1. Introduction to Hermeneutics

The framework for these notes was based on a course taught by Dr. J. V. Fesko at the Reformed Theological Seminary and Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Woodstock, GA, USA around 2004. The content has been adapted, expanded, and updated for our use in Sunday school.

What Does Hermeneutics Mean?

Hermeneutics is the science and art of interpreting the Bible. Why is it that we have to learn how to read the Bible? Shouldn’t it come naturally? Why can’t we read it like any ordinary book? The Bible certainly has similarities with other books; it contains sentences, and its sentences are composed of nouns, adjectives, and verbs, and these are used with consistent grammar. So, in a certain sense, any reader that is fluent in the language of the Bible should be able to read and understand it.

It’s true that the Bible is accessible to the masses, such that even a child can pick it up and understand its basic content. Even so, this does not mean that there aren’t challenging portions of Scripture that are difficult to grasp. One of the reasons for this is because the Bible contains unique literary features with specific rules that need to be applied for proper interpretation. Another reason is because language is complex and, by its very nature, can frequently be understood in more than one way, and therefore sometimes misunderstood. To tackle these challenges correctly, we need to employ the principles of hermeneutics.

This means that proper interpretation of the Bible requires hard work.¹ It is true that the Holy Spirit helps us to understand the Bible, but at the same time we need to work hard to understand it too: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

Recommended Resources

Introductory-level

Sproul, R. C. Knowing Scripture: Revised Edition. InterVarsity Press. 2009.

Intermediate-level

Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Revised and Expanded Edition). Zondervan, 2007.
Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation: Third Edition. Zondervan, 2017.

Overall Outline

As we start, we will be mostly looking at the nuts and bolts of how to interpret the Bible (e.g., terminology and rules). While it may seem boring at first, these will be gradually connected together; over time, we will see how all the parts fit into the whole—like how it can seem when we construct a Lego set. To keep our study as practical and relevant as possible, we will try our best to apply these rules of interpretation to specific passages of Scripture regularly. This will be the basic outline that we will follow:

Learn the basic terminology, types of literary genres, and general interpretative rules for the Bible.

Look at structure of entire Bible and learn to apply rules to specific portions of Scripture according to the principles of hermeneutics.

Context matters. There are some unique characteristics of the Bible that need to be taken into account. There are different literary genres that require specific rules and considerations for proper interpretation. A common misconception is that the Bible can be read like any other book or piece of literature. But in reality, this is not possible. By necessity, we approach what we read differently according to its content and purpose. For example, there will be stark differences in how we read the Bible, compared to a play by Shakespeare, a poem by Robert Frost, or a cookbook by Martha Stewart.

We do not interpret the Bible in isolation. The Bible has not been given to us as individuals, but to the church. “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). We cannot properly interpret the Bible in a vacuum, apart from the rest of the church. Rather, we need to consider the interpretation of the Bible that has been passed down to us by faithful men and community of believers.

Sola Scriptura. In a nutshell, the Reformation doctrine of sola Scripture teaches that Scripture is the only inspired and infallible authority regarding faith and practice. Yet the Scripture is still to be interpreted by the church with proper hermeneutical rules. Sola Scriptura does not mean that “all of theology ought to be constructed anew, without reference to the church’s tradition of interpretation, by the lonely exegete confronting the naked text.”² Charles Hodge noted:

“Again, Protestants admit that as there has been an uninterrupted tradition of truth… [and] a stream of traditionary teaching flowing through the Christian Church from the day of Pentecost to the present time. This tradition is so far a rule of faith that nothing contrary to it can be true. Christians do not stand isolated, each holding his own creed.”³

Solo Scriptura. The revisionist doctrine of solo Scriptura, in contrast, promotes a radical individualism and rejection of church authority and tradition. Sadly, it is the norm today in most Christian circles. Solo Scriptura teaches that each person is equally capable of interpreting the Bible on his/her own terms, and it is up to each person to render final judgment on whether something is biblical or not. It leads to autonomy, subjectivism, and relativism. Herman Bavinck, the Reformed theologian warned:

