the theological use of the bible: putting it all together · together. how do we do this gathering?...

Biblical Hermeneutics

Transcript - HR501 Biblical Hermeneutics Understanding Biblical Interpretation© 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

1 of 12

LESSON 08 of 12HR501

The Theological Use of the Bible: Putting it All Together

Biblical HermeneuticsUnderstanding Biblical Interpretation

Welcome back! We are on to this session on theology. You know, it’s an amazing thing that in one or two generations, the last part of the 20th century coming now into the 21st century, there is almost a despising of the theological use of the Bible. I am amazed at how, in the younger generations, it is felt, “Biblical theology is good, but Systematic theology is a real dud and should not be used.” Actually, Systematic theology has tried to pull all the topics of the Bible together. It talks, first of all, about God. Then talks about mortals—man (we used to say that means men and women. Used to, now you have to translate). Then we talked about the gap that was in between. There was a gap in being (you need the big word for that—ontology) and a gap in morality—God was holy and we were sinners. Then the rest of theology is how God, in Christ, got us back together again through the doctrine of salvation and how He got us back together again through the doctrine of the church and through the doctrine of last things.

Well that’s a short course in what we call Systematic theology. So you’ve got topic 1) God; topic 2) mortals. The gap that’s in between them, this is called hamartiology. “Ology” is “[the] study [of],” and hamarti is “sin”—so “the study of sin.” But it’s difficult to teach on this thing because everyone in your audience is an expert. So most do not like to talk on the doctrine of sin. So we have theology proper, which is the doctrine of God; anthropology, which is the study of man; hamartiology; then Christology, the doctrine of Messiah; and soteriology, which [is the] doctrine of salvation; ecclesiology, doctrine of the church; and eschatology—eschatos is [the study of] last thing[s]—eschatology, study of last things, study of the future. Now that’s what theology is generally about and has been the joy of the church to study.

Yet on the other hand it’s surprising how this is being looked down upon today. In many places, mainly because of the way that this is constructed, there is a real hesitation. Let me tell you what it is. When we go to form this, it presumes that a person knows their Bible very well. Probably a person shouldn’t teach theology

Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Ph.D.Experience: President Emeritus and

Distinguished Professor of Old Testament and Ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological

Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts

Transcript - HR501 Biblical Hermeneutics Understanding Biblical Interpretation © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.


2 of 12

Lesson 08 of 12

until they’re at least 80 years of age, until they have experienced enough of life, experienced enough of the Bible, experienced enough of culture to put it [all] together. Because what happens, we go through the Bible and pick out verses. We have these verses here, which I draw carefully, each one looking like a plant kind of established, and we put them all together in a bouquet. Some come from Genesis, some come from Romans, some from Revelation, and we say, “This is the doctrine of God.” But everything depends on how well this [the doctrine and our systematic theology] is grounded in exegesis. But the way most theology is taught, it’s like the plays in a football huddle—2-4, 6-3, 3-16, 2-5, hike! No one goes back to really see what the verses mean [is really apart of the context from which they were cited]. It is presumed. And this has led to a lot of skepticism, a lot of cynicism about whether we really should and do need theology [from a strong exegetical base]. Of course we do, because we really need to gather and pull together. How do we do this gathering? And how do we put it all together? I’m calling this “The Theological Use of the Bible: Putting it All Together.”

Well the doctrinal understanding of the Bible for the theologian must be grounded in a solid exegesis of the passage. If I ever live to be old enough, one of the things I think I’d like to do is a multivolume text, maybe 4-5 volumes, toward a Systematic theology. I’d call it “Materials Toward [Forming] A Systematic Theology,” in which we would first of all (volume 1) we would go and do [an exegesis of all] the major “chair passages” for each of the major doctrines. I contend that for every major doctrine there is one big block of [teaching] text, which contextually talks about it. If I am going to teach the resurrection, you’ve got to have down [the teaching of] I Corinthians 15. If we’re going to really talk about “What was the nature of the incarnation?” [then go to] Philippians 2, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being the form of God, didn’t think it was something to hang onto and made Himself of no reputation and He emptied Himself,” which of course gets us into [another set of] problems too.

