Jesus is the lens through we must look if we are to understand the Scriptures properly. Today, Barry Cooper emphasizes the importance of interpreting the Bible as it was meant to be interpreted.

Last week we finished exploring how the Word of God accomplishes the very purposes of God Himself. But sometimes the Word seems to take longer to accomplish its purposes than at other times. This is not due to any defect in the Bible itself, but results from our inexperience in handling Scripture properly. When we know how to properly interpret the Bible, the Scriptures impact our lives more quickly and more meaningfully. In order to help us learn some of the principles of proper biblical interpretation, we will base our studies this week on the audio series Knowing Scripture by Dr. R.C. Sproul.

All of the sciences have rules and methods that govern how that science operates properly. Biblical interpretation is no different; there are rules that we must follow in order to understand the Scriptures rightly. The science of interpreting the Bible is called “hermeneutics.”

One common approach in the field of hermeneutics is called the “existential method of interpretation.” In this approach, the text is viewed not as God’s Word in and of itself. Rather, it is only a vehicle that God uses to have a direct, immediate encounter with our souls. In the existential approach, what God says through the Bible is not always the same as what the text itself says. This approach results in a radical subjectivism that assumes the text can mean totally different things to different people.

We do indeed directly encounter God in the pages of Holy Writ, but that is because the words on its pages are the words of God Himself. Because God’s Word is true, there only can be one possible original meaning for each biblical text. This meaning will be the same for us as it was for the original audience thousands of years ago because truth does not change. Our differing settings may cause the precise application to be different, but never the text’s meaning. If we want to find the one, true meaning of the text, we must follow the “grammatico-historical method.” This hermeneutical approach investigates the original cultural setting of the text and focuses on grammar and syntax in order to understand what the author of the text meant when he wrote to his original audience. Only this method can give us the original meaning of the biblical text. Otherwise, we end up with a dangerous subjectivism that denies truth itself.

My first appointment today was with a seminary student of mine who also attends our church. He is a sharp student in his early forties who left a lucrative career in order to pursue God's call to pastoral ministry. He asked me to review his research paper and suggest ways he could improve it. In discussing his paper, he explained how his position on baptism had recently begun to change from a believer's-baptist (credobaptist) position to an infant-baptist (paedobaptist) position. Even though I am a convinced paedobaptist, I urged him as a first-year seminary student to take extraordinary care in his study of baptism in particular and in his study of Scripture in general. I explained that his understanding of the recipients of baptism must come as a result of his serious study of Scripture itself and, what's more, that his study of Scripture must be done with careful exegesis and a consistent hermeneutic (method of interpretation). Although I want him to affirm paedobaptism, I only want him to do so on account of careful biblical interpretation, not simply on account of the seminary and church he attends or the theologians and pastors he respects.

In my own four-year-long journey toward affirming paedobaptism—fighting against it all the way—I began to see that it wasn't only my understanding of baptism that was changing but my understanding of biblical covenants, the continuity between covenants, the church, and, more foundationally, my understanding of hermeneutics. I came to see that the fundamental difference between credobaptists and paedobaptists is our hermeneutic in approaching certain passages of Scripture.

Although the word hermeneutic is intimidating, a proper hermeneutic is essential to all forms of communication. And whether we know it or not, everyone has a hermeneutic. The goal, however, is that our hermeneutic be biblically faithful and that we strive to apply it consistently without allowing any hermeneutical fallacies to corrupt our exegesis of Scripture. Our hermeneutic emerges from Scripture and, reciprocally, helps us to interpret Scripture, thus informing all our theology. All Christians, both credobaptist and paedobaptist, affirm the authority of Scripture, yet we sometimes disagree in our interpretation of it on account of our hermeneutical differences. Therefore, we do well to study hermeneutics and the fallacies that can unfortunately affect our interpretation of Scripture, to the end that we might rightly divide the Word of Truth as we all strive to glorify God in all we think, do, and say as we live coram Deo, before His face forever.

detailed explanation of these and more hermeneutical principles, see R.C. Sproul’s Knowing Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016). : While many grammatical and historical questions can be answered by paying attention to the details of the text and asking good questions, making use of tools such as a good study Bible or commentary can help highlight important details of the text.

