later in the second part of the discussion you try to use a closed question instead of an open question after establishing the facts of the text, then when you want to explore possible implications and even interpretations of the text, you will cut off consideration of some ideas that may provide the best understanding and explanation of the text and its implications.

The "What is... Who are... What does..." component of the closed question means that people will not express ideas about which they are uncertain. But these possible but uncertain ideas are exactly the kind needed in the second part of the class discussion.

Both facilitation errors can be detrimental to correct understanding.

Handling answers to Closed Questions related to the facts of the text

Closed Question	How to Handle a Right Answer	How to Handle a Wrong Answer
"So, how many disciples did Jesus end up calling?"	· Make sure everyone grasps the correct answer by at least restating it: "Okay, so twelve disciples then." · If no further clarification is needed, move on to the next question or discussion point · If needed, expand on the answer's implications for the passage under discussion: "So then, if the number of disciples is 12, that means blah blah ..." · Manage the overall discussion	· To make sure you don't put up barriers to future discussion, don't point out that the answer is wrong! · Instead, put a tone of tentativeness in your response: "Okay, thirteen disciples, you're saying." (You didn't immediately agree with the answer.) · Deflect the discussion to the group: "Any other thoughts about that?" If the right answer comes up, incorporate it in the discussion without favoritism! "Okay, twelve disciples, you're saying." The right answer gets the same treatment as the wrong one, which allows you to let the group be the arbiter of rightness or wrongness. This gener­ally avoids those discussion barriers that come with the pointing out of a wrong answer. · If that process fails to resolve to the right answer fairly quickly, gent­ly go definitive: "I'm pretty sure the number was twelve, so let's go with that for our discussion today." · Then, as with a right answer, expand on the answer's implications for the passage.

Handling answers to Open Questions related to participants' opinions

Open Question	How to Handle a Possible Answer	How to Handle an Impossible Answer
"So why might Paul have been worried that Titus didn't meet him in Troas?" (2 Cor 2:12-13)	· Restate the answer as usual: "So they might have made arrangements beforehand to meet there, you're say­ing." · Prompt for other answers: "Any oth­er thoughts on why Paul was concerned?" · If the question merits it, write down the answers on the whiteboard to cap­ture all of them for further explo­ration in the discussion · Manage the overall discussion	· As above, to make sure you don't put up barriers to future discus­sion, don't point out that the answer is impossible! This is particular­ly important with open questions, because your opinion that it's an impos­sible answer may be wrong! · Use the "tentative voice" approach as above: "Okay, you're thinking that Titus may have been an unreliable follower of Christ?" · If the implications of this impossible answer are innocuous, add it to the list of answers and let it die of benign neglect · If the answer's implications undermine the core meaning of the pas­sage, gently explore those impli­ca­tions briefly and allow the group to form an opinion about the answer, but don't focus on the problematic answer

If your group is in the midst of strong, spiritually-healthy discussions,
let your guiding touch be light,
and let the Holy Spirit be the Person in charge.

(h/t to Dean Flaming's fine example!)

If the Holy Spirit will provide us what to say when we are before the authorities, we should be ready for Him to provide the words in much more benign crises:

But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. (Matthew 10:19-20)

So, stay in the conversation, focus on helping the group explore the new direction in a Biblically faithful way, and keep on shepherding and facilitating discussion. I can't remember a time when this has happened to me that I have not found it to honor Christ, bless the group and bless me as well.

Examples of situations that make your shepherding work more challenging:

• Someone with a greater or lesser degree of developmental disability makes a comment that is hard to integrate into the discussion
• A person for whatever reason proposes an interpretation that requires Scripture to be in error or otherwise chal­lenges orthodox presuppositions
• One-time or ongoing comments by a group member convey irritation or argumentativeness

In principle, there's no one-size-fits-all way to deal with these, but your approach will have the best chance of success if it has these characteristics as appropriate to each individual situation:

• It's very difficult to make a statement that is completely wrong in every way. Think quickly to find the part of the comment that's correct.
• When you have found the part that's right, comment on that part. "Jesus was just a man, not God." might be handled with the reply, "Well, we can certainly start from the idea of His unmatched human virtue."
• Listen carefully to each word in the comment. Missing a single word can result in complete misunderstand­ing!
• Even if you do think you understood the comment fully, restate it (see below) and ask the speaker to confirm
• Hear the tone, not just the words; catch the nonverbal communication, don't just see lips move
• Use standard good-communication methods:
  • Restate, more than once if necessary, until they agree you understood them correctly.
  • Explore the implications of the statement as needed, showing receptivity to and consideration of the participant's points
  • Validate verbally but nonchalantly their right to have the floor, and encourage them to express themselves
  • Apologize for any mistakes you make in showing irritation or in argumentativeness
• Explicitly state that you aren't interested in a debate or adversarial argument
• Without watering down the truth, speak respectfully of all points of view in facilitating the discussion
• Did I mention? Restate the comment and make sure you understood it correctly.

On class members with a degree of developmental disability:

Don't get caught in the trap of thinking in your head that they're second-class contributors to discussion. I've lost count of the number of times folks in this situa­tion have provided the key insight for the entire discussion. God favors and uses them to convey His truth.

I Thessalonians 1:6-10

6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word during great affliction with the joy of the Holy Spirit, 7 so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. 8 For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place the news of your faith toward God has gone out, so that we have no need to say anything. 9 For they themselves report about us as to the kind of reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is, Jesus who rescues us from the wrath to come.

CQ1. Who are the persons and groups of people in this text? Do your best to identify every one, by name if possible and if not, by category, title or description.

CQ2. Which of these persons/groups have relationships with other persons in the text? Capture each of these and write the names of the pairs of persons/groups down.

CQ3. For each related pair of persons/groups, describe the nature or natures of the relationships as best you can based only on what the text actually says.

The Relationships Among These People Paul References:

Between the Thessalonians and Paul (verses):

• The Thessalonians became imitators of Paul (6a)
• They received Paul and his team, as well as their messsage, in an exceptional way (9a)
• Paul was clearly thrilled with the Thessalonians' enthusiasm and commitment (6-10)
• The Thessalonians' ministry made Paul's work lighter in other geographic areas (8b)

Between the Thessalonians and the Lord Jesus

• The Thessalonians became imitators of the Lord Jesus (6a)
• They received the word of the Lord Jesus with such complete commitment that they began sounding it forth to others (8a)
• They immediately started anticipating, watching and waiting for the Lord Jesus Christ's return from heaven (10)

Between the Thessalonians and the Holy Spirit

• The Thessalonians experienced the joy of the Holy Spirit when they received the word (6b)

Between the Thessalonians and all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia

• The Thessalonians became an example to all those believers in those areas (7)
• They sounded forth the word of the Lord to those there (8)

Between the Thessalonians and people in the wider area beyond Macedonia and Achaia

• The Thessalonians were a news item for people in those farther places (8)

Some Possible Open Questions to Prompt Particiant Thinking about the Text

Some examples of some of the principles and value of Facilitation:

Facilitation is about prompting accurate thought, not presenting bottom line answers.
Matt. 11:2-5: Now while in prison, John heard about the works of Christ, and he sent word by his disciples, and said to Him, “Are You the Coming One, or are we to look for someone else?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5 those who are blind receive sight and those who limp walk, those with leprosy are cleansed and those who are deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the gospel preached to them....”
Did the Lord Jesus Christ answer the question directly, in "lecture mode"? No, He gave evidence and made John's disciples deduce the answer from the evidence.