What do we mean here by the kenosis, the “emptying of Himself?” Well we sing, at least I used to but I don’t anymore, the great Wesley hymn. Now Wesley is a great theologian and his hymns are good, but penned of Christ: “emptied Himself of all but love.” Now I won’t say that! I’d [sing] just la-la-la-la-la until we come to the rest of it there [the hymn], because there was more on the cross than love! What was it? What did Jesus give up when He emptied



3 of 12

Lesson 08 of 12

Himself? A. H. Strong said that Jesus gave up the independent exercise of His own gifts and rights. He said, “Not My will be done but Your will be done,” (Luke 22:42) and therefore, on the cross He could have (some say He should have, but that would not have given us any salvation), but He could have come down from the cross; He could have called on 10,000 angels, but didn’t do so.

What’s the result of the death of Christ? Hebrews 2, in terms of the nature of the death of Christ and the results that it has brought to us. What about two seconds after death? What happens [to us is described] in the intermediate state? Second Corinthians 5:1-10, “If this tent house, if the stakes being pulled up on it, we have a building eternal with God,” and so forth as he goes on discussing it. So my first one [multi-volume] will be all of the teaching chair passages. What’s the nature of the atonement? Isaiah 53, there’s nothing better. What about the incomparability of God? Isaiah 40 and so forth on there.

My second one (my second volume) would be to go on and put along with this [first volume]—which was basically exegesis—I would now go to Church History. What is it that has been said, what did the Holy Spirit say to [through] the church as He’s been leading them in all of these doctrines and all of these creeds? So I’d have primary source reading over the last 2,000 years about the Holy Spirit (the Holy Spirit did not just begin working with us; He’s been working for a long time).

Then my third area [volume], I would go to a Biblical theology. Here I would try to show the progress of revelation, how He [God] kept supplementing, not supplanting, but building that as He went through the whole Bible on each of these doctrines.

Then, finally, my fourth volume would be the philosophical and ethical questions that would be raised with regard to these doctrines then. “What happens when my baby dies after only living for two days?” “Can you tell me, why there is suffering in the world?” and so forth.

Bart Ehrman, a Wheaton and a Moody grad, now teaching at Chapel Hill [University of North Carolina], wrote the book Misquoting Jesus (700,000 copies), which he denies Jesus in His affirmation. He came out with another book, which is called The Problem of God. (I got an advanced copy from Harper 1—Harper San Francisco. And I was coming back on the plane. Marge was across the aisle from me; she likes the aisle seat. She says I groan when I get up. I had an aisle seat, and alongside me was this little 6-year-old and pestering the life out of me. “Would you do this,



4 of 12

Lesson 08 of 12

would you do that?”

“I am trying to read this book!”

And he said, “Call for the stewardess.”

I said, “You don’t need the stewardess.”

“Yes I do.” He said, “Why won’t you push the button for me?”

I said, “Sometimes you can get electrocuted.”

“No, no.” He said, “A man was here with me [on the previous flight], and he pushed the button.”

I said, “Yeah! But he’s not here anymore,” and so we had this dialogue. I know little kids, and so I was having a little fun with him.

“What’s the book you’re reading?”

I said, “Here, look at it.”

Six years old. He said, “The Problem of God?” He said, “Who said that?”

I said, “This man.”

He said, “God doesn’t have a problem. He has a problem.”

Very smart, I mean that was good kid; [He] understood exactly where it was.

Bart Ehrman, he’s arguing here on the problem of suffering. [He said] “This has made me turn away from the church I used to go. I used to pastor [a] Presbyterian Church, but I don’t go to church anymore. I just teach theology at the university.”

At any rate, trying to put it all together—we build exegetically and then systematically listen to what the Holy Spirit has said, watch how it has been building in the progress of Revelation through the Bible, and then, finally, ask our questions at the end.

Normally, Systematic theology begins with a definition. “The Holy Spirit is that person,” and then generally somewhere in the definition you have a “whereby” and then you go into the final discussion here. But this leads us, oftentimes, to just an amassing of a number of “flowers,” or verses, that we’ve picked up through the whole Bible, and we “put them into our bouquet.” But it’s our bouquet, and we’ve been the ones who picked it. And we don’t always take time to establish that that garden was a garden that



5 of 12

Lesson 08 of 12

grows these kinds of flowers. And therein lies the difficulty. Well that’s the doctrinal understanding.

