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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?”

is foreshadowed in the prophet Hosea’s words to Israel: Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take with you words and return to the Lord; say to him, “Take away all iniquity; accept what is good, and we will pay with bulls the vows of our lips.” (Hos. 14:1–2)

God’s forgiveness and plentiful redemption are for the sake of His people offering a sacrifice of praise with their lips to God. The Bible begins with the account that God created man after His own image and likeness, in order that he should know God his creator aright, should love Him with all his heart, and should live with Him in eternal blessedness. And the Bible ends with the description of the new Jerusalem, whose inhabitants shall see God face to face and shall have His name upon their foreheads.

When we’re in the new heaven and new earth with glorified bodies, our redemption—initiated and sustained by God’s speech—will be perfected as we join together in flawless harmony and communion to praise with our lips the One who has created and re-created all things by the word of His power (Rev. 4:11). At last, our eyes will finally see, our ears will finally hear, our hearts will finally perceive, and our tongues will finally speak of that which “God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:9).

: Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, Prolegomena (Baker, 2003), 350. : See L. Michael Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord? (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2015), 38–39; T. Desmond Alexander, The City of God and the Goal of Creation (Crossway, 2018). : Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “From Speech Acts to Scripture Acts,” in After Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation, eds. Craig Bartholomew, Colin Greene, and Karl Möller, Scripture and Hermeneutics, vol. 2 (Zondervan, 2001), 46. : J. Gresham Machen, The Literature and History of New Testament Times (Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath School Work, 1915), 286. : The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (T&T Clark, n.d.), 1:116. : Geerhardus Vos, Grace and Glory (1922; repr., Banner of Truth, 2020), 120. : Herman Bavinck, The Wonderful Works of God: Instruction in the Christian Religion according to the Reformed Confession (Westminster Seminary Press, 2019), 8. : Thomas Boston, Human Nature in Its Fourfold State (Banner of Truth, 2015), 448. : Richard B. Gaffin Jr., “Speech and the Image of God: Biblical Reflections on Language and Its Uses,” in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries: Essays in Honor of Robert B. Strimple, ed. David VanDrunen ( P&R, 2004), 193. : Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1:351 (emphasis added). : Bavinck, Wonderful Works of God, 548. : Ibid., 8.

In our day, we often hear that no one’s point of view is to be privileged over another, that no one has a monopoly on truth, and that everything ultimately is a matter of opinion. This view is even applied to Scripture, to the point where the meaning of the Bible appears to be up for grabs and infinitely malleable. The Reformed tradition has consistently rejected this view, for the simple reason that Scripture is the Word of God, and God cares about how His Word is read. Ultimately, Scripture must be read as God directs.

Interpreting and understanding biblical texts is the province of exegesis. Exegesis is closely related to hermeneutics, which involves the principles according to which Scripture is approached and interpreted. It is, therefore, the application of hermeneutics to a particular passage. Here are some principles for interpreting the Bible according to the Reformed tradition.

We are to interpret the Bible humbly.

The Bible is no ordinary book. It is a unique book, the very Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and so when we read it, we are trying to discern what the living God has to say to us. All other authorities—even those that purport to tell us how to interpret Scripture—are subordinate to Scripture. Thus, while we seek to discern the meaning intended by the human authors, ultimately we seek to discern the meaning intended by the divine Author.

This means placing ourselves under the Bible rather than over it. When we come to a passage whose apparent meaning we find distasteful, for instance, we don’t try to explain it away or ignore it. For example, in John 6, Jesus speaks of the priority of God’s electing grace in bringing to faith those who trust in Him. Many find the teaching too hard and turn away (John 6:66), and many today similarly try to explain away Scripture’s teaching on election. Yet we must strive to understand and submit to the teaching of Scripture as it is and not as we’d like it to be.

We are to interpret the Bible faithfully.

Interpreting the Bible faithfully means reading a given passage as it’s meant to be read. Reading in this way pays attention to things such as genre and figures of speech and takes account of the historical and literary context of a given passage, making note of how the words used were understood at the time the text was written. This method is often called historical-grammatical exegesis, and it is intended to uncover what the author intended to convey by focusing on the words he used and their meaning in context.

Reading the Bible faithfully begins by asking some key questions about the text, including: Who is the author? What was the context of his writing? What was his purpose in writing? What is the genre of the text? The answers to these questions can often be found in the text itself, but sometimes outside resources such as commentaries and Bible dictionaries can