Facilitation is about enabling active learning ownership, not building receptivity to taught content.
Luke 9:12-13: Now the day was ending, and the twelve came up and said to Him, “Dismiss the crowd, so that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside and find lodging and get something to eat; because here, we are in a secluded place.” But He said to them, “You give them something to eat!” But they said, “We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless perhaps we go and buy food for all these people.”
The Lord Jesus Christ facilitated active learning ownership by rejecting their proposal of the obvious familiar solution. Then when they showed some ownership of the new idea they heard, by engaging with Jesus's proposal (even in protest), He led them forward to experience the practicality of His challenge.

Facilitation is about developing understanding, not unconsidered acceptance
John 3:1-4: Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Jesus at night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a person be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?”
Here again, the Lord Jesus Christ does not answer Nicodemus's question. Instead, He makes an out-of-context statement, not unlike a key fact in a text, that forces Nicodemus to think about what he really needs to be thinking about.

Facilitation is about outward-focused listening, not self-focused expression
Mark 7:25b-29: ...after hearing about Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at His feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician descent. And she repeatedly asked Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And He was saying to her, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs [i.e., pet puppies].” But she answered and *said to Him, “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children’s crumbs.” And He said to her, “Because of this answer, go; the demon has gone out of your daughter.”
The Syrophoenician woman was using self-focused expression, over and over, in her plea to Jesus. And who can blame her? But Jesus prompted her with a statement to which she had to listen, and about which she had to think. Having listened to His saying, and having thought about it, she engaged with Jesus person-to-person and answered Him, demonstrating her careful listening and thought. As soon as she spoke those words, Jesus pointed to her changed approach and use of those words as the reason He was at that moment healing her daughter.

Matt. 13:10-13: And the disciples came up and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” And Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”

How, you should be asking, is the Lord Jesus Christ's teaching method to those who were not "granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" relevant to us who have?

The answer, I believe, is that while Jesus explained parables to his followers then, not all the explanations have been provided to us today.

So, again, dual authorship is at work here: the Holy Spirit intentionally included parables for us to read and consider today with a view to understanding them without having an interpretation delivered to us as the disciples needed in that day. This indicates both that we should expect to understand all the Lord Jesus Christ's parables, since that gift of understanding has been given to us who follow Him, but also that we should not expect to have their meaning explained to us like milk to babies (Heb. 5:13), but rather to understand their meaning only through the same interpretation process that applies to all of Scripture (Heb. 5:14). That process is a main subject of this training.

Not all of Scripture is equally and easily understandable, but that is no excuse for not working to understand it correctly, since all of Scripture is equally important. Remember that Jesus drops an out-of-context statement in Nicodemus's ears to force him to attend to the Lord Jesus Christ's words rather than his own agenda of questions. In the same way, God provides Old Testament prophecy for us to attend, not to our own questions, but to His intended meaning even in those obscure passages.

Peter makes this very clear in 2 Peter 1:19-21:

And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

So our freedom to ask questions about the text and interpret as we wish is collapsed by the requirement to listen to the voice of God even in the obscure but equally-important passages.

An example: Zechariah 2:6-12:

6 “You there! Flee from the land of the north,” declares the Lord, “because I have spread you out like the four winds of the heavens,” declares the Lord. 7 “You, Zion! Escape, you who are living with the daughter of Babylon.” 8 For the Lord of armies says this: “After glory He has sent me against the nations that plunder you, for the one who touches you, touches the apple of His eye. 9 For behold, I am going to wave My hand over them so that they will be plunder for their slaves. Then you will know that the Lord of armies has sent Me. 10 Shout for joy and rejoice, daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” declares the Lord. 11 “And many nations will join themselves to the Lord on that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the Lord of armies has sent Me to you. 12 And the Lord will possess Judah as His portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem...."

Even without looking beyond this text to the surrounding context, there is an opportunity to do a careful internal examination and draw out possible answers to an important question about this text in isolation. The question is, In each verse, who is speaking?

To clarify this, note each identification of a speaker referenced in the text, by the grammatical person (1st person, 2nd person, 3rd person, and include grammatical number, singular or plural, for clarity). You will find apparent conflicts in these references. Work to resolve these conflicts, and develop at least two possible explanations for the conflicts. What must be true for these explanations to be valid? What inferences must you make to allow the conflicts to be resolved and the apparent inconsistencies to be reconciled?

Scripture levels out the status of all believers to an equal standing before God:

James 2:1: My brothers and sisters, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.

1 Cor 2:1-2 (this is Paul himself speaking!) And when I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come as someone superior in speaking ability or wisdom, as I proclaimed to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

1 Cor 1:18-20 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the understanding of those who have understanding, I will confound.” Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? This indicates immediately an equal standing in our conversations and discussions about Scripture in the teaching environment.

The single biggest obstacle to active listening is focusing too soon on what you will say to respond, instead of completely focusing on what the other person is saying.

The challenge of doing it right is that you must

• hold in your mind what the other person has said; at the same time you must
• think about what the other person has said to explore its logical prerequisites and its logical consequences, and then finally you have to
• determine what you are going to reply to those logical prerequisites and logical consequences so that it furthers the conversation and engages the person speaking.

The common failure is to respond with what you intend to say without really having given much thought to what the other person has said. If I am the person making the first comment, the way I can tell whether the other person is doing active listening is by asking myself, did their response have anything to do with what I said? Typically it will not.

So if you are the person listening to another person's comment, you want to make sure you are doing active listening, by doing those three things: first, listening to everything the person has said, secondly, exploring what its prerequisites and consequences are, and thirdly, giving a response.

The thing that helps you in doing this is in our next bullet point.

In Luke 1:11-22 we read, 11 And an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense. 12 Zacharias was troubled when he saw the angel, and fear gripped him.

13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John. 14 You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb. 16 And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God. 17 It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

18 Zacharias said to the angel, “How will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years.”

19 The angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. 20 And behold, you shall be silent and unable to speak until the day when these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time.”

21 The people were waiting for Zacharias, and were wondering at his delay in the temple. 22 But when he came out, he was unable to speak to them; and they realized that he had seen a vision in the temple; and he kept making signs to them, and remained mute.

Consider this hypothetical conversational exchange between a study participant and the teacher practicing active listening focused on vv. 19-20:

Participant's thought	Gabriel was pretty harsh with Zacharias
Participant's statement	Zacharias's question seemed pretty bland to me
Active Listener's thoughts	Active listener gets every word of the speaker's statement, notices the significant "pretty bland" choice of phrase and recognizes the implication that Gabriel was out of bounds in his treatment of Zacharias Active listener recognizes these prerequisites for the implication to be potentially valid: Zacharias was very old His work already put him in danger of the Lord's wrath if not performed exactly He was described as troubled and afraid in Gabriel's presence He was hearing something highly unusual Overall, he was seriously off-balance Active listener recognizes these possible consequences of the implication if valid: Gabriel lacked understanding of Zacharias's weaknesses Gabriel did not grasp his effect on Zacharias Gabriel got the job done but had no patience for Zacharias' slight questioning Active listener mentally develops these possible responses to the prerequisites and consequences of the implication, to help explain why Gabriel might have acted as he did under those prerequisites and consequences: In Gabriel's defense, he let Zacharias know he didn't have anything to fear, Gabriel was bringing an in-person answer straight from the Lord to Zacharias's own prayer, and the very things Zacharias was afraid of should have led him to accept Gabriel's statement as true, not doubt it Gabriel's statements to Zacharias were also much, much more than just an answer to their prayers: Gabriel in his splendor and might announced an earth-shaking event that by its nature would authenticate his words as coming from the Lord Himself Gabriel was acting under God's sovereign command, and that sovereignty was not caught by surprise when Zacharias expressed his doubts. Because of Gabriel's pronouncement making Zacharias mute, Gabriel's private visit to Zacharias became stunning public knowledge God in His sovereignty also knew what Zacharias needed at that point: yes, confirmation, but also discipline. His muteness was both, and led him to grow in faith and trust until he obeyed Gabriel's command at John's naming. And he saw in Gabriel a foretaste of the firmness God would demand of Zacharias's own son.
Active Listener's point for the group	There probably was no better preparation for Zacharias's role in raising someone like John the Baptist than to experience God's firm, strong, unbending hand in this moment and the months to come. That would be John's exact role as an adult. Zacharias started on the path to readiness for his fatherhood role to such a man through Gabriel's backhanded grace toward him.