But scripture is capable of theological interpretation. Jesus’ ministry, was what? A ministry of teaching. What was it in Matthew 7:28? “The people were astonished at His teaching and His doctrine.” Secondly, Jesus claimed His doctrine was from God, and that’s what we have, “the deposit” in Scripture. It is God who has given, not just a surface meaning—a discount, but the whole of what He wanted to be made known. I don’t think there is a floating sensus plenior, or a deeper meaning that’s below the surface. No, no! God gave it as His Word to His men and women. Did they know comprehensively? No! No one knows comprehensively except God. But did they know adequately? Yes! We can always have an adequate understanding.

Paul spoke also the doctrines from the heart, Romans 6:17. And constantly Paul is warning against false doctrine in Ephesians 4:14. That’s what Paul tells Timothy too, “All Scripture is profitable.” And what’s the first profit? For doctrine. Therefore I think we should be careful in our day and age where we have come to demean creedal statements and doctrinal statements. Paul builds on them in the Pastorals: “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.” What’s a faithful saying? It is a doctrinal statement.

With that comes to my mind some of these in the Pastorals which are complete statements, and are just very, very beautiful in what they say. Titus is a good example. He [Paul] tells Titus 2, “You must teach what is correct with sound doctrine.” Many say doctrine turns the public off. Well of course you can do it in a way that is awful. But still, whether the audience says it turns them off or not, it’s still the goal of Scripture. But when it comes to (Titus) 2:11 “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,” so your topic here is the charis, the grace of God. And what does the grace of God do? It brings salvation to all men. Who are the “all men”? He’s just described them: verse 2, the older men; verse 3, the older women; verse 4, the younger women; verse 6, the young men; verse 9 slaves. So it appeared to all men, and all contextually: every class, every gender, every age of life. That grace of God has appeared bringing salvation, but also the grace of God which educates us too, as well. So we have the grace of God brings salvation, the grace of God that educates or teaches us “to say no to ungodliness and worldly passions and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age”



6 of 12

Lesson 08 of 12

Also, the grace of God that has appeared (2:13) “while we wait for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” I remember I was asked one time to bring devotions at an Adult Sunday school class [outdoor] steak fry. These are always difficult things—you’re having a good time, everyone’s cooking steak . . . “and now, a Word from our speaker. You’re on.” It’s just like when you change stations, and there you are. What to do? So I thought I’d have some fun. I did go to this passage. I said “This is something you can “steak” your life on, the grace of God. ‘S’ that brings salvation. The grace of God, ‘T,’ that teaches us. The grace of God that’s given us an expectation while we wait for the blessed hope. And then verse 14, ‘Who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for Himself a people that are His very own.’” I said, “The grace of God gives us acceptance, we belong, we’re in. He knows us, we walk with Him.” I said, “Did you ever have a good message going . . . S-T-E-A-?” And I said, “I just do not want to force the text. The last verse is there: ‘These things are things you should teach and encourage and rebuke with all authority. Don’t let anyone despise you.” And I said, “I need a ‘K’ and the only thing I can think of is my last name, it’s Kaiser.”

And someone came up afterward and said, “No, you forgot” he said, “The ‘K’ is here.” The grace of Godgives us a “kick,” for He said, “These things you should teach and encourage and rebuke with all authority don’t let anyone despise you!” “Okay, I adopt your K.”

The grace of God. What is the grace of God? He does put it out in a doctrinal form there. So it is very, very beautiful.

What are the principles governing the doctrinal studies in the Bible? Well first of all, a theologian is a redeemed person whose main work is gathering the teachings of divine revelation. Now I’ve got to be careful as I go through the Bible—the gathering is my own, it’s human and it’s made by a person who is a sinner, and all theologians need to know that. Why do we have people that are of all different brands? We’ve got Calvinists, and we’ve got Arminians, and we’ve got, oh my, you just go on and [on as] the diversification gets very, very large. Well it is not that the Holy Spirit stuttered, and it is not that there is not a correct theology. It is we’re mortals. And part of it is a result of upbringing, part of it is the result of biases, part of it is the result of stubbornness. You can see that there’s a whole bunch of stuff that’s coming here.



