This being a course on Biblical interpretation one theme is going to inevitably occur often, and that is the need to allow the Scripture to speak for itself.  This is the very reason context must, as the title states, be king.  “As we have seen, the primary source for understanding the setting of a passage is its context.  It is through the context of any passage, in the final analysis, that we determine meaning.”[1]  As we approach the Scripture we must not begin with an effort to glean what God is saying to us today.  The Scriptures are a compilation of inspired writings that had ancient authors and recipients.  They were written for a particular reason to a particular group of people, for a particular purpose, during a particular time.  As much as many people act as though this isn’t the case, the Scriptures had a purpose entirely apart from speaking to us, when they were originally revealed.  The truth of the Scripture and its relevance is indeed timeless, but in order to understand what God is saying to us today we must first discern accurately what God was saying to those to whom the Scriptures were originally addressed.  This is absolutely impossible to do with any amount of credibility unless the Scriptures are studied rightfully within their original context.  

When one mentions the concept of context they are referring to, as we stated before, the culture of the people, the historic back drop, the grammatical and literary style, the author, and the text’s place within the chapter, book, and Testament.  Once these have been thoroughly considered, one can then begin to interpret how the passage might apply to us in our situation today.  “In expository preaching the biblical text is…a master which dictates and controls what is said.”[2]  “First, and above all, the thought of the biblical writer determines the substance.”[3]  Without first identifying the meaning of the text in its context we cannot hope to identify its meaning for us today. 

An example of a passage that I have heard used out of context (one that I have personally used out of context) is Psalm 125:5-6 “They that sow in tears shall reap in joy.  He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves [with him].”  The way this passage is often presented is in regard to sowing the gospel.  While it may be applied in that way, the gospel is not what the Psalmist had in mind.  This passage is a part of song that deals with captivity and deliverance and must first be dealt with in that light before trying to apply it to anything else.  It’s not that the application is inherently flawed because the proper time was not spent expositing the text, but the probability is much higher in that case.  Authority is found in the Word of God.  We must stand on what God said, and that is determined by studying a text within its context.  There is no other way. 



[1] McQuilkin, Robertson. Understanding and Applying the Bible. Chicago: Moody. 2009. p. 176
[2] Stott, John. Between Two Worlds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1982. pp. 125-26
[3] Robinson, Haddon W. Biblical Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 2003. p.21

The goal of hermeneutics is being able to understand what God has said.  God’s chosen medium for communicating with mankind has been that of written language or words.  Therefore, any attempt to understand what God has said is going to inevitably require that a person study words.  “Words are the building blocks for understanding the meaning of any passage.  In seeking the author’s intended meaning, we must consider the meanings of individual words. ”[1]      

The individual words are important not just the idea behind the words.  Scripture makes this clear.  Consider II Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”  Also look at Psalm 12:6-7, “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”  Two things to keep in mind here:   first, God chose the specific words in inspiration; second, God acted on behalf of the specific words in preservation.  McQuilkin draws this conclusion, “If God the Holy Spirit took the care to inspire the very words, we must be careful to search out the intent of the author in his choice of words.”[2]   

So, God has desired to communicate with man.  He has chosen to use words and language as His medium.  He chose the very words He intended to use and then promised to preserve those words.  Our desire is to understand what He has said.  The only problem is that there are obstacles that interfere with our ability to do just that.  There are differences in language and in culture that make understanding the Scripture, and thus the mind of God, challenging.  This presents the need for study.  The individual words are important and thus, the individual words need to be studied.  Words change and evolve in meaning.  Words change from one culture to the next.  The differences in language make finding the right words or phrases for conveying a particular idea in translation difficult.  Consider McQuilkin’s thoughts on the matter, “Words in the Bible, like words in the newspaper today, vary in shades of meaning from context to context, and change in meaning from generation to generation.”[3]

Studying words is necessary in order to arrive at an interpretation of Scripture the author would approve of.  The words are essential to that end.  We must also keep in mind that, while the words are vital to arriving at the right conclusions, the word study itself can never be an end but a means to an end only.  It’s as Robinson says in Biblical Preaching, “Although we examine words in the text and sometimes deal with particular words in the sermon, words and phrases should never become ends in themselves.  Words are stupid things until linked with other words to convey meaning.”[4]

Again, we must remember that God inspired the words to communicate specific thoughts to specific people at a specific time to address specific issues.  God has the right to pick and choose the words that are used because He is the only one that knows precisely what He is intending to communicate.  We don’t have access to His thoughts except through His words, so the need for getting those right is essential to accurately discerning His thoughts!  There is no other way.  How silly of us to presume that we know the intentions of the Lord so well that we can play with His chosen words without fear of straying from His original designs for them. 



