I remember a conversation with a young believer who loved reading theology books–and he loved labels, too! As we talked, he described a conversation he had been having with another member of our church, a relatively new Christian. With astonishment in his voice, my brother in Christ said, “I think Gabriel is a…” I’ll let you fill in the blank with your favorite partisan label.

My friend was shocked because he knew this newer convert of only a few years had not read any theology books, had never attended a conference, and, as far as he knew, had not watched a single theological debate on video. So I asked, “Why do you think he holds these beliefs?” “Well,” he went on, “when I talked about these theological ideas, he agreed with me and even added more to our discussion. I was surprised, pastor, that he knows so much about these things.”

I smiled and went on to explain that he was right about our friend Gabriel. He hadn’t read books on theology, nor had he gone to conferences or even watched a debate–but he had been faithful to attend church and to read and study his own Bible. “And that is why he can espouse those truths,” I said. “He learned his theological viewpoints, like all of us should, by first discovering them in the Word of God and through faithful teachers who teach the Scriptures in their context.”

Although a simple example, it is nonetheless how theology is rightly developed from the study of the Word of God, emerging from the expositional teaching of the Scriptures week after week and year after year in the church.

Currently, the evangelical church is facing several tests that are striking at its theological foundation. We can expect the liberal wing of the church to deny the inerrancy of the Scriptures, and this would naturally align with theories of interpretation that allow theological liberals to interpret God’s Word according to their own desires and perceived needs. For example, Mary Veeneman, in her introductory work on Theological Method, shares Roman Catholic Bishop Avery Dulles’s list of ten hermeneutical approaches.

Veeneman writes, “While he has not exhausted all the possible hermeneutical approaches, Dulles has come close with this list.” Here are the approaches as Veeneman lists them:

1. The classical doctrinal approach, which understands the Bible as a collection of doctrinal statements.
2. Biblical theology, which attempts to draw together the teachings of the whole of scripture on one particular theological topic;
3. Spiritual exegesis, which is seen most clearly in the writings of the Eastern Church Fathers;
4. Word theology, which Dulles associates with the approach of Karl Barth;
5. Existential hermeneutics, which Dulles associates with the approach of Rudolf Bultmann;
6. The experiential-expressive approach, which can be seen in the approach of Karl Rahner;
7. Seeking authorial intention;
8. Historical reconstruction (as is seen in various approaches to biblical criticism);
9. The cultural-linguistic approach
10. The approach of liberation theology.[1]

Dulles treats hermeneutical approaches like a box of tools. When you need a particular interpretation, you have options. If that approach doesn’t meet your needs, you can choose an alternative. Like the psychotherapist who can choose his methods according to what he perceives to be the problem, the theologian can choose his interpretive method to fit the desired outcome.

It is telling that many theological approaches do not seek to understand what the author wrote to his audience but rather what the modern interpreter wants the biblical text to say. It is as if the Bible were a box of words, and you could pick them out and arrange them however you’d like to make them say whatever you want. In this article, I will advocate for the only sensible option among those who genuinely care about what the biblical text actually says.

We want to understand what the original writers intended, because we believe the text has a singular meaning and seek to discern the Spirit-inspired meaning. And as helpful as Spurgeon, Calvin, Luther, Ryrie, Vlach, MacArthur, Sproul, or Piper might be, we want to know what God said. To interpret Scripture properly, we do not need the writings of Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas.

Today, we are not only challenged by the liberal academy but also, closer to home, by those who call themselves Retrievalists, who mirror the Catholic Ressourcement theology of Dulles— seeking to return to an interpretation that doesn’t simply use other sources  as help but instead requires the introduction of foreign, even pagan,  ideologies into our understanding. Tradition, patristics, human reason, creeds, and confessions are called alongside the Scriptures as equals in order to help us understand the Word of God.

We don’t have to consult Aquinas or Augustine to interpret the Word rightly. Some of these men, as far as they rightly interpreted the Word of God, might be of service to the Church. But men err, as the Retrievalists tell us. They say we cannot interpret the Bible without the help of these human teachers. But who taught the teachers? Who instructed the writers of the creeds and confessions? Do we believe that they, too, are inerrant?

These threats are not-so-subtly suggesting that Scripture alone is not enough. We must have other sources of authority that come alongside the Scriptures if we are to interpret the Bible correctly. Tradition, human reason, natural theology, philosophy, creeds, and confessions are elevated to a level of authority that many evangelicals have not seen since before the Reformation.

Let me lay out my assumptions for you as I argue that, while theological constructs are helpful to the church and believers, we need to ensure that we keep each element in its proper place.