7 of 12

Lesson 08 of 12

[Secondly], the main task of doctrinal teaching generally rests on what we call the ordinary, the straightforward, the natural interpretation of the Bible. Always read the Bible naturally before we try to read it spiritually or some other way. And then there must be a hint [clue] in the passage. A hint that let’s know that we are to treat it that way.

Thirdly, the main burden of our theology should come from large teaching blocks, “chair passages,” sedes doctrinae—so these are chair passages. I’ve not seen many since the Reformation who have emphasized this. This was in [the] Lutheran, Melanchthon, and some of the great reformers—they emphasized chair passages. I would love to have every seminarian, before they could graduate, to be able to give an exegesis of each of the key chair passages in the Bible on key theological [points]—moving through the whole spectrum of theology proper, anthropology, hamartiology, Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.

[Fourth], exegesis must be prior to any system of theology. [Our theology must come from the word itself and not the other way around].

Fifth, the theologian must not extend his doctrine beyond the scriptural evidence. Now we have many books coming out [on going “Beyond the Bible”], this is the hottest thing on the market. I will have one in which I am one of these counterpoint things, one of four authors, on Beyond the Sacred Page. And the argument there is going to be, “What do we do for questions that are not directly answered in the Bible?” I’m saying, “You still stay on the page if you want to have the sufficiency and the authority and the backing of the biblical text. Once you’re off the page you’re on your own.” So I’m arguing there are principles that then carry over in naming relationship [and] significance—the difference between meaning and significance, as we talked about earlier.

[Sixth the theologian strives to develop an interrelated system of assertions from the Bible].

[Seventh], A theologian must not use any and all [of the Bible as if it was composed of] “proof texts.” Now I use the word “proof text” here in a pejorative way. “Proof-texting” generally means using any kind of words that can be used, just like I used “to be or not to be.” Be careful of just using a text because it happens to use the words that you want to use. Those words belong to a context, and they’re woven together with that context. Therefore before I just pick up the words because they are similar to the point I want to make, I’ve got to show that that’s how they operate in that



8 of 12

Lesson 08 of 12

context.

Eighthly, I think, what cannot first be found in the divine revelation cannot be made a matter of a creed. There are so many of our emphases in these latter days for which God has raised up some churches, but they are not biblically based—they are off the page. And they may be wonderful cultural or traditional sayings, but why don’t we label them that? It will save us an awful lot later on when the next generation says, “Where stands it written?” and you say, “Well, we’re Christians. Read our lips,” but that’s not adequate. We’re “perspired,” not “inspired.”

So [ninth] the theologian must keep the practical nature of the Bible in mind. Even though we use these big words with -ology: theology, anthropology, soteriology, still, it’s got to be: If you can’t explain it in everyday conversational, personal language, then probably we don’t understand it. And neither will the people of God. So don’t say it until we do.

For example we use the word “righteousness” in the Bible, but hardly anyone speaks of righteousness out in the street. You have a fender bender with another car. You do talk about righteousness, but you don’t use the word. First thing you say is, “I was in the right!” Aha! That’s the quality of righteousness, the quality of being in the right. So learn how we speak today—the state or the quality of being in the right with God, the quality or state of being in the right with someone else— righteousness.

But the word “justification” can be that too. This time it is God’s declaration that He declares us just— in the right—before Him. Not that God makes us right. There is no such thing like that. [He instead declares us to be just].

Well then, also, tenthly, the theologian must recognize a responsibility to the church. We stand on the shoulders of so many that have gone before [us]. And one of the nice things of what’s happening in our day, both in liturgy and in doctrine, is a desire to look back and try to understand what was it that the church experienced of the grace and the mercy of God, and its understanding of God. So church history will keep us from making the same mistakes over. I mean, if someone has already been there, why do it yourself and learn the hard way? Learn off [from] someone else. And I think we will have this.

Now a couple of methods that will help us here, three I want to bring up: the analogy of faith, the analogy of antecedent scripture, and also there is Scripture interprets Scripture. And



9 of 12

Lesson 08 of 12

along with that I want to talk about the perspicuity—the clarity, perspicuousness—with which Scripture can be seen.

