Sundays: 9:00 AM Sunday School | 10:30 AM Worship Service

Watch Live

|

Contact

|

App

|

Sunday School

Lesson 1: Literal Hermeneutic and Expository Preaching, Questions

Speaker
David Capoccia

Listen to Audio Save MP3 Save PDF


Slides / Handouts

PDF document available for this sermon.

Your browser doesn’t support PDF embedding.

Download PDF

Reading Tools:

Aa

Auto Transcript

Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

Summary

This lesson continues the defense of the literal hermeneutic and expository preaching by answering three key questions about Bible interpretation. We are reminded that topical preaching is not inherently unbiblical—it can be done in an expository manner—but it requires greater care and skill. The lesson surveys four popular alternatives to the literal hermeneutic: reader response, historical critical, allegorical, and sensus plenior methods.

We are then given five compelling reasons why the sensus plenior (“fuller meaning”) approach, though popular among sincere believers, should be rejected in favor of the literal hermeneutic.

Key Lessons:

  1. Topical preaching can be faithful and expository if the preacher interprets and applies passages according to God’s originally intended meaning, though it is more difficult to execute well.
  2. The reader response, historical critical, and allegorical hermeneutics all ultimately lead to the same place: the Bible means whatever the interpreter wants it to mean.
  3. The sensus plenior method, though it sounds worshipful and Christ-honoring, introduces pre-understanding that crowds out the original meaning of Old Testament passages and confuses interpretation with application.
  4. The proper way to relate the Old Testament to Christ is not by adding an allegorical layer at the interpretation level, but by connecting Old Testament truths to New Testament realities at the application and significance level.

Application: We are called to resist the temptation to impose meanings onto Scripture—even well-intentioned Christ-centered meanings—and instead let the text speak on its own terms through the literal hermeneutic, then faithfully connect what we learn to the fuller revelation of Christ at the level of application.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How can we tell the difference between legitimately connecting an Old Testament passage to Christ at the application level versus imposing a meaning onto the text that isn’t there?
  2. Why is pre-understanding such a dangerous enemy of sound Bible interpretation, and how can we guard against it in our own Bible study?
  3. When you encounter a difficult Old Testament passage, are you more tempted to allegorize it or to simply ignore it—and how does the literal hermeneutic help with either tendency?

Scripture Focus: Luke 24:27, Colossians 2:16-17, Hosea 11:1 with Matthew 2:14-15, Amos 9:11-12 with Acts 15:14-18, Deuteronomy 25:4 with 1 Corinthians 9:8-10, and Psalm 51.

Outline

Introduction

Good morning. Let’s begin Sunday school.

Please find your seats. Welcome back to our new series on defending doctrinal distinctives in which we are looking at 15 of the most controversial yet crucial doctrines that we teach at our church.

Last time I presented to you our first doctrine of the course, really a pair of doctrines, related doctrines: the literal hermeneutic and expository preaching.

What is the literal hermeneutic? To remind you, also known as historical grammatical hermeneutics. The literal hermeneutic is a plain sense method of Bible interpretation that operates according to the normal rules of human communication and that seeks to understand the original intent of the biblical authors as they express their intent in the texts they wrote.

And what is expository preaching again? It operates according to the literal hermeneutic. Expository preaching is preaching that authoritatively proclaims, clearly explains, and appropriately applies a biblical text to a group of listeners.

Now, if you missed the presentation of these two doctrines, please go back and listen to last week’s recording. It is available on our website. But today is the second lesson on these doctrines, and it is about answering common questions and objections.

As we proceed in this course, especially in these kinds of more defense type lessons, let me clarify that I know and the other elders know that some of what we say in this course will be challenging for you to hear. We may teach against how you were raised or how you were trained. We may contradict some of your own personal conclusions or convictions.

Though we do hope to persuade you, we are not here to debate you or to force you to some kind of belief. We simply ask that you sincerely consider what we say as your God-appointed shepherds at this church. As James commands in James 1:19, so we command you: everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger.

For the issues of Bible interpretation that I will attempt to discuss today, some of these are at the center of ongoing debate among conservative evangelical Christians. In other words, among faithful believers in God’s true church. In one hour, I cannot untangle or answer every aspect of that ongoing debate. But I do want to provide you with fundamental answers to the most important questions that are being discussed.

In this lesson, I prepared answers to three questions related to the literal hermeneutic and expository preaching.

You say only three? Well, they’re big questions and there are a bunch of other questions that are involved in the explanation. So that’s my agenda. Let me ask for God’s help before we continue.

Lord God, your word is wonderful. It reveals you and your ways and shows us the way to walk. But Lord, we want to approach it the correct way, the way that you have meant for us to approach it. Help me to clarify that today. Help us to consider soberly these arguments and pray that you would lead us by your spirit. In Jesus’ name, amen.