Both science and theology are concerned to explain the phe-nomena of the natural world, and they do so from two dif-ferent perspectives. The natural sciences tend to focus on the operation of secondary causes—how atomic movements, chemical reactions, and other things produce effects in the universe. With re-spect to the physical world, theology often emphasizes the role of the primary cause—God—who brings everything to pass according to His comprehensive decree and sovereign providence. Both perspec-tives are necessary for us to have the fullest awareness of the created order, and since all truth is God’s truth, we can be confident that truth discovered in one area will not contradict truth discovered in another.

God’s revelation is infallible no matter where He provides it. We are accustomed to viewing the revelation that theology focuses its atten-tion on—Scripture—as infallible, and rightly so given what Scripture says about itself (for example, Ps. 12:6). Yet we must also remember that God’s revelation in nature is infallible as well. If God tells us truth about Himself through the natural world (Rom. 1:18–32), it follows logically that this revelation cannot err because the Lord cannot err.

However, though special revelation and natural revelation are both infallible, our understanding of them is not. Sometimes we make mis-takes, and the discoveries in science can help us see where we have erred in interpreting Scripture. For example, until Galileo’s day, many people thought Scripture teaches that the earth is stationary and the center of the universe. This was based on biblical descriptions of the sun’s rising and setting in texts such as Ecclesiastes 1:5. But Galileo’s discoveries helped us see that the Bible does not generally use techni-cal scientific language in describing the natural world. It tends to use ordinary ways of speaking about the world according to how things look to the naked eye. There is nothing wrong with speaking in such ways when we are not intending to describe how the world works with scientific precision. Even in this age of science, we are unafraid to speak of the sun rising and setting in the appropriate contexts.

It is also true that our discoveries in Scripture can help us see where we have erred in science. The biblical account of creation, for instance, has motivated many scientists to highlight the problems and incon-sistencies inherent to attempting science on the basis of an atheistic and naturalistic worldview. In turn, many scientists have been forced to rethink their conclusions about God and the universe.

Here’s an excerpt from Hermeneutics and the Heart, David Briones’ contribution to the November issue of Tabletalk:

I teach biblical hermeneutics—how to study the Bible—at Reformation Bible College. I enjoy teaching all of the subjects assigned to me, but hermeneutics is certainly one of my favorites. I especially enjoy the first couple of class sessions. We spend significant time thinking about what constitutes a good and faithful hermeneutical method—a good, explicitly Christian way of interpreting Scripture. To set the context for that discussion, I read a quote to the class that comes from Augustine’s On Christian Teaching: “So anyone who thinks that he has understood the divine scriptures or any part of them, but cannot by his understanding build up this double love of God and neighbor, has not yet succeeded in understanding them.”

Continue reading Hermeneutics and the Heart, or begin receiving Tabletalk magazine by signing up for a free 3-month trial.

For a limited time, the new TabletalkMagazine.com allows everyone to browse and read the growing library of back issues, including this month’s issue.

Here's an excerpt from Interpreting Hermeneutics, Burk Parsons' contribution to the January issue of Tabletalk:

My first appointment today was with a seminary student of mine who also attends our church. He is a sharp student in his early forties who left a lucrative career in order to pursue God's call to pastoral ministry. He asked me to review his research paper and suggest ways he could improve it. In discussing his paper, he explained how his position on baptism had recently begun to change from a believer's-baptist (credobaptist) position to an infant-baptist (paedobaptist) position. Even though I am a convinced paedobaptist, I urged him as a first-year seminary student to take extraordinary care in his study of baptism in particular and in his study of Scripture in general. I explained that his understanding of the recipients of baptism must come as a result of his serious study of Scripture itself and, what's more, that his study of Scripture must be done with careful exegesis and a consistent hermeneutic (method of interpretation). Although I want him to affirm paedobaptism, I only want him to do so on account of careful biblical interpretation, not simply on account of the seminary and church he attends or the theologians and pastors he respects.

Continue reading Interpreting Hermeneutics, or begin receiving Tabletalk magazine by signing up for a free 3 month trial.