[1] McQuilkin, Robertson. Understanding and Applying the Bible. Chicago: Moody, 2009. p. 127
[2] McQuilkin. Understanding and Applying the Bible. p. 128
[3] McQuilkin. Understanding and Applying the Bible. p. 143
[4] Robinson, Haddon. Biblical Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. p. 23

I thoroughly enjoyed the message by Dr. Sexton.  Regarding the question, “Where do I stand?” in my opinion, there is only one right answer.  I am not trying to be cliché, nor am I trying to be vague, but the only place we have any right to stand is on the content of the Word of God.  Truth, if there is to be such a thing, cannot be subjective or relative and still retain its meaning.  Truth is not relative.  I don’t have the right to pick and choose my convictions.  Truth by being truth is absolute, and that is what we have in God’s Word.  My job is to dig in and learn the Book.  As Dr. Sexton stated in his sermon, “We are to be people of the Bible.”[1]

Paul certainly believed this, for over and again he prescribed actions such as, “Study…the Word of Truth” and “Preach the Word,” in II Timothy 2:15 and in II Timothy 4:2.  We are told by him that the Word is God breathed, profitable for doctrine (among other things), and it is sufficient to equip unto “all good works,” in II Timothy 3:16-17.  The author of Hebrews makes it clear that in both the Old and New Testament it is God that has spoken in Hebrews 1:1-2, and then in chapter two verse one he tells us how to respond to what God has said, “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.”  The church, as Dr. Sexton alludes to in I Timothy 3:15, is to be the “pillar and ground of the Truth.”

A firm and honest stand on the Word of God will protect a person from making tradition and preference the guiding factors regarding faith and practice.  Where do I stand?  I stand on The Book.  If I can’t stand on The Book my belief ceases to be conviction and becomes preference, and at that point if my view is to be espoused with any level of integrity, it must be espoused as such or not at all.  As Dr. Sexton put it, “We need to be found standing right where God gave us to stand.”[2]



[1] Sexton, Clarence. “Here We Stand.” Temple Baptist Church. Auditorium, Knoxville. 8 April 2008
[2] Sexton, Clarence. “Here We Stand.” 8 April 2008

“That God has spoken in Holy Scripture is the very heart of our faith and without this certainty, we should be left to the relativity and dubiousness of human knowledge.  God has spoken!  But what has He said?  This is the primary and basic need of hermeneutics: to ascertain what God has said in Sacred Scripture; to determine the meaning of the Word of God.”[1]  Probably the most pure example of this from Scripture itself can be found in the book of Nehemiah, chapter eight in verses one through eight.  Verse eight reads, “So they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.”  God had spoken in His law to His people.  The Levites in this passage then sought to help God’s people understand just what God was saying.  

The basic idea of hermeneutics is not complex.  As Ramm said, we are simply trying to understand what God has said.  This does involve a little work simply because we cannot overlook the fact that all of what God has said in His Word, He said to specific people, at specific times, and for specific reasons.  This doesn’t mean that God’s Word isn’t for all people.  Robinson said this, “God speaks through the Bible.  It is the major tool by which He addresses individuals today.”[2]  It simply means that understanding it isn’t as simple as reading it and trying to ascertain “what this means to me.”  When a person writes a letter that is then intercepted by someone else, the person that intercepts the letter doesn’t have the right to ascribe meaning arbitrarily to the letter.  The way to interpret the letter is to study its content and context.  The letter speaks for itself as does the Word of God.  So the work of accurately interpreting the Word of God is the work of ascertaining the author’s intent. 

This may seem like a simple task.  The problem is that the further removed we get from the times of the revelation of God’s Word, the more cultural, historical, linguistic, and grammatical underbrush there is between us and the author’s intent.  Even at the point of time surrounding the passage in Nehemiah, there was obviously some explanation necessary in order for the people to gain clarity regarding the message of God in the Scriptures.  Thus we have the science of hermeneutics.

Hermeneutics is defined by Ramm as a science: “Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical interpretation.”[3]  This science has been developed over many years, and various forms have gained prominence at different times.  The goal of hermeneutics has always been the same: understanding what God has said.  The means necessary to accomplishing that goal have varied.  Not everyone has agreed throughout history regarding what it takes to achieve this goal, or even what the achievement of this goal looks like. 

The two major types of interpretation that take many different forms throughout history are normal and allegorical.  The normal hermeneutic takes a literal approach to the Scripture.  This approach takes into account the author, the recipient, the historic backdrop, the culture, the language, and the grammar of the text in an attempt to discern the author’s original intent.  The allegorical approach spiritualizes the text.  It doesn’t necessarily disregard the factual and literal aspect of the text, but it does subordinate that to the “spirit or soul” of the text.  The allegorical method looks for the meaning behind the words. 