Question: how should you bring the individual and the group to understand this final point immediately above? Apply the facilitation methods described earlier in this page to identify the best approach to use.

The point of this exercise is that active listening's careful attention to these three specific steps has a powerful effect on discussion facilitation. While the analysis presented above may seem like too much to accomplish in the time available during freewheeling discussions, experienced teachers routinely and fluently practice such active listening throughout entire class sessions. Practice these skills, ask God for His grace to develop any aptitude you have, and put yourself at His service in this approach to loving God with your mind.

Warning: Controversial Subject! Acts 18:25-26: "This man [Apollos] had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; 26 and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."

Interpretive claim: Since Priscilla taught the more accurate way of God to Apollos in these verses, women may teach men in the church.

Test inference: If Priscilla's teaching of Apollos definitively proves that women may teach men in the church, then the abstraction of women teaching men in the church will encounter no abstract or concrete prohibitions anywhere in the New Testament.

Condition: Priscilla's teaching of Apollos definitively proves that women may teach men in the church. Verdict: the abstraction of women teaching men in the church will encounter no abstract or concrete prohibitions anywhere in the New Testament.

Construct the contrapositive of the test inference: If the abstraction of women teaching men in the church does encounter an abstract or concrete prohibition anywhere in the New Testament, then Priscilla's teaching of Apollos does not definitively prove that women may teach men in the church.

Note that the famous (or in some circles infamous) 1 Tim 2:12-13 passage definitely constitutes a concrete prohibition on its face. As a result, this contrapositive is a modus ponens.

Extra credit exercise: construct a test inference along the lines of "If the New Testament prohibits women from teaching men, then Priscilla may not teach Apollos", and explore its complexities!

In an earlier session we discussed 2 Peter 3:3-9 in connection with the 4th C Observational Interpretation Rule, "Coherence". In that discussion, we got a foretaste of the testing of competing interpretations for general internal consistency. The passage excerpted below was being defended as consistent with the doctrine of election, but we found two possible interpretations that were represented as serving that purpose. Let's revisit those two interpretations and evaluate them against each other on the basis of internal logical consistency.

Text	Interpretation 1 Chief Problem	Interpretation 2 Chief Problem	Conclusion
7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly people .... 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.	"any" and "all" refer to believers Argument objective was to affirm election; this point in the argument denies election	"you" includes some unbelievers in the church No direct evidence for this in the text, but the hypothesis isn't inconsistent with the text	Interpretation 2 has fewer internal inconsistencies than Interpretation 1, and is therefore comparatively favored

Remember how Logical Induction works: you test a claim using the Contrapositive and fail to disprove the claim, then you test and fail again, then you fail and fail and fail, every time you test you fail. Eventually you stop testing because you're convinced the claim is true.

In this exercise, you're going to want to be alert to observe a theme hiding in plain sight. Let's look for possible themes in 1 Cor 1:1-13:

1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Here are some points to consider and steps to take in the exercise:

• A logic inference to test whether a topic in the text is a theme: "If the topic _____ is a theme, then I will see that topic presented multiple times, with consistent meanings, without exception (that is, without any statements countering the theme)."
• In principle, the more times you see the topic you've observed and specified, the more likely it is to be a theme
• Similarly, the broader the topic's spread throughout the book, the larger the scope of the possible theme in the overall purpose of the book
• Remember the role of the Contrapositive test in this Inductive Proof process: you should find no evidence opposing your topic as part of a theme in the text in question. An example of such evidence is the presentation of the topic but with a significantly-different and contrasting meaning in its content compared to other topic presentations in the text. If you do see such evidence, you must rule the topic out as a theme. A brief and basic example: Rom 4 discusses Abraham as forefather according to the flesh (4:1), his receiving of the sign of circumcision (which as Eph 2:11 points out was performed in his flesh), and his contemplation of his aging physical body (4:19). Though related ideas, these three play completely different roles in the meaning of the text, and so do not represent a theme.
• So let's run the Inductive Proof test: list some topics in the text, and construct test inferences in the pattern above for the ones that seem most likely to be themes
• Now focus on vv. 11-13 for a minute. List topics for just those verses. What stands out to you as Paul's main topic in these verses? Use a logic inference to test whether that topic might be a theme up to this point in the letter.
• Still focusing on 11-13, bring 1-10 back into scope. Do you see a topic from 11-13 hiding in plain sight in 1-10?

Some common pitfalls involving inferences:

• Forgetting to test your inferences by the contrapositive, that is, looking for any counterexample. Always check your "text in my own words" against the original: if Scripture disagrees with your rewording, Scripture represents an infallible counterexample, and your rewording is incorrect!
• Building an inference from a false premise, for example:
  Galatians 3:27-28: For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus
  Based on this passage, gender transitions are Biblical.
• Crucial: failing to detect when you've inferred something from Scripture, and confusing your conclusion's trustworthiness with Scripture's infallibility. Hold your inferred conclusions humbly.

Here's our passage with that surprisingly-dense logic.

Gal 2:15-19: 15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by works of the Law no flesh will be justified. 17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Far from it! 18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a wrongdoer. 19 For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live for God...."

Let's provide the unpacked version first, then show how we got there in a pair of charts. The (fallible, best-human-effort) simplified logic result of our unpacking work will tend to have the feel of a thought-for-thought translation due to the degree of unpacking and need for restatement involved. As has been pointed out, the result must be brought under the scrutiny of the original text before it is trusted.

Unpacked passage:

15 We are Jews by nature and we are not sinners from among the Gentiles. 16 And if a person is not justified by works of the Law and is justified [instead] through faith in Christ Jesus (as is the case), therefore for this reason even we have believed in Christ Jesus. If even we have believed in Christ Jesus (as is the case) and if as is the case no flesh will be justified by works of the law, then we may be justified through faith in Christ and not by works of the law.

17 Given vv. 15-16, if while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also [like the Gentiles] been found sinners, then is Christ a servant of sin? Not at all, because of the following reasoning. Since through the Law I have died to the Law so that I might live for God, therefore if I rebuild what I once destroyed [my reliance on the Law for justification], that choice will demonstrate the sin I am found to practice, and prove that I am the one responsible for my sinful lawbreaking character, since as has been said three times above, no one can be justified by works of the law. It is clear that in that situation I am the one who is a servant of sin, not Christ.

Here are two graphics that capture the unpacking process. You will notice in the above text and in the second chart that the biggest change in the unpacked text was related to vv. 18-19. Both verses start with the inference word "For", which you will recall puts the Condition after the For and the Verdict or Consequent before the For. These two verses create an if-then syllogism when put into standard form, but to make the logical argument clearer the points of the verses need to be viewed in reverse order, 19 first, then 18. The chart and text reflect this.

First, vv. 15-16:

Then, vv. 17-19:

What is to be learned from this deep-dive into unpacking the logic of a Bible text?