Was Adam really a historical person, and can we trust the biblical story of human origins? Or is the story of Eden simply a metaphor, leaving scientists the job to correctly reconstruct the truth of how humanity began? Although the church currently faces these pressing questions—exacerbated as they are by scientific and philosophical developments of our age—we must not think that they are completely new. In The Quest for the Historical Adam, William VanDoodewaard recovers and assesses the teaching of those who have gone before us, providing a historical survey of Genesis commentary on human origins from the patristic era to the present. Reacquainting the reader with a long line of theologians, exegetes, and thinkers, VanDoodewaard traces the roots, development, and, at times, disappearance of hermeneutical approaches and exegetical insights relevant to discussions on human origins. This survey not only informs us of how we came to this point in the conversation but also equips us to recognize the significance of the various alternatives on human origins.

The November 2018 issue of Tabletalk will consider what it means for Christians to be a people of the book. Throughout the history of Christianity, the church has understood the sixty-six books of the Bible to be the infallible and inerrant Word of God, “which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” As such, it is “the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him” (Westminster Shorter Catechism 2). Having received this revelation from God, the church is responsible for submitting to and rightly applying the Bible in all of life. This issue will address the subject of hermeneutics and rules of interpretation. Further, it will seek to help Christians understand how to apply the Bible as we seek to be faithful Christians who study, meditate on, and love the Word of God.Contributors include Michael J. Kruger, Lucas Parks, Dennis E. Johnson, Joe Holland, Nicholas T. Batzig, David E. Briones, Daniel R. Hyde, Robert Rothwell, Albert N. Martin, Tom Ascol, Lowell A. Ivey, and Keith A. Mathison.

Biblical Studies is a branch of theology that examines the text of Scripture in order to draw out (the literal translation of “exegesis”) its meaning. Exegesis includes many subdisciplines: textual criticism, hermeneutics, the study of the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), biblical archaeology, biblical history, and biblical theology. How these disciplines relate to each other is debated, but all of them (either directly or indirectly) aid in discerning the meaning of Holy Scripture.

It has often been charged that the Bible can’t be trusted because people can make it say anything they want it to say. This charge would be true if the Bible were not the objective Word of God, if it were simply a wax nose, able to be shaped, twisted, and distorted to teach one’s own precepts. The charge would be true if it were not an offense to God the Holy Spirit to read into sacred Scripture what is not there. However, the idea that the Bible can teach anything we want it to is not true if we approach the Scriptures humbly, trying to hear what the Bible says for itself.

Sometimes systematic theology is rejected because it is seen as an unwarranted imposition of a philosophical system on the Scriptures. It is seen as a preconceived system, a Procrustean bed into which the Scriptures must be forced by hacking off limbs and appendages to make it fit. However, the appropriate approach to systematic theology recognizes that the Bible itself contains a system of truth, and it is the task of the theologian not to impose a system upon the Bible, but to build a theology by understanding the system that the Bible teaches.

At the time of the Reformation, to stop unbridled, speculative, and fanciful interpretations of Scripture, the Reformers set forth the fundamental axiom that should govern all biblical interpretation. It is called the analogy of faith, which basically means that Holy Scripture is its own interpreter. In other words, we are to interpret Scripture according to Scripture. That is, the supreme arbiter in interpreting the meaning of a particular verse in Scripture is the overall teaching of the Bible.

Behind the principle of the analogy of faith is the prior confidence that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. If it is the Word of God, it must therefore be consistent and coherent. Cynics, however, say that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. If that were true, then we would have to say that the smallest mind of all is the mind of God. But there is nothing inherently small or weak to be found in consistency. If it is the Word of God, one may justly expect the entire Bible to be coherent, intelligible, and unified. Our assumption is that God, because of His omniscience, would never be guilty of contradicting Himself. It is therefore slanderous to the Holy Spirit to choose an interpretation of a particular passage that unnecessarily brings that passage into conflict with that which He has revealed elsewhere. So the governing principle of Reformed hermeneutics or interpretation is the analogy of faith.

[pullquote]

A second principle that governs an objective interpretation of Scripture is called the sensus literalis. Many times people have said to me, incredulously, “You don’t interpret the Bible literally, do you?” I never answer the question by saying, “Yes,” nor do I ever answer the question by saying, “No.” I always answer the question by saying, “Of course, what other

God’s Word but to obey it, love it, apply it, and proclaim it as we live coram Deo, before the face of God for His glory.