Question 1: Is Topical Preaching Unbiblical?

Our first question today relates to preaching.

Is topical preaching unbiblical? Topical preaching is preaching on a certain subject, theme, or idea rather than a specific Bible passage.

If the Bible demands and models expository preaching, as I argued last week, is topical preaching then unbiblical? And the answer is it depends.

Something to realize about expository preaching is that such preaching is more about manner than form.

Many Christians equate verse-by-verse sequential going through one book preaching with expository preaching. Often verse-by-verse sequential preaching is expository and the usual mode of expository preachers. But you can be sequential without being expository and you can be expository without being sequential.

The key question to ask regarding any form of sermon is: Is the preacher interpreting and applying the Bible according to God’s originally intended meaning?

“Is the preacher interpreting and applying the Bible according to God’s originally intended meaning?”

You see, a preacher can exposit more than one passage faithfully in a sermon, which is essentially what topical preaching is. If a preacher desires to preach, say on the topic of repentance or on the offices of elder and deacon in the church or even on the life of Jesus, maybe in a Christmas or Easter sermon, the preacher can choose either to exposit one select passage on that topic and maybe do a series or that preacher can choose to exposit multiple passages in one sermon, even summarizing what the entire Bible has to say on a topic.

Yes, preachers can legitimately preach topically in a way that is also expository.

Arguably, the book of Hebrews in the Bible is an example of a topical yet expository sermon. The writer handles a number of passages and explains and applies them. Pastor Bobby and I have also preached topical yet expository sermons at times here at Calvary.

Topical Preaching: Benefits and Dangers

However, we should note that topical preaching is more difficult than sequential preaching to execute faithfully.

From choosing your next passage to figuring out your points and how to present them to studying each of the passages you intend to discuss, sequential preaching on just one passage is far easier.

Also, because topical preaching must address multiple passages in one sermon, the preacher cannot go as deep into any one passage as a sequential preacher can do for his.

In summary, when done sparingly and well, topical sermons can provide timely expositions to meet certain obvious needs of the congregation or give the people a more fully orbed understanding of certain Bible truths.

“When done sparingly and well, topical sermons can provide timely expositions to meet certain obvious needs.”

However, when done frequently and poorly, topical sermons can become hobby horses for the preacher, addressing only his favorite subjects, can become avenues for distorting the Bible and presenting what is merely man’s opinion, and can result in the malnourishment of the congregation who only ever get to see the big picture.

That’s our first question. Our second question: what are popular alternatives to the literal hermeneutic?

I argued last week that the literal hermeneutic is the only legitimate method of Bible interpretation. So, what other methods compete with the literal hermeneutic for people’s usage, for your usage?

“The literal hermeneutic is the only legitimate method of Bible interpretation.”

I’ll mention four categories of alternative methods of Bible interpretation.

The Reader Response Hermeneutic

The first is the reader response hermeneutic.

In reader response, the reader looks for meaning in his experience of reading a Bible text itself rather than in the author’s original intent as expressed in the text. Essentially, this is the method of those who read the Bible out of context and then ask, “What does this verse mean to me?” Strikingly, many theologically liberal Bible scholars endorse a form of reader response.

They reason from the post-modern assumption that human communication is fundamentally flawed. No one can ever fully express what he means to express. And due to personal biases, no one can ever fully understand what someone else says. Thus, there is no hope in recovering the original intent of the authors of the Bible. We must simply settle for our own subjective experiences while reading their texts.

In the end, the Bible’s meaning is whatever you think it is or whatever you want it to be.

“In the end, the Bible’s meaning is whatever you think it is or whatever you want it to be.”

Why Reader Response Fails

Now, the reader’s response theory deserves our rejection. While humans may not always be able to understand one another completely, we can understand one another sufficiently.

Or else proponents of reader response could not even teach or advocate for their method. We would never understand what they were saying.

And if we can sufficiently understand one another with imperfect communication, how much more can we sufficiently understand God’s book when God perfectly worked through human authors and through us by his indwelling spirit to communicate with us?

“How much more can we understand God’s book when God perfectly worked through human authors?”

Besides, if the Bible could mean anything, the Bible means nothing and it can impart no authoritative or helpful revelation to us.

The Historical Critical Hermeneutic

A second popular form of hermeneutic is the historical critical hermeneutic. This sounds similar to historical grammatical hermeneutics, which is another name for the literal hermeneutic, but it is very different.

The interpreter using the historical critical method seeks to analyze what sources shaped a Bible text to affect the credibility and meaning of the text.

Essentially, the historical critical hermeneutic is a hermeneutic of suspicion.

“The historical critical hermeneutic is a hermeneutic of suspicion.”