• Never lose sight of the "inerrancy loss" caution: your unpacking must be tested rigorously
• Don't be put off by complex passages: start small and work up as your skill deepens
• Unpacking the logic of a text is one of the best ways to understand it as much as possible
• Unpacking doesn't guarantee you will answer every question about every text
• Unpacking doesn't even guarantee you will get the text interpretation right!
• For some passages, it can be a lot of work, but the benefits usually track the effort
• Find your own way to diagram the logic to capture nested inferences and other details
• Did I mention? Never lose sight of the "inerrancy loss" caution.

These errors are often captured under the topic of Logic Fallacies. Each one, however, at heart is a failure to recognize where an idea sits between fully-abstract and fully-concrete

• Starting with an abstract idea, incorrectly inferring a concrete idea from it
  I heard you love opera. When are you moving to Italy?
• Starting with a concrete idea, incorrectly inferring an abstract idea from it
  I saw your car parked next to the unemployment office. Everything OK at work?
• Correctly inferring a concrete idea from an abstract one but making it too general
  Sis, you're living in Italy now! Wonderful! So I can come visit you whenever I want!
• Correctly inferring an abstract idea from a concrete one but making it too specific
  Dear, you say you want to buy a new car. I assume since we're going to start spending big bucks we're also going to replace the roof and septic system?
• Asserting that impossible statements in the concrete must be impossible in the abstract
  No one I know can lift a car. It can't be done.
• Asserting that possible statements in the abstract must be possible in the concrete
  People start new businesses and make lots of money all the time! I'm sure my new water-saving reverse toilet flusher will be a success!

A final warning based on my experience. As you learn to analyze where presented ideas sit on the abstract-concrete axis, be on guard for discussions where your concrete points receive an abstract response to undermine them, and where conversely your abstract points are driven to whatever convenient concrete consequence makes your points maximally unpalatable.

There's an old joke that illustrates this. A husband and wife are in bed, and in the course of typical pillow-talk she asks him, "If I died, would you remarry?" He, sensing trouble, thinks a moment and says, "Oh, no, dear, you are the only one for me." Whereupon she replies, "What? You don't like being married?" The joke goes on from there, but you get the point.

His concrete response, doing his best to provide a favorable concrete answer about her, was blown up by her switch to the abstract idea of marriage in general. You can see how the reverse could happen just as well: He: "Well, dear, you have shown me just how wonderful marriage can be, so, yes, I'd probably remarry." She: "Oh, so anybody would do as long as you get to be married?"

There's no winning against that kind of tactic except to recognize it and call it out. The person using it may not be using it intentionally, so be gentle if you continue with the exchange and correct the approach used in the conversation.

So how does this relate to Biblical interpretation? All of these ideas bring us to the point of saying, "I need to understand what I read on the abstract-concrete axis, and locate it properly there, and make sure I avoid errors of interpretation because I think of an abstract idea as concrete, or vice-versa."

A good way to distinguish inferences and assumptions is to ask yourself the question, Is the text telling me something, or am I telling it something? If the text is telling you something, then you're working with an inference from the text. If you're telling the text something, then you're applying an assumption about the text to the text.

At the same John 19 Bible Study mentioned in a former session, the participants were looking at verses 38-42:

Now after these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews, requested of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission. So he came and took away His body. Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred litras weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden was a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. Therefore because of the Jewish day of preparation, since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

Two comments were made. The first comment was along the lines of,

"Joseph and Nicodemus probably brought servants, because that was commonly done in that day."

The second comment was along the lines of,

"Joseph and Nicodemus, Jesus' secret followers, willingly became ceremonially unclean in taking down His body, which would expose their allegiance to Him."

Which is an inference from the text, and which is an assumption about the text? In which case is the text telling you something, and in which case are you telling the text something?

What evidence do you have for your conclusion?

Does it matter in the process of interpretation of the text?

"Argument from Silence" is the name of a very specific Logic Fallacy. You can't assume anything based on what someone doesn't say.

But there's a catch to that situation. If someone doesn't say something once when you expect the person to say it, then you, being a good logician familiar with the "argument from silence" fallacy, will simply dismiss it. If there's a second time when that person doesn't speak as they might be expected to, you might notice it. If it happens ten times, you might be ready to make a valid argument from silence from their lack of speech.

Here again, our Logic Inference goes to work. Suppose I say to myself, if John agrees with me politically, then he'll say something agreeable when I give credit to Politician (fill in the blank) for his policies. When I make my comment, John says nothing. Okay, AFS, nevermind. But then I make another comment, and John again says nothing. After enough of these, John each time staying quiet, I conclude that John is not a supporter of Hon. FillInTheBlank. This is a valid exercise of Logic Induction, and it points out that a valid argument from silence is possible inductively.

Warning: Controversial Topic Ahead!

One example of this in the Bible relates to the controversial topic of women teaching men in the church.

There are at least eleven New Testament passages that relate to that question, and in several of them the New Testament writer has an opportunity to mention or reference women teaching mixed groups including men in the church. The context in these instances would lead us to expect that the writer would do so if the practice were occurring in the church.

But that practice that we well could expect the author to reference, is in fact never mentioned. Based on this expected but absent reference, an inductive argument from silence would fall on the side of the idea that women in formal teaching roles teaching men was not practiced in the New Testament church.

Quoting Psalm 8, Hebrews 2:8-9 [with some inserted context] reads:

"You have put all things in subjection under his [mankind's] feet." For in subjecting all things to him [mankind], He [God] left nothing that is not subject to him [mankind]. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him [mankind]. 9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

Here it's fair to point out that we have, not our usual two authors under Dual Authorship, but three authors: two, human and one more, the God of the Universe. How should we expect to understand this under the idea of God-breathed Scripture, plenary verbal inspiration, except that:

• God inspired the author of Psalm 8, who wrote exactly the truth that God wanted written,
• God inspired the author of Hebrews 2:8-9, who also wrote exactly the truth that God wanted written, and, finally,
• God's inspired message to us out of Hebrews about Psalm 8 is that His intent was to convey two distinct and true messages, meanings, if you will, to Psalm 8:4-6: one the meaning of the human author of Psalm 8 (which was and is God's meaning of Psalm 8's verses) and the other His additional true meaning for verse 6 which He conveys through the human author of Hebrews, that Psalm 8:6 has a special application and connection to the Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son.

This understanding violates the primary rule of literary interpretation we quoted early in the course: "The objective in reading any written text is to understand the author's one intended meaning." How do we reconcile these apparently contradictory ideas? There are three directions from which we can approach this, and they all converge on perfectly clear communication.

The first recognizes that dual authorship means that God uses the human author's intended meaning to convey what He wants us to understand today; He then works in our minds and hearts to understand His intended applications (plural) for those who receive His Word in any and every time and place. So "one interpretation, many applications."

But like any author's writings, God's "one intended meaning" may be true in more than one sense. The text in Psalm 8 is certainly true of humankind in the context of the Psalm. The things the Psalmist says about humanity are in fact exactly correct.

That exactitude, however, brings us to the second direction from which we can approach this question. In what sense are the words of Psalm 8 exactly correct? They are exactly correct in the abstract. Every detail of the Psalm's words about human beings can be seen to be true in high generality. (Do the exercise.) But what approach on the abstract-concrete axis does God lead the author of Hebrews to take? God prompts the Hebrews author to approach the same text from a concrete viewpoint. While all things have been subjected to us humans in a general, abstract, conceptual sense, in practice and in specifics we are not functionally and effectively over every single work of God's hands. Hold onto that idea while we proceed to the third direction.