Ancient Jewish exegesis is the earliest form of Biblical interpretation that we will look at.  This has to do with the passage referenced earlier.  “A discussion of the history of biblical interpretation usually begins with the work of Ezra.  On their return from Babylonian exile, the people of Israel requested that Ezra read to them from the Pentateuch.”[4]  Virkler goes on to say, “Since the Israelites had probably lost their understanding of Hebrew during the exilic period, most biblical scholars assume that Ezra and his helpers translated the Hebrew text and read it aloud in Aramaic, adding explanations to make the meaning clear.  Thus began the science and art of biblical interpretation.”[5]  The scribes of this time had a high reverence for every letter of the Scriptures.  This ended up having both positive and negative effects.  The positive was the accuracy with which the Word was preserved.  The negative was their presumption that God’s authorship inclined the Scripture toward a plethora of meanings.  Thus they began to interpret the Scripture in ways uncommon to normal methods of interpreting communication.  Having begun their interpretive work correctly around 500 B.C., they made the turn to a more allegorical approach by the late 400’s.

The next example of interpretation we encounter is the use of the Old Testament by the New Testament authors.  Virkler uses Jesus as the example of the New Testament’s usage of the Old Testament: “Jesus consistently treated the historical narratives as straightforward records of fact.  When Jesus applied the historical record, he drew it from the literal, as opposed to the allegorical, meaning of the text.  Finally, Jesus even denounced the casuistic methods of certain religious leaders that set aside the very Word of God they claimed to be interpreting and replaced it with their own traditions.”[6]  The apostles followed the leadership of Christ throughout the New Testament in their usage of the Old Testament.  This doesn’t mean that the Scriptures were never to be approached with types and figures in mind.  It simply meant that from the example of the New Testament authors, a normal approach to the passage would determine the way the passage was to be applied.

Following the New Testament authors, you have the patristic era of exegesis.  This is the era belonging to that of the early church fathers.  This era was dominated by the allegorical system with few exceptions.  “The allegorical system that arose among the pagan Greeks, copied by the Alexandrian Jews, was next adopted by the Christian church and largely dominated exegesis until the Reformation, with such notable exceptions as the Syrian school of Antioch and the Victorines of the Middle Ages.”[7]   

This era was followed by the Medieval period of exegesis.  Regarding this time frame, Virkler points out, “Little original scholarship was done during the Middle Ages; students of Scripture devoted themselves to studying and compiling the works of the earlier fathers.  Interpretation was bound by tradition, and the allegorical method was prominent.”[8]

The next era of Biblical interpretation belongs to the Reformers.  This was a great time for Biblical interpretation.  Men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin did much to elevate the cause of approaching the Scriptures with a normal hermeneutic.  Martin Luther held that the Scripture should determine what the church teaches and not the other way around, and one of John Calvin’s favorite phrases was, “Scripture interprets Scripture.”  The fact is neither of these men held entirely to the practices they espoused but the effects of their teachings have had a great, positive impact on the field of hermeneutics. 

Following the Reformation, you have the post-Reformation era that has been given to modernism and post-modernism.  Under the post-Reformation era, you have ideas rising such as Confessionalism which was dominated by dogmatism; Pietism which, resulting from Confessional dogmatism in opposition to it, did much to restore the use of a normal hermeneutic at least for a while; and rationalism which elevated human reason to the place of final authority.

From the 1800’s up until the 20th century, a whole smorgasbord of erroneous approaches to interpretation arose snowballing from the errors of the post-Reformation era.  Liberalism, Neo-orthodoxy, and the new hermeneutic are a few.  These were wrought with naturalism and relativism.  Throughout history and especially in the modern times, the absolutes of Scripture have been under attack.    

There has been a common thread however from the times of Ezra up until even today.  There have always been those who have chosen to stay true to the Word.  Hermeneutics is a necessary and essential science.  God has spoken to us in His Word.  It is important that we accurately discern what He has said.  The key to doing that, apart from the necessary illuminating work of the Holy Spirit available upon one’s receipt of Christ, is determining the author’s intent.  There is a science and an art to this effort known as hermeneutics that has been developed for our benefit.  As long as we approach the Scripture with the proper presuppositions, the science of hermeneutics can enable us to do what we desire to do: hear from God.



[1] Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 1970. p. 1-2
[2] Robinson, Haddon W. Biblical Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 2001. p. 2
[3] Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 1
[4] Virkler, Henry, A. Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 1981. p. 44
[5] Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, p. 44
[6] Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, pp. 48-49
[7] Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 28
[8] Virkler,  Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, p. 55

In my undergrad hermeneutics class we used the textbook, ‘Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation’ by Henry A. Virkler.  The definition we used for hermeneutics, however, was the one given by Bernard Ramm, “Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical interpretation.”[1]  He goes on to say, “It is a science because it is guided by rules within a system; and it is an art because the application of the rues is by skill, and not by mechanical imitation.”[2]  Furthermore he states, “That God has spoken in Holy Scripture is the very heart of our faith.”[3]  According to Ramm the very need for hermeneutics is the fact that God has spoken in Scripture and thus we are interested in finding out exactly what He has said.