It’s a hermeneutic that uses scientific—quote unquote scientific—analysis, subjective speculation, and autonomous human reasoning, or reasoning that ignores or rejects what the Bible actually says, to decide which parts of the Bible are true and original and which parts have been added, removed, or otherwise altered over time.

The results of this hermeneutic are predictable. Historical critical interpreters usually conclude that the books of the Bible were not written by their stated or traditionally assigned authors, but were written by multiple authors and editors over time.

Consequently, whatever messages the original authors may have imparted have mostly been lost due to later writers adapting the original words for later purposes.

If anything of a divine authoritative message still exists in the mind of a historical critical interpreter of the Bible, that message is just whatever he finds reasonable in his own mind.

In a way, then, the historical critical approach brings you to the same place as reader response. The Bible means what you want it to mean.

Unfortunately, the historical critical hermeneutic is quite popular among Bible scholars, especially theologically liberal Bible scholars. It’s so popular that many supposedly Bible-believing evangelical Bible scholars, while not totally agreeing with the hermeneutic, will still confess the historical critical approach to be a valuable tool in studying the Bible. They say, “Yeah, we don’t totally agree, but this is a good tool.”

We’ll salvage it. We’ll redeem it for our own use. No, this is a foolish compromise for the sake of academic credibility and vaporous worldly influence. The historical critical method has nothing valuable for believers as it is set on an anti-biblical, anti-God foundation.

The Allegorical Hermeneutic

A third popular type of hermeneutic is the allegorical hermeneutic.

The practitioner of the allegorical hermeneutic seeks a figurative or symbolic meaning of a Bible text regardless of whether the original author meant for that text to be understood that way.

“The allegorical hermeneutic seeks a figurative meaning regardless of whether the author meant it that way.”

The history of the allegorical hermeneutic is instructive about its usage. The first practitioners of the allegorical hermeneutic were Greek polytheists interpreting their own religious texts about their gods.

After all, according to a literal common sense reading of those religious texts, the gods of the Greeks were plainly immoral and frequently committed grotesque and even impossible acts.

Therefore, those looking to protect the Greek religion from ridicule or to make Greek religion fit better with emerging philosophical ideas insisted that the myths were not to be taken literally but allegorically.

History of Allegorical Interpretation

As Greek culture spread among the Jews starting in the 4th century BC, some Jewish Bible interpreters began to use the allegorical hermeneutic on sections of the Jewish Bible. They did this for the same reason: to interpret as allegory whatever might otherwise offend or appear unreasonable according to a literal interpretation or that fails to match up with philosophical ideas from Greek culture.

Christian interpreters then inherited the allegorical hermeneutic from the Jews.

In fact, starting in the 3rd century AD, two opposing schools of Christian Bible interpretation had appeared. An allegorical approach was championed by Christian teachers in Alexandria, Egypt, and a literal approach was championed by Christian teachers in Antioch, Syria.

Those from the Alexandrian school often used the allegorical hermeneutic like the Greeks and Jews before them to reinterpret otherwise offensive or unreasonable passages in the Old Testament and to align Christian teaching more with Greek philosophy.

Actually, the great Augustine of Hippo, a fourth and fifth century theologian whose theology so greatly influenced medieval Christian thought, partly adopted the allegorical hermeneutic after it seemed to provide him with solutions to problems he found in the Old Testament.

Medieval Bible interpretation was thus greatly affected by the allegorical hermeneutic, and the literal hermeneutic only made a dramatic reappearance at the time of the Reformation in the 1500s.

“The literal hermeneutic only made a dramatic reappearance at the time of the Reformation.”

Allegory in Modern Bible Interpretation

And now consider with me for a moment what portions of the Bible today are often interpreted as figurative even before or apart from a close analysis of the details of those texts. Danny Reation.

Yeah. The book of Revelation. Last things, end times. What else?

The book of Genesis, especially chapters 1 to 11 where we’re talking about creation, the fall, the flood, and Babel. Tina.

Okay. The book of Daniel.

Hold on. Let me just think for a second.

Probably Daniel does have a number of symbols in it, but it could be taken even more allegorically than was intended. Isaiah, Jonah, and really any section of the Bible that describes unreasonable miracles. So even the gospels, sections of the gospels.

Glenda, you had another one.

Okay. Ezekiel. Other ones that are quite prominent, the Song of Solomon.

Certainly we don’t have a Bible book about romantic sexual love and marriage.

That’s just weird. And other besides what’s already been mentioned, prophecies related to future literal promises to Israel. Whole sections of those prophecies are treated as allegorical. And why? Why mainly these portions of the Bible?

Same reason for allegory in the past.

Because they contain ideas considered to be offensive or unreasonable to our culture and its philosophies or because interpreters wish to preserve certain preconceived theological conclusions.

“Allegory doesn’t come from the text. It comes from a desire to integrate or preserve some idea.”