That third direction, then, that converges with the first two to provide a resulting clear and proper communication is this: God has explained what He is doing in the text as He is doing it! The explanation given above comes right out of the text itself. It requires the kind of interpretive process, and interpretive inferences, that we have been learning and applying, and so we recall that our conclusions can be true and correct, while still being our conclusions, not inerrant and infallible Scripture.

Our three converging directions of thought also give us everything we need to understand God's greater point here: to the point of the Hebrews text, why is it true, as the author of Hebrews makes perfectly clear, that all God's works are not under subjection to mankind? God has made the answer to that question utterly clear through the whole message of the Bible: we are not rulers over God's works because we rebelled against Him.

And what does the Hebrews author say next? In particular, what is the Divine Author telling us next? "We do see...Jesus," Who is the Person who bridges both meanings God has presented in the Psalm. He is perfect Man and perfect God, and more than this, is now King of Kings over humankind and all that is living, and King of Kings over all creation. You will note these are the two subjects of Psalm 8, completing the connection of these passages across the millennia.

Is all culture's content and structure bad? Is there nothing good in culture?

Some theologians propose that God has given us as human beings the perfect culture: just read the Law that God gave the Israelites, and understand and apply those cultural values. From another, less-concrete and more-abstract perspective, we have the Lord Jesus Christ's words at His ascension in the Great Commission: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me..." indicating that He is the source of all God-honoring culture and that we are to convey it as we make disciples throughout the world.

Clearly culture (which we should think of as the set of values and institutions shared by a people with a common identity) can be good based on those perspectives. But we need go no farther than Adam's fall to recognize that this world is filled with evil and unrighteousness, and human sin will permeate those values and institutions that make up any culture. Add to this the reality of Satan's deep and wide influence in the life of humanity and we may expect cultures to be pushed to oppose Christ's authority and Kingdom.

As a result of this state of affairs, and particularly as teachers of the Bible within Christ's church, we must be constantly aware of the ever-present effort by Satan to soak Christ's followers in the aspects of human culture that undermine their walk with Christ and their work for His Kingdom. We must detect and oppose this corruption in ourselves, and we must use the ministry of teaching to call His church and His followers to detect and oppose this cultural corruption in themselves and in the Church where they belong.

Subjectivism is personal interpretation of the Bible (which is good and necessary) with submission to the Bible's truth subtracted from the process.

Another anecdotal experience (with another controversial topic warning regarding women in church leadership) relates to Galatians 3:28:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

In an informal discussion with a church leader who also had significant parachurch evangelistic ministry responsibilities, the minister asserted definitively that Galatians 3:28 supports placing women in any church leadership role whatsoever. With some anxiety I said, "But that's not what it says!" as I tried to argue from a correct interpretation of the passage. His reply to me was not that there was a clear linguistic or theological argument that supported his conclusion about the verse's implications. Instead, he replied, "But that's what it means to me!"

Leaving aside the immediate Scriptural rebuttal in 2 Peter 1:20-21 ("But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" ), this was a sad example of how deeply subjectivism has entered through the culture into the thinking of some church leaders. It should be immediately obvious how contemporary cultural values, if allowed to go undetected, can undermine Biblical values and replace them with falsehoods. If our favorite opinions of what the Bible says go unexamined by us, and we elevate our opinions above carefully-examined and tested interpretations, we will quickly lose the integrity that is required to walk faithfully with Christ in conformity to His Word.

In the early 20th century Christendom encountered a theologically liberal approach to the Bible that came to be known as "modernism." But after a few decades it was abandoned in favor of "Post-modernism," which found modernism's tenets to be unacceptable. That trend has continued, and has run us out of prefixes. So the entire ongoing flow, one comprehensive abandonment of a previous view in favor of the next more contemporary view, has to be described as "Presentism," meaning that the latest view is always the acceptable one.

There is no question that different general approaches to Bible interpretation have come into favor over the centuries. I hold, however, without being anything like a church historian–or even slightly educated in that direction–that across every era the clarity of faithful believers' devotion and attentiveness to the Bible's content and teaching matches up outstandingly well across the millennia and through the world's cultures.

Today we confront a signficantly more damaging approach to Bible interpretation: the neglect of any wisdom or respect for time-tested, historically-honored orthodox understandings of the Bible. We succumb to Presentism, worse even than modernism, since it incorporates a constant ongoing abandonment of any claim of truth when it reaches an age beyond what the latest version of Presentism decrees to be too old.

Like all self-refuting views, it lives only on the weak thinking of a new generation, which accepts uncritically the idea that prior views cannot be correct since they are not our views. Presentism is the Ponzi-scheme of Biblical Interpretation, if you will.

Closely related to Presentism is Neverism.

Neverism is Presentism for Pessimists, for those who not only disallow prior (and especially time-tested traditionalist) views of Biblical interpretation, but deny that our current efforts to correctly interpret Scripture can be trusted either.

The argument is that if prior generations' Bible interpretations were suspect because the interpreters were all "products of their culture" then so are we, and we are therefore no more able to extract truth from the Bible than they were.

I could wish that my anecdotal evidence here were older and farther away, but unfortunately I heard this view presented a couple of months ago under the umbrella of a large theologically-conservative organization in a presentation on church unity by a pastor who drew heavily on several contemporary authors. When it came to addressing church unity issues from a Biblical perspective, however, his go-to example was how the church during the Civil War used the same Bible to condemn slavery in the north and defend it in the south. His point was, we really can't turn to the Bible for help with today's church issues, since we can't escape our cultural filters to come even close to a correct understanding of the Bible's teachings.

Neverism is a slightly-more self-consistent view than Presentism, since it additionally dethrones the latest fads in Biblical interpretation, but that only multiplies the damage done by the faulty presupposition under each view. That faulty presupposition is that truth is a human construct, not something trustworthy delivered to us from outside our culture.

Like the bank teller who learns to identify counterfeit bills by knowing the real thing in every detail, we can identify corrosive cultural influences by looking for these valid Biblical presuppositions, and in their absence start testing for the faulty thinking in the view expressed.

• Do you hear in the view in question an understanding that truth comes from God and so is reliably accessible in the Bible?
• Since the Bible's validity is timeless, does the view reject any current special and necessary interpretive insight that would be unavailable to prior generations?
• Does the view recognize Biblical truth as absolute for all cultures, places and times, neither culturally-determined for our generation nor culturally-disallowed due to a claimed application only to some other era or culture?
• Is there clear and evident submission to the content of the Bible?

If you find that after agreeably passing all these tests of genuineness, the proponent of the view starts the next sentence with "...But... " then redouble your alertness to ways that culture has superimposed itself over the Bible in the view.

And when it comes to correction, a good start is to ask, "Where do you get your truth?" Press for a direct answer, and do not permit any evasion of the question. Watch for the abstract-concrete swapping technique we described a bit ago, as well as other evasive maneuvers. In the end, if the proponent of the view doesn't have a source for truth that they trust or can recommend, recommend your source, which has been providing reliable truth worldwide for four thousand years.

Titus 3:8-11: 8 This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

What is a "factious" person as Paul means the term to say?

Titus 3:8-11: 8 This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

All these questions! What's a hairetikon? What's "factious"?

A short word study to answer both: We translate a Greek term in v. 10 with the english word "factious". The Greek word is "αἱρετικὸν", which in turn comes from the Greek word "αἱρετιζω" which means simply "I choose". The core idea of what NASB translates as "factious," but what has been historically translated by the ASV as "heretical," is the idea of being free to choose our own truth. The cognate word in English is, in fact "heretic". So a "factious" person in Paul's terms is a person who pushes for alternative versions of truth.