This article is part of the Hermeneutics collection.

nothing contrary to Trinitirianism in it whatsoever, but we don’t want to make the error that we often find among pastors and commentators in which they try to fit the Trinity into a particular verse or passage. We don’t need to do that. We need to better exegetes and better in our hermeneutics.

FERGUSON: I will answer with two words: the Gospels. Be mastered by the Gospels, and learn to preach Christ from them.

People want to know how to preach Christ from the Old Testament. You will learn that by knowing how to preach Christ from the Gospels and the Epistles. The Christ of the Epistles is the Christ of the Gospels. However, my observation for young preachers is that the Gospels are the most difficult part of the Bible to preach. Paul is much easier, and we prefer to preach Paul because we can preach his logic. But preaching Jesus Christ, that’s really something. So, soak yourself in the testimony of the Gospels to the Lord Jesus.

THOMAS: I think it was at a Desiring God conference that Dr. Ferguson gave ten points on preaching Christ from the Scriptures. I am pretty sure that is on the internet somewhere. These days, there is an entire spectrum of preaching Christ. On one end, there seems to be an advocacy of seeing Christ in every text so that it almost becomes an allegory rather than a historical narrative. On the other end of the spectrum are the accusations made against John Calvin, that his preaching of the Old Testament was sometimes like a Jewish rabbi. I think that is entirely unfair, and it was made by a disgruntled Lutheran. I would urge anyone to look for Dr. Ferguson’s ten points because that was marvelously insightful for me.

PARSONS: Those studying for vocational ministry need to be well-grounded in hermeneutics. We are not nearly as well-grounded in our methods of interpretation as we need to be. So, ground yourself well in hermeneutics. Spend time studying interpretation and the science of that interpretation. There are many helpful books, both new and old, whether it’s Geerhardus Vos’ Biblical Theology or books by G.K. Beale.

I think the most important thing is getting good commentaries, which are not as easy to come by as some might suggest. Good commentaries do not just allegorize the text and put Christ behind every bush but help show you where the Old Testament fulfillment is made plain in the New Testament. Good commentaries carefully weave the beautiful thread of Scripture’s theology in every passage. So, find good commentaries, and read them diligently.

PARSONS: When we speak of ministry, it’s important that we first understand what that word means because there is a lot of misunderstanding. Too often we equate minister with pastor, but that’s not how the New Testament speaks of ministry.

The word ministry simply means “service,” and it can mean a role of service or an office of service, but it refers to any service that is rendered to another. That’s important because sometimes even the question might be problematic for some Christians. They might think: “That just shouldn’t be. Women can’t be in ministry at all.” However, ministry simply means “service,” biblically speaking.

The Bible gives all the many and beautiful ways that women not only can minister and serve but the many and beautiful ways women should minister in the church. The church should constantly be striving to identify, disciple, and train women in theology, Scripture, the languages, hermeneutics, and so on. Then they, as older women, might train up, teach, and disciple younger women. They ought to help raise up the next generation of young women to be courageous, faithful women, mothers, and teachers in the church for generations to come.

GODFREY: One of the great truths recovered at the Reformation was summarized in the words, “the priesthood of every believer.” In the medieval church, there was an entirely separated caste of priests who stood between God and the congregation. In a profound sense, the congregation was entirely dependent on the priests to minister the sacraments that would bring God’s grace and enable the congregation to draw close to God. The Reformation taught that the priesthood is not a separated caste of people, but rather that every Christian is a priest. That means every man and every woman is a priest before God.

The priesthood of all believers has sometimes been misunderstood as if I am my own priest before God. That’s not what it means. It means that every Christian helps every other Christian in the journey to God. That is a task for every man and every woman in a Christian congregation. We should be looking around and asking, “How can I as a priest before God help other Christians in this congregation draw closer to God?” That should keep us all busy and keep us from envy.

PARSONS: I know we are all on the same page, but these sorts of things go out on the internet, so it is important to state clearly that in no way, shape, or form does the Bible teach or commend that women are to be ordained pastors or elders.

While there is certainly disagreement on the subject of women as deacons, I’m going to state plainly that as I study the New Testament and as I’ve looked into this matter in great depth over the years (as have many others who disagree), I do not believe that the New Testament assigns the office of deacon to women in any clear way either.

Here is the reality: the offices of deacon and elder are a

Many of our listeners and students know that hermeneutics is at the very foundation of how we know what we believe in our theology, how we understand Scripture, and how we interpret Scripture.