“So much study and reflection on the subject [of Holy Scripture] is bound up with it that no person can possibly do it alone. That takes centuries. To that end the church has been appointed and given the promise of the Spirit’s guidance into all truth. Whoever isolates himself from the church, i.e., from Christianity as a whole, from the history of dogma in its entirety, loses the truth of the Christian faith. That person becomes a branch that is torn from the tree and shrivels, an organ that is separated from the body and therefore doomed to die. Only within the communion of the saints can the length and the breadth, the depth and the height, of the love of Christ be comprehended (Eph. 3:18)… Processing the content of Scripture [systematically]… is not just the work of one individual theologian, or of a church or school, but of the entire church throughout the ages…”⁴

While one does not need to be part of the professional clergy to understand the Bible, the preservation and transmission of correct doctrine rests upon faithful men who help us work through theological and practical disputes (1 Timothy 5:17; 2 Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:9). Only after we have interpreted the Bible correctly can we truly understand what it means to us. We should be wary of the contemporary trend which first asks, “What does the text mean to me?”

“When we neglect the true meaning of a passage and attempt to apply it to our lives, we end up not really applying Scripture at all. Scripture loses its power to renew our minds and transform us and instead becomes a quick fix to an easier life. When we don’t dig in and think hard to find the meaning of a text, we end up trivializing it and become man-centered in our application rather than having our eyes opened to the greatness of God. We must work hard to find the true meaning of texts and then think through how they apply to our lives.”⁵

Two Guiding Rules

We will be using two guiding rules. The first is the analogy of faith. The primary rule of interpretation used by the Reformers is the “analogy of faith” (analogia fidei), which emphasizes the unity and coherence of the Bible.⁶ This rule teaches that Scripture is used to interpret Scripture (Sacra Scriptura sui interpres). This means that the correct interpretation of one text of Scripture cannot contradict what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture.⁷ This is based on the foundation that all Scripture is authored by God and God never contradicts himself. “Thus it is apparent that our view of the nature and origin of the Bible will have a significant effect on how we go about interpreting it. If the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then the analogy of faith is not an option but a requirement of interpretation.”⁸ The analogy of faith is the underlying basis for why difficult passages are best understood when they are harmonized with the rest of Scripture.

There is a related term called the “analogy of Scripture,” which teaches that earlier texts inform the understanding of later passages (by giving background, depth, and poignancy to the words used). These may include direct quotations, indirect citations, and/or allusions to previous events, persons, or institutions.⁹ Sometimes parallel passages use the same word, phrase, clause or expression.

For example, there are clear allusions between 1 Kings 19:9, 11 and Exodus 33:19-22.¹⁰ The passage from 1 Kings describes Elijah on Mount Horeb where “he went into a cave.” There, the “the Lord passed by.” In the Exodus account, Moses finds himself at Mount Sinai “in the cleft of the rock” (essentially a cave) where God’s glory “passes by.” The connection between the two passages is instructive.¹¹ Mount Sinai and Mount Horeb are the same place, “covenant mountain”;¹² In the first story, Israel is guilty of 40 years of unfaithfulness (Exodus 24:18; Deuteronomy 9:9, 11) and Moses intercedes for them for 40 days (Deuteronomy 9:18, 25; 10:10). The later episode occurs over 40 days and 40 nights (1 Kings 19:8), which is a verbal parallel. Initially, we see how Moses acts as a covenant intercessor for the renewal and restoration of the nation (cf. Exodus 34). In contrast, Elijah is a covenant prosecutor who pleads for judgment upon the people for being covenant breakers (cf. 1 Kings 19:15-18) in the later narrative.

Sometimes, parallels are topical where facts, subjects, sentiments, events, or doctrines are being compared (without necessarily using the same words, phrases, clauses, or expressions).

Consider Jesus’ words in Luke 14:26, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” This is frequently raised as one of the hard sayings of the Bible.¹³ Interpretation is greatly helped by looking at the topically parallel passage in Matthew 10:37 where Jesus states, “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”¹⁴

These examples show us how Scripture is itself a valuable commentary for interpreting other parts of Scripture.