The trick here is getting rid of the best and replacing it with what's only good. But in that exchange, the claimed "good" has one purpose: to rob us of that perfect best and put itself in its place as a terrible, freedom-destroying substitute.

What do I mean in concrete terms? Nothing can be better than to discover and know the actual truth. If we've been given that truth by God, clearly supported by the evidence, the weight of delivered tradition, the Spirit's testimony, and fully-logical reason, we have the perfect and best thing. We can stop hunting around desperately trying to find that truth. What do we call that discovered truth, in a word?

Orthodoxy.

That, however, makes us a target for those who oppose that truth and will do whatever can be done to shake us from that two-feet-on-solid-ground position, using any trick available. The first trick is the four-pronged question, "Did God say?" That is, can you believe the evidence? Is the Bible really 100% absolute truth? How do you know when you hear His voice? What makes you trust your own thinking, anyway? And what about all these other ideas and claims and worldviews? Don't they deserve some consideration? How can they all be wrong?

That's the trick.

"Did God really say?" That is Hell's four-pronged hairetikon trick. As I heard a Bible Study leader say to my shock during his study, "Truth is a matter of personal interpretation." That view is, as the saying goes, "straight from the pit of Hell." The connection of such a view to Hell is not hyperbole, but a clear, solid conclusion drawn from Scripture. We have the most unimpeachable Biblical description of where this view arises. The source of this idea should make our blood run cold.

Genesis 3:1-4: 3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die!"

When Paul commands us to reject a factious man after a first and second warning, is he telling us to stop arguing about worthless, unprofitable controversies and disputes because we need to let everyone believe what they want to believe without us judging them for their convictions?

That sounds very good and loving. But the meaning and derivation of "αἱρετικὸν" drives a different interpretation that I believe is Paul's actual intent. Paul is telling us to reject anyone promoting the idea that "you are free to choose what you think is true", anyone in the church trying to undermine the fact that truth is what God defines it to be, not what we define. Heresy at its heart is shaking our fist at God and saying, "Don't tell me what to believe."

But wait, you ask: what about that principle essential to the very stability of civilization itself:

Rule #1: Mom is always right.
Rule #2: If Mom is wrong, refer to Rule #1.

The structure of authority comes in two pieces: the person or institution, and the authoritative pronouncement. We see this above in our two components "Mom" and "right/wrong". The Bible is clear that we are to respect authority (see innumerable references like Rom. 13:1-7, 1 Tim. 2:1-4, and so on) and yet recognize that God is the source of all truth and cannot be replaced by a human authority in our task of discerning and obeying the actual truth as distinct from what an earthly authority may claim (Acts 4:19-20).

An appeal to what kind of authority are we talking about here?

Only to appeals to earthly authority. These authorities might be built on reputation, educational level, fame, or other characteristics that provide leverage to maximize the authority's credibility.

The key thing to recognize about all these foundations of authority is that they are based on human judgment. As a result, their foundation is fallible and changeable.

Any earthly authority that can clearly trace its basis back to the Bible then immediately becomes an authority which should be honored. But that honoring still requires the authority in question to demonstrate the truth of its claims Biblically.

What are the circumstances and claims of this questionable appeal to authority? What kind of situation are we thinking of here?

In the colloquial, what we're talking about here is often described as, "Don't believe your lying eyes!"

This appeal to authority is often used to undermine what is an evident truth as clear as day, as black and white, in the right understanding of the person being challenged.

My most memorable experience personally with this fallacy was when I was discussing a passage with a long-time pastor whom I respected, and was informed in no uncertain terms that the simple and clear meaning of the verse was not what it was actually saying. This authority, this pastor, before me was expecting me to disallow the clear and evident meaning of the passage in favor of his claim regarding its true meaning. No evidence was provided when I challenged his claim with "Well, then why doesn't it actually say what you claim it says?"

Navigating around this fallacy involves carefully walking a bright line dividing qualified authorities from unqualified authorities. We may trust and appeal to qualified authorities like, for example, good and well-researched lexicons from orthodox sources. We may not trust and appeal solely to legitimate authorities which, even if legitimate, may not rightly provide authoritative, indisputable conclusions about the meaning of a text.

An example of the latter is a single seminary professor pronouncing his or her interpretation on a controversial passage of the Bible. It is sensible and proper to consult multiple authorities of this sort. But if the passage is controversial, when all is said and done we must personally return to the authority of the Bible itself, take its words at face value, and do our own work to interpret the passage rather than unthinkingly accepting other opinions, however well-credentialed.

None of this effort, however, releases us from the responsibility to give full credit and consideration to all the authoritative, trained, wise and credentialed voices in our sphere, from pastors and others trained in ministry, to academics, even to individuals who have demonstrated the maturity and wisdom of experience. Nothing I've said here must be allowed to diminish that responsibility we have as believers and as teachers to listen, give proper place, and bring ourselves under those authorities except in the rarest of exceptions.

"No matter how strongly you are convinced of your point, there is so much you don't know".

Let's unfold that claim. The point I will claim to be convinced of is this: Paul used logic inferences in 1 Cor 13:1-3.

Here is an equivalent logic form for the original sophistic statement, applied to my point. If there is so much I don't know, then some of the things I don't know will control completely whether Paul used logic inferences in 1 Cor 13:1-3. This statement is logically equivalent to the statement in its original form above.

Now remember, to disprove a claim using the Contrapositive, we have only to show a single counterexample. So let's do that.

Here is the counterexample proof: there is nothing I could learn among the things I don't know that would change the fact that Paul did objectively and truly use logic inferences in 1 Cor 13:1-3.

This true statement directly disproves the original sophistic statement as transformed.

Now just to be rigorous, let's go back to the original sophistic statement: "no matter how strongly I am convinced that Paul used logic inferences in 1 Cor 13:1-3, there is so much I don't know." And again, nothing I could learn would change the factual reality that Paul did truly use logic inferences in 1 Cor 13:1-3.

This sophistry is equivalent to the claim, false on its face, that If we are ignorant of enough things, then we cannot be sure even of those things that are clearly and objectively true.

"No matter how strongly you are convinced of your point, there is so much you don't know."

Any person serious about thinking clearly should memorize this phrase to ensure that loud logic fallacy alarms go off in one's mind every time it is said in one's hearing. This idea in any form is one of the most subtle and dangerous appeal-to-authority fallacies in existence for these reasons:

• The statement is charged with universality, generality, absoluteness, wisdom and true content, but these qualities all serve only to hide the deeply fallacious character of the argument it presents
• It bases its message on two fallacies, an appeal to probability (there is so much you don't know) and designed unfalsifiability ("what you don't know will invalidate your conclusion" is taken on faith by the statement because it is never provable)
• It includes an unproved and almost-always false assumption, that the speaker knows how much you don't know and it's vast! Moreover, the implication is that the speaker knows the specific things you don't know that render your belief false; but this knowledge is never provided by the speaker
• It slips in an abstract-concrete confusion and false equivalency, arguing that the abstract idea of the entire body of your ignorance ensures the conclusion that your current concrete belief must be false
• The statement is almost always used when the speaker has no actual argument against your well-formed conclusions from the facts

An appropriate response in this case is to challenge the speaker respectfully: "If there is something you say I don't know that contradicts my clear grasp and thinking about the facts and my conclusion from these, then tell me what that truth is right now. Otherwise, without anything at all to back up your claim, it can hold no weight with me."