The analogy of faith, often incorrectly based on Romans 12:6, but there is [also] a sense in the book that we have. I talk about three meanings that can be given to that passage, “in proportion to your faith.” That’s the verse the Reformers use when they talked about trying to build these flowers [verses] out of various contexts, and associating them together [for doctrinal building]. There are, analogically, passages that belong together because, in the progress of Revelation, they keep talking, and keep adding, and keep supplementing on the same subject. That’s what we mean by the “analogy of faith.” Therefore pooling them together for the people of God is very helpful.

Now one very helpful reference, but also one that can get us into trouble, is a topical Bible. Nave’s Topical Bible is a good source for getting verses that belong together. But sometimes they have not gotten the exegetical base right. So be careful, check everything you use out of a topical Bible.

The analogy of antecedent scripture is one in which the scriptural roots of a passage can be found earlier, back in [the Bible’s earlier] context, where this was brought up in an earlier text. I’m thinking of a passage in the book of Hosea where God says He will “Turn the Valley of Achor into a door of hope.” Valley of Achor? Well if you lived through those days that would be like “9/11” or like “Virginia Tech.” “Valley of Achor” directly comes back in Hosea 2:14, “Therefore I will give her back her vineyards and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.” What is this Valley of Achor? Achor means trouble. And where did that come up? In the book of Joshua 7:8. There, when they went up against Jericho, in Jericho Achan was “achin” to take some stuff, and so hid it in his tent. When God said, “No, the whole thing here is ‘under the ban.’ It was dedicated over to God.” You have in the Bible, what is called herem. This Hebrew word here—חרם (with a dot under it is a hard h ), e-r-e-m—herem is related to our word “harem,” and it comes from the Arabic word which means “a wall that surrounded and set apart the wives to an Arabian king.” So they were his harem. We’ve made an English word out of that, but it is related to this Hebrew word, which is h-e-r-e-m, which means “involuntary dedication to the Lord for destruction.” It is the opposite of Romans 12:1-2, “I beseech you therefore, brethren [sisteren too, it means] by the mercies of God that you present your bodies a living sacrifice.” So that’s a voluntary dedication set apart to God. This [herem] is [an] involuntary [dedication for destruction].



10 of 12

Lesson 08 of 12

When God keeps waiting for nations, for the cup of their iniquity to fill up and then to overflow, Genesis 15, He is waiting for the sin of the Canaanites to overflow. How long does He wait? Well Genesis 15 here is 2000 BC and He waits all the way until 1400 BC. That’s a slow count, that’s a very even count (that’s not a “1-2-3-4-5 you’re out” while their shoulders were on the mat. But rather God waits for that). That’s true of every nation. Jeremiah talks about “the cup of iniquity” [overflowing finally].

The USA has a cup of iniquity. One day it’s going to get full and, unless there is revival and repentance, boom! And don’t kid about it and don’t pull your punches. Tell your people, your church, not only to get sinners to come to the family of God, but we’re trying to get people that know the Lord to get straight [with God and with each other]. And if we don’t get straight, boom! And we’ve got to say that. Otherwise we don’t have guts enough to say it, [and] we’re going to lead God’s people down to destruction. And I’ve argued that in United States we’ve faced this many times. We faced this on December 7, 1941. I’m old enough to remember where I was. What happened on that afternoon, Eastern Standard Time, about 4:15. Our life changed on December 7, 1941 [the bombing of Pearl Harbor].

I remember, too, I was in the Bible department at Wheaton College. Someone broke in on Friday afternoon on November 22, 1963, and said, “The President’s [John F. Kennedy] been shot!” I know where I was there. Life’s changed again. God was saying, “Has anybody smelled the coffee? Is anybody awake?” And I know where I was again on Wednesday April 15, 1995. Oklahoma City [bombing of Federal Building]. Boom! We said, “Must be a terrorist.” No, no. It was American. And 2 years later, Columbine [high school shooting] on the same day, and the Davidian Compound [tragedy in Waco, Texas involving David Koresh], and then 9/11 [2001 terrorist attack]. And then we’ve got to add to that more dates— Virginia Tech [university shooting in 2007] and now Northern Illinois [university shooting in 2008]. You don’t think God’s calling, “Calling, calling,” [to see if] anybody [is] awake? “Anybody smell coffee? Any revival, any repentance? No? None? 1-2-3 . . .” He does that you know.