In many ways, hermeneutics was the key for me in coming to understand the doctrines of grace and the doctrine of salvation in Scripture. It was equally significant for me in coming to understand covenant theology and the Bible’s view of the end times and eschatology, or the study of last things. It was also foundational in understanding paedobaptism, or infant baptism.

If you don’t study hermeneutics in depth, you’ll never come to understand these things, and that’s really what separates us as denominations. It’s not that we say, “We just believe this, and you believe that.” We’re reading the same Bible. We’re reading the same passages. We’re reading it not through a different lens, but through a different method of interpreting the Scripture.

There are numerous principles we could outline, but I would say that we need to allow the Bible to show us how to interpret itself. That is one of the most foundational principles of hermeneutics. We need to study Scripture to see how Scripture, particularly the New Testament, interprets the Old Testament and how the New Testament writers understand the Old Testament. Then we want to interpret passages that are less clear to us in light of those which are more clear. We want to understand the original meaning and understand the Bible as a unique book, inspired by the Holy Spirit, that is to be interpreted differently than any other book.

So, those who want to study theology need to start by studying hermeneutics. For those who want principles, it really takes a few books to dig in. Knowing Scripture by R.C. Sproul is a very helpful starting place. We just did an issue of Tabletalk on biblical metaphors, which is an issue of hermeneutics. About every year or two in Tabletalk, whether people realize it or not, we try to give people an issue on hermeneutics.

If I didn’t state it earlier, hermeneutics is the science, or the method, of interpretation. So, we need to study these things if we’re going to rightly understand our theology.

Having come to Christ not too many years before coming to understand the doctrines of salvation in Scripture, the doctrine of God that I had been taught was that God did things a certain way and not another way. Having to fight against those presuppositions about God that are not biblical is one of the reasons. We have to undo a lot of bad theology before we can really understand the right biblical theology.

I think that many Christians still struggle with the doctrines of grace in part because they’re struggling with them academically and exegetically. They’re struggling to understand certain passages and verses. That was the big struggle for me. I understood the theology of the doctrines of grace, I understood the explanation, and I understood the rationale. But as a Greek and Hebrew student and a theology student at the time, I was studying certain passages and saying, “This passage doesn’t seem to line up with this other passage.”

It really took a right understanding of hermeneutics, a right method of interpretation, to help me see how all of Scripture fit together and how one passage of Scripture interpreted another passage of Scripture. One that was more clear helped to interpret one that was perhaps less clear to me.

I think there are some that have an understanding of God as a loving God, and while they would confess and believe that He is sovereign, they struggle to understand how a loving God could condemn or how a loving God could not elect everyone. So the question that they ask, and the question that I asked at that time, is: “Why doesn’t God just save everyone? Why doesn’t God elect everyone?”

While that is a fair question, it’s really not an appropriately biblical question because we must understand the fall of man, that we are at enmity with God, that we are in opposition to Him, that we ran from Him, that we hid from Him, and that when He came down and took on flesh we killed Him.

It’s only when we grasp that we are all deserving of hell and death that we can really begin to ask the more appropriate biblical question as to why God saves or elects anyone. That’s when we really begin to understand the grace of God and ask, “Why me?”

I first came in contact with Keith Mathison while in college. I attended an historically Dispensational college where a giant Clarence Larkin Dispensational chart adorned one of the classrooms. I came across a new book through Tabletalk magazine called Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? published by P&R in 1995 by a guy named Mathison who, I discovered, was a student of the seminary where many of my professors graduated from, namely Dallas Theological Seminary, a seminary known for its Dispensational ways, a seminary, nevertheless, that I held and continue to hold in high esteem on account of its high standards in training its students in biblical languages and exegesis. Though I myself had never come under the influence of the classic Dispensational hermeneutic (thanks largely to my former professor Robert W. Carver from the Bible Presbyterian Church), the book provided me with a helpful introduction to the hermeneutics behind the hermeneutics of classic Dispensationalism. Aside from its ugly cover (perhaps the real secret to the book's success), the book became a huge influence among many of the students at the college, although it could not be found among the recommended reading lists on professors' syllabi.