 

Assumptions

• Authority-Scripture holds authority over and above all secondary sources.
• Perspicuity-We can understand and benefit from what the Bible teaches.
• Sufficiency-Scripture alone is sufficient, although other sources can aid in our understanding.
• Illumination-Scripture can only be understood correctly with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

I do not want to assume these four pillars without a biblical foundation. They can all be found in our Lord’s experiences with those who opposed His ministry:

Jesus Rebuked Teachers for Over-emphasizing the Traditions of Men (Mt 15:1-9; Mk 7:1-13; Lk 11:37-52)

• There was no requirement in the Old Testament that demanded the disciples to wash their hands. This was a “tradition of the elders.” (Mt 15:2)
• Jesus put this offensive accusation in stark contrast to their breaking of God’s Word (vv. 4-6).
• Jesus did not put the traditions of men on equal footing with God’s Word.
• In these examples, Jesus clearly demonstrates that He viewed God’s Word as binding and the traditions of men, as in this case, as subordinate, and sometimes contrary to Scripture.
• Such teachers Jesus described as “blind guides” (v. 14) because of their unregenerate state. Their unbelief also led them to direct men through the traditions of men and not through the Scriptures.
• The teachings of the rabbis were based on extrapolations from the Old Testament but were invalid insofar as they did not accurately reflect the pas- sage’s true meaning. In Matthew 15:4, it says, “For God said…” and in v. 5 “But you say…” demonstrating Christ’s strong emphasis on God’s Word versus man’s tradition as not being the same.

Jesus Demonstrated the Authority of Scripture as Superior to Rabbinic Opinion and Tradition (Mt 7:28-29; Mk 1:22; Lk 4:32)

• Jesus, having concluded his masterful sermon on the Mount, the people’s response was one of astonishment because he derived his authority not from the scribes but from his own authority.
• Christ could have drawn on the authority of the scribes, citing the rabbis, but He did not.
• Instead, in his sermon, Christ refuted over and over again the teaching of the scribes:

“You have heard…But I say to you” (5:21-22, 27-28, 31-34, 38-39, 43-44)

• The rabbis were careful not to make authoritative statements such as Jesus did.
• They based their views upon the views of those who came before them, often quoting rabbi so-and-so for proof that their views were orthodox.

Jesus Rebuked Teachers for Failure to Understand the Meaning of Scripture (Mt 21:42/Mk 12:10; Mt 22:29-32/ Mk 12:26; Mt 12:3-5/Mk 2:25/ Lk 6:3; Mt 19:4; Mt 21:16)

Jesus’ rebukes include statements such as:

• “Did you never read the Scriptures…?” (Mt 21:42);
• “Have you not even read this Scripture…?” (Mk 12:10)
• “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.” (Mt 22:29)
• “Have you not read in the book of Moses…?” (Mk 12:26)
• “Have you not read what David did…?” (Mt 12:3; Mk 2:25; Lk 6:3)
• “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning…?” (Mt 19:4)
• “Jesus said to them, ‘Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies You have prepared praise for Yourself’?” (Mt 21:16)

Although there were many sources that He could have appealed to (including metaphysical philosophers), Jesus continuously pointed to the Word of God to correct the poor theology of his accusers.

Jesus Rebuked Satan by Appealing to the Authority of Scripture Rightly Interpreted (Mt 4:5-6; Lk 4:9-11)

• “But He answered and said, ‘It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’” Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU’; and ‘ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, LEST YOU STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’”” (Mt 4:4–6)

In all these examples, and there are others from the ministries of the Prophets and the Apostles, we see my four assumptions:

• Authority-Scripture holds authority over and above all secondary sources.
• Perspicuity-We can understand and benefit from what the Bible teaches.
• Sufficiency-Scripture alone is sufficient, although other sources can aid in our understanding.
• Illumination-Scripture can only be understood correctly with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

 

 The Process

Establish a Foundation (Introduction, Languages, Hermeneutics)

This starting point is necessary because we assume the Bible is our ultimate source of truth. Thus, we need to determine “what is the Scripture” by addressing questions about textual variants, alternate readings of the text, and other related issues. This step will also help us establish basic data about the text, author, audience, dating, and other challenges that may arise as we study the biblical books. A good study Bible typically includes a brief summary of these matters to help set the stage for each book of the Bible.

We will also need to follow established rules of hermeneutics to help us guard against inserting our own prejudices and meanings that are not derived from the text. If we are serious about hearing from God through His Word, we must be committed to understanding the original author’s intent for the audience he was addressing, as well as the cultural setting, genre, nearby and distant contexts, history, and grammar of the text. This is often referred to as the literal or normative interpretation of Scripture, also known as the historical- grammatical hermeneutic, or, as Mark Snoeberger has described it, “the originalist method of hermeneutics.”