John 1:1 (NASB)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1 John 4:7-8 (NASB)

7 Beloved, let’s love one another; for love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

	Christ & God	Love
Demarcation	Exact God and Christ are not ideas but specific realities, living Persons with their own specific characteristics and no others	Inexact Love is an idea which we hold, and whose definition may at any time need to adapt to truth and to the realities of our experience
Definition	Directly (self-)defined God and Christ define themselves, they do not rely on any outside definition of their character or nature	Only indirectly defined In fact, according to the Scripture we just read, love itself relies entirely on God for its definition
Dependency	Necessary God and Christ are eternal, self-existing Persons, Who cannot not exist and Who are not dependent on anything else	Contingent Love is contingent on God's character: where God is absent, as in hell, there can be no example, expression or existence of love
Abstract or Concrete?	Concrete	Abstract

Do these sound like love to you?

Matt. 17:14-18

When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus, falling on his knees before Him and saying, “Lord, have mercy on my son, because he has seizures and suffers terribly; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. And I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him.” And Jesus answered and said, “You unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me.” And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was healed at once.

Acts 12:7

And behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter’s side and woke him up, saying, “Get up quickly.” And his chains fell off his hands.

Acts 5:4b-5

(Peter speaking) "...Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it.

One of the great works of Western Literature:
The Blind Men and the Elephant, by John Godfrey Saxe, 1816-1887:

Every one of the Six Academics of Indoostan came to different conclusions. All differed, therefore all were wrong, this fallacy's argument claims.

But as the anonymous wag's last doggerel stanza suggests, their conclusions' incompatibility did not need to be irredeemably fatal to their investigation. Their differences did not prove that there was no correct answer. Their problem was simply that they did not consult an appropriate and trustworthy source, namely the Elephant Himself, Who is presumably the final authority on His own nature.

This identifies the basic flaw in this fallacy's argument: the question of whether someone has learned something true is not a probabilistic question: it is a deterministic question. One cannot say, the more and more incorrect answers we come to, the less and less likely a correct answer exists. On the contrary, if you discover a trustworthy source of truth, and accurately access that source, and understand the truth it provides, then you will obtain truth, that is, you will not be wrong. Should the entire world come to false conclusions, that does not force the verdict that no valid truth is available to be known.

What is your sense of the position of the body of US evangelical Christian churches as a whole on these issues today?

The foundation for a skeptic's veto on a passage of Scripture has several pieces. Each distinct approach is intended to undermine trust in the passage to be vetoed.

• Wrongly superimposing a hierarchy of importance over the Bible's various content
  
  "Here are ... passages that in my view are informative but are not the key things we need to be teaching and practicing as a Christian body..."
  
  
  Intended effect: inappropriately lessen the importance of the passage to be vetoed. Corrective: view the entire Bible as equally important and necessary for understanding truth as the Holy Spirit leads
• Co-opting a valid Biblical category to demote content outside that category
  
  "All of these practices are mentioned in the Bible, but I don't hold that any of these are essential to the Gospel."
  
  
  Intended effect: relocate the passage to be vetoed outside an artificial subset of "essential" Biblical categories. Corrective: recognize that the Bible is a unified whole, where, for example, the rest of the entire text of the Bible is always essential to the Gospel proper
• Wrongly referencing outside "Biblical authorities" to color Biblical content as untrustworthy
  
  "There is an un-translatable word ... that is clearly important to the passage but we don't knew [sic] exactly what Paul meant in context."
  
  
  Intended effect: undermine our submission to the Bible's own authority by elevating a carefully-chosen and skeptical outside authority above the Bible itself. Corrective: demote all outside "authorities", academic, pastoral or otherwise, that are placed over the Scriptures, and return the Bible to its correct place at the top of its own interpretive hierarchy. Never let someone else speak for the Bible, let it speak for itself: it is God speaking. (Who do we think we are, after all, to do otherwise?)
• Slipping in hard-to-detect logic fallacies to produce a sense of inconsistency
  
  "There are counter-examples in the old and new testament..." [to the accepted interpretation of the particular passage's meaning]
  
  
  Intended effect: slip the desired conclusion questioning the passage into the argument without actually proving the conclusion. Corrective: make logic and clear thinking reflexive! The passages referenced were not exegeted before being asserted as counterexamples. This is a case of "begging the question."
• Wrongly exegeting a passage outright to create confusion and reduce clarity
  
  "The passage shifts to very particular language..."
  
  
  Intended effect: build a case for further doubt by introducing a false premise for that case. Corrective: bring skeptical examination to the skeptic's exegesis. In this case, the skeptic's exegesis was wrong: the author did not shift to particular language. Instead, he actually maintained and intensified general statements, not particular ones. This correction invalidates follow-on arguments that were intended to build a sense of uncertainty about the passage's meaning.

Skeptic's Veto Technique	Intended Effect on our Thinking	Corrective Steps We Must Take
Impose human devaluation of a Bible text's importance	Make the veto target text essentially unimportant	Hold to the equal importance of every text in the Bible: no one may veto any of it
Imposing human priority categories on the Bible's content	Give the veto target text low priority for exegesis and obedience	Hold to the equal and important priority of all Scripture for obedience
Impose outside authorities to undermine veto target texts	Accept human authorities which excuse us from understanding and obeying part of the Bible	Demote all outside authorities, restore the Bible back to its highest authority position
Use fallacious arguments to undermine veto target texts	Fall prey to the skeptic's desired conclusion by failing to see the fallacy	Think with reflexive logic and clarity: detect and challenge classic fallacies
Perform eisegesis to confuse the veto target text meanings	Accept the veto case's eisegesis without testing it by good exegesis	Ask repeatedly, "Is that claim logically true? Can you show it to be true?"
Quietly, graciously and winsomely veto the application of the text	Avoid any flags that would make us detect and question prior fallacies	Install a no-veto "NFL-paradigm" policy to apply to all of Scripture

2023 NFL Rulebook, Rule 15 Section 2 Article 1: "An on-field ruling will be changed only when the Senior Vice President of Officiating or his or her designee determines that clear and obvious video evidence warrants a change."

In other words, when the referee on the field makes a call, that call can only be overturned if two things occur: 1) there is a legitimate authority over the referee who made the ruling on the field, and 2) there is clear and obvious evidence that the call should be changed.

In the same way, when the meaning of the Bible's text is clear, that "ruling on the field" may never be changed by us.

There is an authority available to do that, just like in the NFL, and that is the body of Scripture itself. But that is only to be allowed when Scripture itself clearly and evidently specifies that the interpretation should be adjusted for consistency with other parts of the Bible.

You could well object that there's nothing wrong with exegeting a passage correctly, drawing correct and fair application inferences and determining that these applications really don't demand or require a church policy or in-depth program to be built on the passage.

So what's the difference between that situation and the Skeptic's Veto? The difference is this:

Fair exegesis and application inferences happen before an assessment of or judgment about what kind of implementation to perform in the church culture. Once that fair exegesis and application are identified, then a fair understanding of the need for and type of implementation in the church life will follow, whether the need is strong or the need is small. Faithfulness to the Scriptures will obey them and perform that implementation, whether it involves little or much change, and whether it is or is not to our personal liking.

The Skeptic's Veto approach reverses those two steps. It first assesses what kind of implementation in the church culture the passage would require, and if that requirement is culturally threatening, then the Skeptic's Veto looks at the passage, substituting fallacious arguments and eisegesis to weaken confidence in it. On that basis the Skeptic's Veto approach argues that the passage should not be implemented in church culture, that is, the passage should be vetoed. This amounts to unfaithfulness to Scripture as written, as well as substitution of our values for God's.