Case Study:

Another poignant example is the story of Jesus feeding the 5000. This is the only miracle (apart from the resurrection) that is reported in all four gospels (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:31-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-14). Taken in isolation, we can appreciate a remarkable story of Jesus’ compassion upon the multitudes and provision for their physical needs.

But if we can appreciate the allusions to the Old Testament wilderness wanderings, it injects a totally richer meaning to the text. We are told that the setting of this miracle is a “deserted place” (Matthew 14:13; cf. Mark 6:35; Luke 9:12), or literally the uninhabited wilderness, similar to where the nation of Israel found themselves after the exodus (cf. Exodus 16:2). Jesus leads the multitudes to a mountain (John 6:3), like a Moses figure, and delegates his disciples to minister to the crowds, like Moses did (Exodus 18:25). There, the people were described as sheep without a shepherd (Mark 6:34; cf. Numbers 27:17) and cried out for food (Exodus 16:2-3). Taking compassion upon them (Mark 6:34), God provided them with bread from heaven, manna, where they ate without limit (Exodus 16:4-5; Psalm 105:40; Nehemiah 9:15, 20). Similarly, those fed by Jesus were completely satisfied; they were literally stuffed (Matthew 14:20). Throughout this process, it is like the desert is transformed into a green place full of refreshment (Mark 6:39). Death has become life.

In the end, a total of 5000 men were numbered (Matthew 14:21; Mark 6:44; John 6:10), similar to how a census of Israel was conducted after the exodus (Numbers 1; 26) and the people were arranged in groups of 50 (Mark 6:40; Luke 9:14), as a military array (cf. Exodus 13:18; Joshua 1:14), setup like an army of God.

Jesus is the Prophet greater than Moses who also feeds the people with manna in the wilderness (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15-19), but in the case of Jesus, he is their manna too. Yes, God provided manna in the wilderness (Exodus 16) and similarly fed Elijah (1 Kings 17:7-16) and Elisha (2 Kings 4:1-7, 42-44) in their need. Now, God openly feeds his people through Jesus Christ.

Failure to connect the feeding of the 5000 with the Old Testament background led the people of Jesus’ day to reduce the miracle to a mere physical level.¹⁵ For this reason, in John 6:26-27, Jesus responded to them, saying: “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” But the crowds did not understand because they said to Jesus (in verses 30-31): “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” By saying this, they admitted that they failed to understand that Jesus is the living bread from heaven. In response, Jesus said (in verses 32-33), “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Then again (in verse 35), “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.”

In this story, we can see how Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of all the Old Testament expectations. Here, we can see how Jesus Christ is the one appointed by God to be the leader of his people in their exodus from the wilderness and the Shepherd who provides for their needs so that they lack nothing! Ultimately, the life-giving event of the physical resurrection of believers is what is anticipated by manna and the feeding of the 5000 (cf. John 6:31-40).¹⁶ Correspondingly, the story of the feeding of the 5000 becomes so much richer when the analogy of Scripture is applied.

The second rule of hermeneutics of the Reformation is that the Bible should be interpreted according to a literal sense (sensus literalis) or a literal interpretation.¹⁷ By this, it is meant that we need to pay attention to the specific words and letters (litera) being used. In other words, we have to use the normal rules of grammar, speech, syntax, and context.¹⁸ Contrary to common misconception, however, this doesn’t mean that the Bible is to be interpreted literalistically.

Revisiting the example above, Jesus said, “I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world… He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever” (John 6:48-51, 56-58). The Reformed interpret this passage literally to be a metaphor. Here, Jesus uses a literal example (manna) and metaphorical language (flesh) together. All food (including manna) provides life in a temporary sense. But only Jesus is able to provide eternal life to those who feed upon him. The implication is that we are to feed upon Christ spiritually, rather than physically.¹⁹ It would be an error to take the passage above and to apply a wooden literalistic interpretation to it, thinking that we must cannibalistically eat and drink of Jesus’ body and blood.