Three years after getting my hands on the book, I met Keith at the 1999 Ligonier Ministries' national conference. He gave one of the further study seminars on eschatological heresies. When we met he didn't speak much, but I soon recognized that his reservation wasn't due to any sort of awkward shyness but because he's one of the most sincerely humble men I have ever met who honestly thinks he doesn't really have much to offer others--he reads, researches, and writes for the simple reason that he loves to study the Word of God and the theology of the Word of God. His writing is simply the result of a life consumed by serious and disciplined study that others, by God's design, have the opportunity to take part in.

In the summer of 1999 when I began my course of study at Reformed Theological Seminary I needed a job, and the best thing I could find was at Ligonier Ministries working in the development department every evening. It was then when I met Keith's dear wife, Tricia. We worked together for about four months until she informed me that Keith was going to begin working on the newly formed Ligonier School of Theology to write curriculum, and that Ligonier would need to hire someone part time to help fill the gap left by Keith on "frontline" where the toll-free calls come in. She suggested that I might apply for the job, which I did and was hired the next week. For the next year Keith and I shared a desk (we're both quite clean and organized, so it worked out well), and in 2001 we both went to work in the editorial department of Ligonier Ministries and served as editorial assistants of Tabletalk.

As I continued my course of study in seminary, Keith continued to write

have difficulty grasping this idea for Psalm 1 because Jesus is the Blessed Man of the Word. In Psalm 22, He is the Forsaken One. He is the Good Shepherd of Psalm 23.

But where do we find Jesus in the Psalms of Ascents? We find Him on the road to Jerusalem singing these psalms as a faithful pilgrim. From the age of twelve, when He first went to Jerusalem for the Passover (Luke 2:41–51), the Savior regularly kept the pilgrim feasts (see John 2:13; 6:4; 7:1–24; 13:1). When the time for His crucifixion drew near, the Lord set His face to make His way to Jerusalem for the Passover (Luke 9:51). He was a resolute pilgrim even though He knew that His faithfulness would lead to suffering and death (Luke 9:21–22). When you read these psalms, ask how Jesus would have sung them or how they lead you to sing about Jesus.

The fourth guideline moves from the literary and the theological to concentrate on issues of personal application. Place yourself in the sandals of an Israelite on the way to the holy city and ask yourself these questions:

What does it mean for me to be a faithful pilgrim traveling to the new Jerusalem? How should I navigate the obstacles I encounter (see Ps. 121:1)? What should the anticipation and joyful celebration of worship look like in my life?

When the Israelites traveled to Jerusalem for the feasts, they went in groups. Mary and Joseph did not worry when they first missed Jesus on their return to Nazareth from the Passover because they assumed He was with others in the crowd trekking northward (Luke 2:43–44). While each of us is a pilgrim, we do not travel alone on this journey. We should, therefore, encourage one another (Ps. 122:1), be concerned for the welfare of all who are traveling with us (Ps. 122:8), realize that we all face hardships (Ps. 123:2–4), and learn to relish the joy of the companionship (Ps. 133).

This article is part of the Hermeneutics collection.

its purpose, and we receive its benefit, only if the Lord Jesus Christ is exalted as He should be.

The purpose of biblical typology may be discerned from two different outlooks—namely, from old covenant and new covenant vantage points. From the former perspective, typology served to breathe life into the promises of God by personifying and illuminating the promise of redemption. We may think of types as living sermon illustrations that brought the words of prophecy to life. Types are what gave the covenant promises their movement and embodiment in history, so that divine promises became palpable and anticipation became experiential. It is truly a wondrous method of divine reassurance that reflections of Christ were built into the very fabric of history, and that history itself was moving toward its crescendo in Him.

From the vantage point of the new covenant, we can appreciate the fact that our heavenly Father has, in a sense, painted the impression of His Son on the canvas of history. Christ has come in the flesh, but Old Testament types preserve historical reflections of Him that retain their own power to move our hearts and strengthen our faith. Typology adds historical depth to our understanding of the person and work of Christ. Just as a painting augments and interprets certain features of its subject, typology draws our attention to the features of the gospel that God Himself intended to accentuate over the course of history. Therefore, the unique value of typology is not lessened by the coming of Christ. If anything, it continues to add to our complete understanding of His person and work (see Luke 24:27, 44).