I can show you passages in Amos. He calls, “I sent this, and yet you didn’t turn. I sent this, and yet you didn’t turn.” Amos 5, “I sent this and you still didn’t turn.” And 1-2-3-4-5. “And because of this, prepare to meet your God,” which is not an evangelistic text. That’s “1-2-3-4-5. Goodbye!” and Samaria was lost. Some people say, “That’s tough teaching.” But I don’t think so.



11 of 12

Lesson 08 of 12

Well in this herem, in the story of Achan, God said that the whole thing came over to Him. If it couldn’t be destroyed and burned, then the silver, the gold, and the iron had to come into the house of the Lord, because it belonged to Him. “Don’t take it!” Later on they could, but the Tent City [Jericho] was under the ban (it’s translated “ban”). So these words which occur (by the way, it only occurred with regard to Canaan), they’re the only places where there were involuntary kinds of destructions. Well the last one, that’s an antecedent. From Achan, from the Valley of Achor, up to there [Hosea], they help us interpret [the saying in Hosea 2:14].

Then what about the Scriptures? Are they perspicuous and clear? Yes! For what? Not everything! Second Peter 3:16 says that certain passages in Paul are “hard to understand.” But there were some that were hard, some that were hard to understand. It didn’t mean because he was an apostle he had an easy pass on preparing his Bible studies, not at all. But what do we mean by perspicuity? We mean the Bible, in its message of salvation, is so clear and so perspicuous that “a plowboy,” said Tyndale (a boy who just goes behind a horse and a plow), could read the Bible, and still find how to become born again. That’s what we mean there. And all the places where the church has used it in the past, it has meant that. It does not mean that everything in the Bible is equally clear.

So are there hard passages? Yes. [Martin] Luther said there were many times, when he came to a difficult passage, he would fast and pray, because he didn’t know. Many of the great interpreters will tell you, “There are large number of times when I didn’t know what a passage meant, and I just had to pray and pray.” My teacher, Merrill [C.] Tenney, said, “Develop a mental back burner, and put the problem on the mental back burner, turn the heat down. Don’t let the pot boil over—it’ll make a mess out of your mind. But keep it on simmer, keep reading, keep praying, keep studying.” There are many times when all of a sudden you’ll see something and say, “Ah, that’s it!” You take that pot off and put another one on, another problem, and let them simmer there.

Therefore I use that in the same way when we talk about “Scripture interprets Scripture.” There are verbal parallels, same words being used, and if they’re being used in the same context, yes, then make that a verbal parallel. There are times, too, when the topic comes up again, and it is the same topic that can be used once again. But I think that we need to be very careful in the way in which we use all of these things. Some of the confessions—there’s one here; Westminster Confession talks about “All things in Scripture are not alike, plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet those

Transcript - HR501 Biblical Hermeneutics Understanding Biblical Interpretation© 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

Christ-Centered Learning — Anytime, Anywhere

12 of 12

The Theological Use of the Bible: Putting it All TogetherLesson 08 of 12

things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation [here comes your perspicuity clause] are so clearly propounded and open in someplace in Scripture or other that not only the learned but the unlearned in the due use of the ordinary means may obtain a sufficient understanding of that.” That’s a high language for “even a dummy could get this thing there.” So this is a new guidebook Salvation for Dummies. It does exist, and you can get it if you’re dummy.

[The] Theological task of the Bible—it’s a great issue. People argue, “Doctrine divides.” No, no, no. It’s people that divide, and we divide ourselves using the Bible as a club against one another. But it is amazing how God, in the unity of the Bible, has a single plan, single-purpose, and a unifying cohesiveness that puts the whole thing together. Has any one person, any one church, any one denomination, any one system got it all? No, no one is God, we’re all mortals. Every one of us must always think that we might be wrong, even when we think we’re right. But keep going back to the text, and hold your finger on the text. I keep telling my students, “Hold your finger on the text and gesture with the other hand. And when that one gets tired put it on the text and gesture the other hand. But keep bringing them back to the text.” And if you are going to preach topically, do it once every 5 years and then repent and go back to expository teaching.

the theological use of the bible: putting it all together · together. how do we do this gathering?...

Documents