For this reason, R. C. Sproul advised, “to be accurate interpreters of the Bible, we need to know the rules of grammar, and above all, we must be carefully involved in what is called genre analysis… We distinguish between the style of historical narratives and sermons, between realistic graphic description and hyperbole. Failure to make these distinctions when dealing with the Bible can lead to a host of problems with interpretation. Literary analysis is crucial to accurate interpretation.”²⁰

Presuppositions

Presuppositions are things we take for granted (either good or bad). There are certain presuppositions we will need to adopt in order to read the Bible correctly. We won’t be taking the time to prove these things, but rather assuming them.²¹

The Scriptures are divinely inspired. The Bible did not just descend out of heaven (cf. the Book of Mormon). The Bible was written by human beings. But it is ultimately a divine book. God is the primary author.²² “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Its consistency and coherence hang on its divine inspiration.

The Scriptures are clear. This is often referred to as the perspicuity of Scripture. The basic message of the Bible is clear. This is explained by the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7:

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

While we don’t need special glasses or decoder rings to understand the basic message of the Bible, there are still some portions that are difficult and challenging to understand without assistance (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16).

As the whole Bible is inspired by God, even if there are certain passages that are difficult to understand, we can refer to other passages where the same subject matter is being addressed and see it more clearly presented. The clearer explanation can help us understand the more difficult passage.²³

The Scriptures are organic. The Bible is one interconnected body. It is progressive and historical. The Scriptures were progressively unfolded through history, and revelation becomes clearer over time. Take, for example, Genesis 1-2 where there are hints of the Trinity (e.g., God is speaking his Word and the Spirit of God is hovering over the surface of the waters). But the doctrine of the Trinity becomes much clearer in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 4 with the baptism of Christ; Ephesians 1:3-14 where God the Father chooses us in Jesus Christ and seals us with the Holy Spirit). The Bible, as a whole, communicates the same message and this message is made clearer over the course of redemptive history. There is an organic consistency between the Old and New Testaments.²⁴

“The progressive character of divine revelation is recognized in relation to all the great doctrines of the Bible… All that is in a fullgrown tree was potentially in the seed. All that we find unfolded in the fulness of the gospel lies in a rudimentary form in the earliest books of the Bible. What at first is only obscurely intimated is gradually unfolded in subsequent parts of the sacred volume, until the truth is revealed in its fulness. This is true of the doctrines of redemption; of the person and work of the Messiah, the promised seed of the woman; of the nature and office of the Holy Spirit; and of a future state beyond the grave. And this is specially true of the doctrine of the Trinity.”²⁵

But we also need to avoid understating how much the Old Testament saints knew. (e.g., In John 8, Abraham is said to have looked forward to the day of Jesus. In Jude 14-15, we learn that Enoch prophesied the coming of Christ).²⁶

Christ is the interpretive key. All of Scripture either points forward or backward towards Jesus. The Old Testament provides us with shadows of Christ. The New Testament reflects the person and work of Christ, and the implications upon the church. The Old Testament is not just historical filler between Adam and Jesus. Recall, on the road to Emmaus, Jesus said that beginning with Moses and the Prophets, the Scriptures were written about him (Luke 24:27). The Westminster Confession of Faith 7.5 says it this way:

“This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.”

This teaches us that the Old Testament is more than just history. The Old Testament prefigures Christ and is saturated with the gospel. Not just the people (e.g., Adam [Psalm 8; Romans 5:12-18], Isaac [Galatians 3:16], and Moses [Deuteronomy 18:15; John 5:46]) nor merely the sacrifices (e.g., the Passover lamb [John 1:19, 36]), but even the events themselves point to the person and work of Christ (e.g., the Flood of Noah [1 Peter 3:21], and Israel’s wilderness wanderings [1 Corinthians 10:1-11]). Admittedly, the Old Testament saints may not necessarily have been able to make all the same connections that we are able to today, but still they had some idea of the coming Christ.