As Biblicists, we are so committed to the author’s intent that we insist all of Scripture be interpreted through these rules. Some of our conservative brothers might agree with us up to this point, but then they change the rules of the game when it comes to sections of the Bible that refer to God’s promises to Israel and future events. I remember when my brothers used to change the rules of the game when they were losing. But in my house, we called that cheating! You can’t change the rules when you don’t like the outcome or when it doesn’t fit your preconceived theological framework.

We believe that God’s Word to mankind is true and that He has chosen to use ordinary means of communication to speak to us. We don’t need a special Bible code or to repeatedly change our hermeneutical methodology until we achieve the desired results. We want to hear what God intends for us to hear.

This is why the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) not only sought to combat the notion that the Bible contains errors but also continued its work to further define and defend biblical hermeneutics as literal, grammatical, and historical. The doctrine of inerrancy requires us to interpret Scripture literally and consistently. If we believe the Bible is God’s Word to us, then we want to interpret it correctly.

Practicing Exegesis

Exegesis is the application of the rules of hermeneutics. In exegesis, we attempt to understand the Author’s meaning as expressed through normal conventions of language, taking into account grammatical and historical data. The text is read in a normative way, applying the rules of hermeneutics as we would to other forms of literature.

This exegetical process aims to avoid imposing ideas, traditions, theological constructs, or human reasoning onto the exegetical process, thereby ensuring the product is as free from contamination as possible. This is the opposite of the methods described by Dulles in his list of ten hermeneutical approaches.

Exegesis is both a science and an art. The science part is the application of the rules of hermeneutics. The art part is not creativity in the sense we think of when we think of art. It is the aspect of applying hermeneutical principles in ways that help us determine the meaning of the text more accurately.

 

 Theology Derived from Biblical Exegesis (Biblical, then Systematic)

This brings us full circle to the story I began with about Gabriel learning theology without me quoting Norm Geisler’s Systematic Theology or any historic creed or confession. When we apply the rules of hermeneutics through exegetical analysis in the church, the result is biblical exposition. Line by line, precept upon precept, the Bible is taught. Moving through the books of the Bible in this way provides the church with a sense of the author’s intent, context, grammar, and history. When the foundation is laid and the Scriptures are examined to uncover the interpretation of the message that God gave to His people, we can then apply that message to our local congregations.

The exegetical process allows us to then build a biblical theology—an understanding of the development of major doctrines throughout history. Biblical theology best demonstrates the progression of special revelation as it is given in the Word of God. When we study a book in its historical context, we see the truths unfold in time and history as God gave it to the Spirit-inspired human authors.

As we study the body of work by those authors, we gain a better understanding of their language, theological nuance, and themes. But that’s not all. Because biblical theology is rooted not only in the development of doctrines within a particular book or author but also in the broader context of Scripture, it serves as the basis for systematic theology.

Systematic theology takes the next step by categorizing what the entire Scripture says about major categories of theological thought. To ensure that these categories are grounded in a correct understanding, we require biblical theology, which is grounded in the exegetical study of individual books within their own contexts. Why is this important? Because so much of the confusion stems from failing to recognize the importance of this order of operations.

When systematic theology—the product of biblical exegesis and biblical theology—is said to be necessary to interpret a biblical text, we can understand how confusion can be introduced. As Mike Vlach has written, we practice “passage priority,”[2] meaning that we determine the meaning of a passage by the information found in that passage. We don’t import other meanings into our study—whether theological conclusions, so-called testament priority of the New Testament, or even other passages in different contexts.

 

Conclusion

In the end, our task is not to reinvent theology by importing outside authorities or philosophies, nor is it to bend the text until it fits our systems. Our calling is to submit ourselves wholly to the Word of God—trusting its authority, its clarity, its sufficiency, and the Spirit’s illumination.

If the church is to remain faithful, we must build theology the way the prophets, the apostles, and even our Lord Himself modeled: by appealing to the Scriptures as the final and binding authority. Biblical theology grows from exegesis, systematic theology grows from biblical theology, and our preaching and living must flow from this foundation.

This is what it means to be a true Biblicist: not neglecting the gifts of teachers throughout history, but refusing to let any man, creed, or tradition share the throne that belongs to Scripture alone.

May we, like Ezra, “set our hearts to study the Law of the Lord, and to practice it, and to teach His statutes” (Ez 7:10). And may this conviction shape both our theology and our ministries until Christ returns.

 

---

ENDNOTES

[1] Mary M. Veeneman, Introducing Theological Method: A Survey of Contemporary Theologians and Approaches (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 19.

[2] Michael J. Vlach, Dispensational Hermeneutics (Theological Studies Press, 2023), 35-39.