That being said there are some considerations that need to be made regarding the Scriptures and their claims.  In I Corinthians 2:9-16, Paul makes it very clear that without the Spirit of God we cannot understand the things of God.  This is also implied in John 14, 15, and 16 where Jesus lays out the ministry of the Comforter.  According to Scripture one cannot fully understand the things of God without the Spirit of God.  This point matters because that is the very idea behind interpretation. 

Regarding possession of the Holy Ghost, one cannot receive the Spirit of God without first receiving the Son of God.  Paul, in Ephesians 1:12-14, makes this very clear.  So, while there is a scientific and artistic side to hermeneutics, the whole science of hermeneutics, so far as sound interpretation is concerned, rests on this foundation of first having received the Holy Spirit of God, the active agent in the inspiration of the Scriptures, via trusting in Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Word Incarnate.  Thus Jesus Christ is the key to interpreting the Scripture.



[1] Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 1970. p. 1
[2] Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 1970. p. 1
[3] Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 1970. p. 1

Allegory is only a legitimate form of interpretation when used by other biblical writers.  They are the only ones with the proper access to determine whether or not another passage had any type of meaning beyond that which is plain.  Our own text book makes a very good point regarding this matter, “To ascribe hidden meanings to Scripture, a person assumes an authority equivalent to or superseding that of the author.”[i]  The biblical writers are safe here because the same Holy Spirit that moved the prophets of Old moved the writers of the New.  So the Holy Spirit would know, as would Jesus, whether there was some meaning to the Scriptures beyond what was clear.  For us to claim any meaning beyond the plain, besides that which is alluded to in Scripture itself, would imply that we had some access to either the writer or the Holy Spirit that other saints aren't privileged enough to enjoy.  This does not even consider the dangers that reside in the lack of accountability that comes with taking the liberty to ascribe meaning to any passage based on nothing more than a “holy hunch.”  When it comes to interpreting Scripture we must consider what has been given rather than fooling around with what has not.



[i] McQuilkin, Robertson. Understanding and Applying the Bible. Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2009. p. 41

We must understand that the Word of God is both natural and divine.  God breathed His Book.  The very Words are His.  His Word has timeless relevance.  Its truths are applicable to people of every generation.  This being said when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans he didn’t have Joe Lusk in mind.  He was writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, to the Christians there at Rome.  Just like he had a reason for writing to Rome, he had a reason for writing to the Ephesians, and the Galatians, and so on.  There was a message or were messages that God had for those particular people that applied to their particular situation.  

The reason this matters is because in order for us to accurately determine what the same letter to the Ephesians has to do with us today we must strive to understand, first, what Paul intended to say to the Ephesians themselves.  Before trying to figure out what God was saying to us, we need to determine what He said, and why as it pertains to the original recipients.  Then, once we have the idea in its context, we can accurately apply it to our situation in life or accurately determine how it would apply to our lives.  Without having first done the work of understanding the message as it was written for the original recipients we cannot hope to accurately find the message for our day and time, and when Scripture is applied without having discovered the author’s intent we inevitably take rights with the Scripture that were not given.   The author’s original intent must be what we draw from when applying Scripture today and it must be that by which our applications are measured with regard to accuracy and authority.  If we abandon the original intent of the author we abandon any authority we might have had by virtue of being able to claim, “Thus saith the Lord!”  Haddon Robinson said in his book titled Biblical Preaching, “Preaching in Paul’s mind did not consist of someone discussing religion.  Instead, God Himself spoke through the personality and message of a preacher to confront men and women and bring them to Himself.”[1]  He went on to say, “Not all passionate pleading from a pulpit, however, possesses divine authority.  When preachers speak as heralds, they must cry out ‘the Word.’  Anything less cannot legitimately pass for Christian preaching.”[2]

In conclusion consider Pierson on the matter, “But our object just at this point is to emphasize the fact that the Scriptures are in a book form, are written by human pens, that God’s messages have flowed through human minds as channels; that all these writings have to do with persons, places, times, events, geographical and historical surroundings, and are framed in human speech and according to the laws of grammar and the usages of language; and all these things must be considered and examined if we are to know the Scriptures and the power of God in them.”[3] The entire chapter represented by this statement deals with the necessary importance of working to identify the intent of the author.  As the Journal Instructions state, “If you have not found the author’s intent you have not found anything.”



[1] Robinson, Haddon, W. Biblical Preaching. Grand Rapids: 2001. p. 19-20
[2] Robinson, Haddon, W. Biblical Preaching. Grand Rapids: 2001. p. 20
[3] Pierson, Arthur, T. Knowing the Scriptures. New York: Gospel, 1910. p. 66