The illumination of the Holy Spirit necessary for understanding (John 14:26; cf. 1 John 2:26-27).²⁷ Understanding the Bible is not a pure academic endeavor. The natural person is not able to understand the things of God because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:11, 14). Only the Holy Spirit can convince us of the truth contained in Scripture and without the Holy Spirit, there remains a veil over our face (2 Cor. 3:12-18). In order to properly understand God’s revelation through Scripture, the Holy Spirit needs to illuminate it for us. It is possible for a person to understand the Bible on an intellectual level, but not necessarily have faith in what they have learned. Factual knowledge needs to be translated to heartfelt trust. It is possible to read the same passage for years. But, after dozens of readings, something finally clicks. “Thus, one of the unique roles of the Holy Spirit is to convict, convince, and arouse sluggish hearts by applying the truths perceived in the text of Scripture to the lives of individuals.”²⁸

The Scriptures are covenantal. One of the central themes of the Bible is that of covenant. God takes the initiative to create and preserve a people for himself. While the first explicit mention of covenant is with Noah (Genesis 9:1-17), according to the Reformed hermeneutic, we also believe that God was in covenant with Adam (cf. Hosea 6:7; Romans 5:12-19), and established covenants with Abraham (Genesis 12:1ff and 17:1ff), Israel (Exodus 2:24; 19:5-6), David (2 Samuel 7:8-17), and Jesus (Hebrews 9:15-17). When we interpret the Bible, we need to keep the covenantal structure of the Bible in mind. The Scriptures were given to us in covenant, and it is a covenantal document.

We will be relying on these presuppositions to help us properly interpret the Bible.²⁹