What do we do with the abstract idea of church family unity? We convert it into something concrete to understand and evaluate it.

Does church unity mean	Y / N	If so, is it practically achievable?	If so, is it what families do?
Relational unity (we all like everyone)		No	No
Intellectual unity (we all think alike)		No	No
Unity of taste (we all like the same things)		No	No
Values unity (we all have similar important priorities)		Only with difficulty	Only if trained, and then not guaranteed

So why do we exhort ourselves to have unity like a family? It does not seem to translate into anything concrete that is achievable, with one exception that squeaks through.

This is an example of abstraction abuse: we present what seems like a desirable abstract state and never actually define what it means. This results in essentially wasted effort.

What might the difference between Consensus and Agreement look like?

Discussion objective	Character	Difficulty	Time investment	Group engagement	Important issues?	Likelihood of wrong decision	Quality of result
Consensus	Abstract: reach agreement with ideas, not details	Easier to Reach: differences remain unresolved	Shorter: there's less consideration & discussion	Lower: concerns are reserved, not raised	Some Remain: cooperation is expected, not disagreement	Higher: unresolved concerns may have unintended consequences	Poorer: there's lower certainty, critical thinking is omitted
Agreement	Concrete: requires consideration of, and agreement on, practical details	Harder to Reach: differences are acknowledged and addressed	Longer: significant, extensive discussion occurs	Higher: all concerns and ideas are raised and presented	All Resolved: agreement is defined as all issues resolved	Lower: unintended consequences are identified and addressed	Better: result displays wisdom and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit

Short on time to decide? Want to avoid conflict? Bypass the hard work of resolving differences? It's like the old auto shop saying for impatient customers: "You want it bad, you get it bad."

We lay teachers need good theology!

We need it both to preserve the foundations of our own faith and also to prevent us from (I trust unintentionally) undermining the foundations of the faith of those we teach.

So challenging or even raising doubt about a standalone orthodox tenet of theology ought never to be done.

In a recent sermon by a longtime pastor whom I knew, my pastor friend's interpretation of the text turned the Lord Jesus Christ's description of one person into two people. In the text (Luke 12:42-46) Jesus clearly referenced one Kingdom servant, but when my pastor friend exposited the passage, he made the single servant into two distinct people, essentially putting words into the Lord Jesus Christ's mouth.

Our first question might be, "So what--does it really matter?" And the answer, of course, is, it always matters when we change anything in Scripture on our own initiative. There is no change to the Bible text so small that we can justify it by our own thinking when we're dealing with God's Word.

But what was the reason for this change to what Jesus undeniably said? Was there some good reason for it? Some linguistic insight that could be invoked to turn one servant into two? My pastor friend's reply to my question was not, "Well, here's why linguistically and exegetically I still think the passage said what I claimed it said."

Instead, his response justifying his change to the very words of Scripture itself was, "Well, but you don't want to run afoul of the doctrine of eternal security, do you?"

Do you see the problem with that approach? Is there one exceptional authority that everywhere and always sits above our theology in priority? And if so, exactly what authority would that be?

Back in session 2 we drew a distinction between God's inspired words, that is, the text, and our interpretation of the text as we put that text in your own words. There, we said:

When you put the text in your own words, you are performing a logic inference of the form, "If the author writes [the text under study] then the author means [my restatement in my own words]." The Scripture is inspired ("God-breathed") and inerrant; your restatement is not. You must never lose mental track of this distinction any time you put Scripture in your own words.

This distinction holds all the way up through every level of context and content interpretation all the way to the entire Bible itself. Every time we read and interpret any portion of Scripture, and indeed when we abstract from the entire Bible the truths that we then call orthodox theology, the same distinction applies.

2 Tim 3:16-17 can't be improved upon: "All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

Our every interpretation, however, our every abstraction of truth from the text of God's Word, departs from that God-breathed character and guarantee of truth. These results of our Spirit-led thinking must always be brought back to the Bible itself for validation and verification. It remains the highest authority, over all human ideas, including our orthodox theological statements.

Those orthodox theological statements, it bears repeating, deserve our full respect and belief as the embodiments of Biblical truth that they represent.

Do you recall the analogy we used for the interpretive error where we use context to change the words that create that context?

That was like sawing off the branch of truth we were sitting on.

What about the interpretive error of using theology to change the words of Scripture that are all together the basis for true theology?

The appropriate analogy here is that this step, however minor it may seem, must be seen as sawing down the entire tree of the authoritative Scriptures in which we've built our orthodox theological treehouse.

So then, the one thing no theological view, statement or position may ever be allowed to do is to be used to change the Scriptures which are the source of all theology.

Proverbs 30:5-6: Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Matthew 22:34-40 (NASB)
34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

Genesis 2:15-17 (NASB)
15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Exodus 20:1-3 (NASB)
20 Then God spoke all these words, saying, 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.”

Matthew 5:1-10 (NASB)
5 When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. 2 He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying, 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. 8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. 10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 (NASB)
13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

D. A Carson
Distinguished Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

"Careful handling of the Bible will enable us to "hear" it a little better. It is all too easy to read the traditional interpretations we have received from others into the text of Scripture. Then we may unwittingly transfer the authority of Scripture to our traditional interpretations and invest them with a false, even an idolatrous, degree of certainty. Because traditions are reshaped as they are passed on, after a while we may drift far from God's Word while still insisting all our theological opinions are "biblical" and therefore true. If when we are in such a state we study the Bible uncritically, more than likely it will simply reinforce our errors."

Exegetical Fallacies, p. 17

D. A Carson:

"Critical exegesis is opposed to merely personal opinions, appeals to blind authority (the interpreters or anyone else's), arbitrary interpretations, and speculative opinions....When two equally godly interpreters emerge with mutually incompatible interpretations of a text, it must be obvious even to the most spiritual...that they cannot both be right. If the interpreters in question are not only spiritual but also mature, perhaps we may hope that they will probe for the reasons why they have arrived at different conclusions. With continued cautious, courteous and honest examination, they may in time come to a resolution of the conflicting Interpretive claims. Perhaps one is right and the other is wrong; perhaps both are in some measure right and wrong, and both need to change their respective positions; or perhaps the two interpreters are unable to zero in on the precise reasons why they disagree, and therefore remain unable to track down the exegetical or hermeneutical problem and resolve it. No matter: from our point of view, what is important is that the two interpreters are involved in critical exegesis, exegesis that provides, or attempts to provide, adequate justification of all conclusions reached and of every opinion held."

Exegetical Fallacies, p. 16

J. I. Packer (1926-2020)
Late Professor of Theology at Regent College, Author of Knowing God

  "The interpreter's task in broadest definition is to understand both what Scripture meant historically and what it means for us today, that is, how it bears on our lives. This task involves three constant activities.
  "First comes exegesis, this extracting from the text of what God by the human writer was expressing to the latter's envisaged readers.
  "Second comes integration, the correlating of what each exegetical venture has yielded with whatever other biblical teaching bears on the matter in hand and with the rest of biblical teaching as such. Only within this frame of reference can the full meaning of the exegeted teaching be determined.
  "Third comes application of the exegeted teaching, viewed explicitly as God's teaching, for the correcting and directing of thought and action. Application is based on the knowledge that God's character and will, man's nature and need, the saving ministry of Jesus Christ, the experiential aspects of godliness including the common life of the church and the many-sided relationship between God and his world including his plan for its history are realities which do not change with the passing years. It is with these matters that both testaments constantly deal."

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 6
https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_2.pdf

Martin Luther

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason ... my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen"

Diet of Wurms, April 16, 1521
https://www.luther.de/en/worms.html