The Interpretation of God’s Word

Loading Scripture… Nehemiah 8:8 (ESV)

In chapter 2, you learned the importance of certain truths about Scripture. It is authoritative. It is sufficient. It is without error. But if we take that authoritative, sufficient, and inerrant text and mis-interpret it, the inerrant word becomes errant in its application. The pastoral authority derived from Scripture potentially becomes the wolf attack of Acts 20. And the wrong interpretation leaves us with an insufficiency. Bad interpretation is sufficient for nothing but confusion and downgrade of the church.

What is it and why does it matter?

Hermeneutics is a big word with a simple meaning. It deals with the methods of interpreting Scripture. All you have to do is look around at the number of Christian denominations around the world to know that, while many people would claim to hold to the authority of Scripture, doctrinal and practical error may reflect either a poor interpretation of God’s Word or a conscious refusal to submit to its commands.

How do we have the Roman Catholic Church treating “this is My Body” as a literal supernatural event known as transubstantiation and hundreds and thousands of Protestants insisting that Christ’s language is intended more figuratively?

Within conservative Christendom, most believers hold to a future purpose of ethnic Israel, a literal rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and a thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth. But a growing number of believers interpret the same passages differently and take Scripture to mean that the temple is now the Body of Christ and that Israel always has been the true people of faith rather than someone who undergoes physical circumcision.

Even among the Reformed community, one group interprets Scripture in a way that says children of believers were circumcised under the Old Covenant – because they were part of that covenant – and likewise, we should baptize children of believers, because they, too, are part of the New Covenant. But another group claims that “New” implies difference. Believers are called children of Abraham – children of believers are not called children of Abraham. So, baptism is only rightly applied to those who have made a profession of faith.

The answer is the approach to interpreting Scripture. The books I’m going to recommend are not going to solve all of the doctrinal differences in churches and have everyone singing “Kumbaya” around the next pot providence meal (you will learn later there is no such thing as pot “luck.”) But they will ground you in some basic guidelines for interpreting Scripture that will keep you out of the ditches of liberalism on one side and hyper-literalism on the other. Please take the time to study and take one more step – possibly the most important step – to knowing your Bible.

What should I seek to understand about the topic?

• What does the term “literal” mean in relation to biblical interpretation?
• How does the genre of Scripture influence the way we interpret it?
• How does context affect interpretation, and what are the dangers of ignoring it?
• How is it beneficial to allow the clear to explain the less clear in dealing with difficult passages?
• How has a passage been interpreted historically and how does that influence your conclusions concerning your private interpretation?
• How does humility contribute to effective Bible study?
• What are some common interpretive errors?

My thoughts on the topic

I grew up in the Church of Christ denomination – not to be confused with the United Church of Christ denomination or the International Churches of Christ denomination. The teaching to which I was exposed is that The Church of Christ is not a denomination but rather the one true Church. When I first married, my wife and I visited a local Church of Christ, and I remember vividly the preacher’s comment that Sunday: “I have been a Christian for 35 years. Before that, I was a Methodist.”

That denomination is a wonderful example of sincere people with poor interpretive rules for how they draw doctrine from God’s Word. While a Reformed Baptist would have many disagreements over Scriptural interpretation, the most glaring difference would relate to the necessity of baptism for salvation. As a young attender with my parents, we were catechized heavily in doctrine and the proof texts for that doctrine. Key proof texts for the necessity of baptism include these:

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:38

A common interpretation: the forgiveness of sins requires both repentance and baptism.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

1 Peter 3:21

A common interpretation: Just as Noah would not have been saved had he not got on the ark, we will not be saved unless we are baptized.

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Acts 22:16

A common interpretation: Baptism washes away sins – actually, not figuratively.

If I just read my Bible, I get to those passages I could easily come to the conclusions of the Church of Christ denomination. If God had nothing else to say in his Word about how we are saved, the Church of Christ interpretation is a very reasonable one. But if I know my Bible, and I know the truth of my Bible, the interpretation does not align with the rest of Scripture and therefore cannot be the correct interpretation.

If God’s Word is inerrant, then Acts 2, 1 Peter 3, and Acts 22 do not contradict passages like these:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Ephesians 2:8–9

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

John 6:47

who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,

2 Timothy 1:9

Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out,

Acts 3:19

The first four texts provide consistent messaging from both the Gospels and Paul’s epistles that faith is salvific and that faith comes as a gift from God – we are saved by grace – through faith. The fifth text is simply pointing out the danger of picking a single verse and making it your doctrine. For fewer than 30 verses after Acts 2:38 and the supposed necessity of baptism for salvation, we have in Acts 3:19: “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out.” I thought forgiveness of sins came from repentance AND baptism, but Peter delivered the sermons from Acts 2 and Acts 3. Which one is correct?

And press a member of the Church of Christ on 1 Peter 3:21, and you will come to the realization that he doesn’t believe baptism saves you even though the text literally says “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…” It only saves you if you do a bunch of other stuff: hear, believe, repent, confess your sins, be baptized, and live faithfully until death. That is a common doctrinal progression.

A much better interpretation of those passages and all of the New Testament is that we are saved by grace. The means of grace by which God saves us is faith. But not just any faith. A faith that produces good works. This is entirely consistent with the purpose statement of why we are saved in the first place. Continuing in Ephesians 2, we get a better context.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Ephesians 2:8–10

The faith we receive by the grace of God produces good works – the fruit of salvation – not the root of salvation. We are not saved by our good works – not repentance, not baptism, not faithful living, not charitable efforts – we are saved by grace, through faith. To say otherwise is to contradict an inerrant John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-10, and numerous other passages throughout Scripture. And having the right interpretive method – including two very simple concepts – letting the clear interpret the unclear and understanding that inerrancy cannot lead to contradictions – will correct many incorrect interpretations – some minor and others Gospel-distorting.

But the burden of interpretive study is not one-sided. Those holding to the doctrines of sola gratia (by grace alone) and sola fide (through faith alone) must reconcile John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-10, and other passages teaching those doctrines with passages like Acts 2, Acts 22, and 1 Peter 3. We must carefully reconcile Paul saying we are justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28) and James saying a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24).

My prayer is that each of us would be diligent to KNOW our Bibles and not believe something because our preacher told us it was true. You can certainly Remember the Alamo but first remember Acts 20.

The first four chapters have dealt with what constitutes the Bible, what is true about the Bible, the geography and culture at the time of the Bible’s writing, and the right way to go about interpreting your Bible. Now it’s time to peruse the Bible and see what’s in it to answer the question: “What is the message of God’s Word?”