Footnotes

1
While we are certainly dependent upon the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible, we are not simply passive receptacles, but we need to actively apply ourselves in diligent study too. In this regard, one of J. V. Fesko’s favorite lines is, “Spirituality is not antithetical to elbow grease.”
2
Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. Volume 2. Baker Academics, 2003, p. 63.
3
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, Vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999, pp. 113-114. Emphasis mine.
4
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003, pp. 83, 116. Emphasis mine.
5
Folmar, Keri. “7 Mistakes We Make in Women’s Bible Study.” TGC. The Gospel Coalition, Inc. March 3, 2014. URL: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/7-mistakes-we-make-in-womens-bible-study.
6
Sproul, R. C. Knowing Scripture: Revised Edition. IVP Books, 2009, p. 51.
7
This is consistent with the rule that a true prophet cannot contradict existing revelation (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:20-22; Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 John 4:1-6).
8
Sproul, R. C. Knowing Scripture: Revised Edition. IVP Books, 2009, p. 53. Emphasis mine.
9
Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Revised and Expanded Edition). Zondervan, 2007, p. 240.
10
Ibid, pp. 247-248.
11
Davis, Dale Ralph. I Kings: The Wisdom and the Folly. Christian Focus, 2002, pp. 253-270.
12
Technically, Mount Horeb is a range of mountains of which Mount Sinai is the peak.
13
Bruce, Frederick F. The Hard Sayings of Jesus. InterVarsity Press, 1987, pp. 119-121; and Kaiser, Walter, et al. Hard Sayings of the Bible. InterVarsity Press, 1996, pp. 475-476.
14
This aligns with the rest of Scripture where there is explicit instruction to honor our parents (Exodus 20:12; Mark 7:9-13) and failure to do so makes a person worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8).
15
It’s true, bread was a crucial item for survival back in the day. It was estimated that bread constituted around 70% of a person’s typical intake, and around 50% of a person’s income went to securing food. This is likely why many in the crowd were fascinated with following Jesus. Many of the recipients probably believed they had hit a jackpot and were following Jesus to meet their physical needs only.
16
Beale, G. K. Handbook on the New Testament Use of The Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation. Baker Academic, 2012, p. 14, fn. 37.
17
Sproul, R. C. Knowing Scripture: Revised Edition. IVP Books, 2009, p. 53.
18
Article 15 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics states: “We afirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.” Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Oakland, California: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983.
19
We feed upon Jesus by believing upon his words (cf. John 6:35). “For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats.” Augustine. On the Gospel of St. John, Tractate XXVI, chapter 6.1. In: Schaff, Philip. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. First Series, Volume VII. T. & T. Clark; W.B. Eerdmans, 1988, p. 168. Emphasis mine.
20
Sproul, R. C. Knowing Scripture: Revised Edition. IVP Books, 2009, p. 54.
21
You may notice that many of these presuppositions overlap with the attributes of revelation: necessity, authority, perspicuity, sufficiency, and beauty.
22
There are times when the human authors likely spoke better than they knew. For example, Balaam spoke a Messianic prophecy where Christ would deliver a crushing blow to Moab’s head (Numbers 24:15-19), but probably didn’t realize that it was an allusion to Christ ultimately defeating the serpent and all His enemies (Genesis 3:15). Caiaphas, the high priest, declared that it was more expedient for one man to die for the people than that the whole nation should perish (John 11:49-51), not realizing that he was speaking the words of God but with a different intention (cf. Proverbs 16:1). Isaiah denounced the hypocrites of his own day (Isaiah 29:13), but Jesus quotes and reapplies this text to the Pharisees of His own day 700 years later (Mark 7:6). We will see more examples of this later.
23
Some examples include 1 Corinthians 15 on the resurrection or Isaiah 53 on the nature of the atonement. These are called “chair passages” and they can “function as boundary setters for interpreters as they seek guidance about the correct interpretation of texts that are textually or topically parallel. These chair passages contain the largest amount of material in one place on the respective doctrines.” Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Revised and Expanded Edition). Zondervan, 2007, pp. 240-250.
24
“The line of revelation is like the stem of those trees that grow in rings. Each successive ring has grown out of the preceding one… Fundamental doctrines of our faith do not rest, as many would fain believe, on an arbitrary exposition of some isolated proof-texts. It will not so much prove these doctrines, as it will do what is far better than proof—make them grow out organically before our eyes from the stem of revelation.” Vos, Geerhardus, and Richard B. Gaffin. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. P & R Pub, 2001, p. 24.
25
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, Vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999, p. 445. Emphasis mine.
26
In John 8:56, Jesus said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” How exactly did Abraham see Jesus? Abraham lived around 1900-2100 before Christ. He saw Jesus by faith. By faith, he was blessed by Melchizedek who pointed towards Christ (Genesis 14:19; cf. Hebrews 7:1-22). By faith, Abraham entered into a covenant with God where there was rending of beasts who were not consumed, typifying the torment of Jesus Christ who was not consumed (Genesis 15:17; cf. Mark 15:34). By faith, Abraham received the bloody sign of circumcision, which signified the cutting off of the flesh in Christ (Genesis 17:14; cf. Colossians 2:11). By faith, Abraham offered up Isaac as a sacrifice to God and figuratively-speaking received him back from the dead as a type of Christ (Genesis 22; cf. Hebrews 11:17-19).
27
These passages, taken together, teach us that we need to have the Spirit of God to obtain a true understanding of Scripture. But they do not teach that we can understand the Scriptures without careful study or help. Specifically, the passage from 1 John 2 is addressed to Christians who are being threatened by false teaching. “These Christians, intimidated by the new teaching, have become vulnerable. They need instruction. So John says… the essence of God’s revelation—the truth—is shared by all who believe. We need no one to supplement, let alone contradict, the message of the gospel.” Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Revised and Expanded Edition). Zondervan, 2007, p. 26.
28
Ibid, p. 218.
29
Any set of data can be interpreted only in light of previous commitments, whether consciously or unconsciously. “In many, many cases, it is a set of prior commitments, rather than the weight of the evidence, that determines the final conclusion.” Ibid, p. 288.

Footnotes

Related Articles

2. Meaning and Significance

3. Literary Genres and Features (Historical Narrative)

4. Literary Genres and Features (Wisdom and Poetry)

5. Literary Genres and Features (Prophecy)