Drawing these points together, we may define biblical typology as God’s selective use of Old Testament people, events, and institutions to serve as living prophecies of His covenant promises, centering upon the person and work of Jesus Christ, for the reassurance of the faith of His people in all ages.

This article is part of the Hermeneutics collection.

to God in worship, even through nine chapters of genealogy in 1 Chronicles, since we will see God’s covenant faithfulness to His people instead of merely a list of names.

We know that loving the Lord involves speaking His Word to our children when we sit, when we rise, and when we walk (Deut. 6:6–7). The most obvious way to do this is to extend our private worship into family worship, reading, praying, and singing through Scripture together. Keeping family worship short and simple makes these times both profitable and better than not doing it at all.

Reading and praying through the Bible on our own, and in our households, leads naturally to conversing about the Bible throughout the day. As couples immerse themselves in God’s Word, incorporating children if they have them, they build devotional habits that help them know and remember Scripture, which spills naturally into everyday speech. The more Scripture we put into the heart, the more the mouth will speak as an overflow of the heart.

In faithful preaching on the Bible, we hear Christ’s voice (Rom. 10:14–17; Eph. 2:17). The Spirit’s power accompanies preachers who proclaim God’s testimony to His Son (1 Cor. 2:1–5). While listening to Bible lectures and sermons online is good, meeting with Christ and His people in public worship is far better. Thankfully, the Lord has given us a weekly Sabbath to redirect our hearts toward heaven, where the risen and ascended Christ is. Private and family worship help immerse us in Scripture throughout life. Yet public worship is the capstone of this process, in which the Spirit particularly drives the Word home, enabling us to practice God’s Word and to remember it by practicing it.

As Augustine counseled in his book On Christian Doctrine, the best way to read the Bible is to seek and enjoy God through it. The words on the page are “signs” pointing to the Lord, but the triune God is the “thing” that we really want when we read and hear God’s Word. Learning Scripture is a whole-souled engagement. Do we pray for the Spirit to glorify the Son as we study His Word? Do we aim to glorify God in body and soul as His beloved children? Do we seek to remember the Bible by using means to take it all in and through praying it into practice?

This article is part of the Hermeneutics collection and was originally published May 12, 2023.

was a flawed, real-life prophecy of a pure, perfect, suffering Messiah. The gasps of Gethsemane and cries of Calvary are echoed in David’s dire straits. As His Spirit laments through our mouth, Jesus’ sadness and sympathy both humble and comfort us. When you look at how Jesus prayed laments, it can lead your mind to blaze with light and your heart to flood with peace.

Use of lament has spiritual benefit. Laments help moderate and sanctify grief. Laments transform boring “shopping list” prayers into detailed, specific, animated cries that stand upon God’s Word. Laments outline the anatomy of distress and provide vital antidotes to ailments of our hearts.

Neglect of laments is damaging to the saints. Without lament, open wounds can fester. Without lament, evil often remains unleashed and God’s enemies go unchecked. Without lament, rage, resentment, and revenge can build up and eat up. Without lament, we sometimes fail to obtain rescue, redress, and relief.

Jesus’ teaching on “turning the other cheek” should not be taken to imply that calls for “broken teeth” to disarm snarling beasts are ever out-of-date or sub-Christian (Ps. 3:7). David never wounded Saul, but rather eulogized his death. When the rebel Absalom was killed, his father was distraught (2 Sam. 18:33). If at fault, the psalmists readily admit their guilt. Personal hostility, slanderous talk, nursing grudges, settling scores, or sinful angry outbursts have no place in laments (Ps. 35:11–16). Cries to vindicate truth are not vengeful fits that arise from petty hurts. They are prayers of Spirit-filled saints who speak the mind of Christ. While they are on their knees, kingdom concerns are uppermost.

Clearly, there is much more to be said about this delicate subject. Yet, it is important to consider the following facts: Elijah called down drought (James 5:17–18); Jesus withered a fig tree (Mark 11:12–14, 20–25); Paul condemned gospel-distorting heretics (Gal. 1:6–9); a persistent widow trained disciples in prayer appeals against injustice (Luke 18:1–8). If covenants work to bless or curse (as we receive or reject Christ), then the church can still use these petitions from the Psalms both to long for blessed conversion and to lament cursed rebellion.

This article is part of the Hermeneutics collection.