Genre as an Excuse for Allegory

Allegory doesn’t come from the text. It comes from a desire of the interpreter to integrate or preserve some idea. One excuse often offered for an allegorical approach is genre. People will say, for example, “Oh, this section of the Bible is poetry and thus should not be taken literally.”

Or they might even say the gospel narratives function like Greco-Roman biographies of the day. And those biographies usually contain portions that were not true literally or historically but were true symbolically, figuratively.

Thus, genre becomes a way to escape the literal hermeneutic and really the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. You can take anything that otherwise would have to be affirmed as true and inerrant and you can say, “Oh, that’s just figurative.” And the genre shows that’s just figurative.

Now remember that literal hermeneutic does not discount figurative language in the Bible but insists that such must not be assumed but determined from a close reading of the text of scripture in their original contexts.

Furthermore, while identifying genre and appreciating genre nuances are part of the literal hermeneutic, genre itself must be determined by the details of a text, not by a preconceived assumption.

If you’re going to say Genesis 1:3 is poetry, you have to have that come out from the text. You can’t impose that on the text. And actually it’s quite clear from the details of the text that it is not presented as poetry and therefore should not be just explained away as figurative. The genre must emerge from the details of the text, not a preconceived assumption. And genre never excuses a new hermeneutic.

“Genre must be determined by the details of a text, not by a preconceived assumption.”

Every genre of the Bible must be approached with the same plain sense hermeneutic that is the literal hermeneutic, though with appreciation for certain nuances in a genre.

Now, most Christian interpreters historically have not been totally allegorical, only for certain passages.

The Sensus Plenior Hermeneutic

But probably the most common form of erroneous interpretation, competing interpretation among true Christians, is this last category: the sensus plenior hermeneutic. The sensus plenior hermeneutic—you say that sounds fancy, what’s that? Sensus plenior is just a Latin phrase that means fuller meaning.

The interpreter using the sensus plenior hermeneutic looks for two meanings or more in the biblical text: a literal meaning according to historical grammatical hermeneutics and a fuller, deeper allegorical meaning.

“The sensus plenior interpreter looks for a literal meaning and a fuller, deeper allegorical meaning.”

Usually the fuller meaning is sought only in Old Testament passages and is discovered by looking for correspondences between the original literal meaning and the realities of Jesus in the gospel as revealed in the New Testament.

Some examples of the sensus plenior hermeneutic today include the Christocentric hermeneutic, the redemptive historical hermeneutic, and the New Testament priority hermeneutic.

An example of this type of hermeneutic in action would be the following. On one level, the account of David slaying Goliath is about God’s faithfulness to deliver those who trust and obey him even when faced with impossible obstacles.

But on a deeper level, the account is about Jesus Christ, about how God would one day provide deliverance through the greater shepherd king and administer a death blow to the terrible enemies that his people could never overcome by themselves: namely sin, death, and Satan.

And that interpretation sounds pretty good. Sounds pretty worshipful. And that’s the sensus plenior hermeneutic.

Justifications for Sensus Plenior

Now advocates for a christocentric planar understanding provide three main justifications for their approach. One: Jesus plainly reveals that all scripture is about him. Several references there in Luke and John. Not only that, his apostles reveal that the Old Testament was filled with foretelling types and shadows. The substance, though, was and always is Jesus Christ as Colossians and Hebrews say.

Thus, proper interpretation of the Old Testament always requires an understanding of how a passage reveals or points to Jesus Christ.

“Proper interpretation of the Old Testament always requires understanding how a passage reveals Christ.”

Two, another reason is that the apostles sometimes explain Old Testament texts in a way that’s inconsistent with the Old Testament’s original meaning as uncovered by the literal hermeneutic, but consistent with the newly revealed gospel of Jesus. I have a number of example passages listed on the screen.

Thus, following apostolic hermeneutics requires uncovering a fuller meaning than the literal hermeneutic can provide. Yes, discover the literal, but look for the fuller meaning as well—a fuller meaning that describes the gospel.

And then three, many prominent theologians from the reformation period and afterwards practiced a christocentric planar hermeneutic.

Confusingly, these theologians didn’t call their hermeneutic a christocentric planar hermeneutic, but instead the literal hermeneutic. Yes, the literal hermeneutic as practiced by many reformers, though not all of them, was actually christocentric planar because these theologians saw in addition to the literal meaning a deeper spiritual meaning related to Christ in many Old Testament passages.

And if we Protestants claim to be inheritors of the reformation, shouldn’t we practice the literal hermeneutic as these reformers practiced it? That is, in a christocentric planar way. By the way, differing definitions of what a literal hermeneutic actually is continues to add confusion to the debate over proper Bible interpretation among Christian evangelicals today.

So in summary, according to the christocentric planar advocates, Jesus has become the hermeneutical key by which we must now understand the Old Testament. While a literal hermeneutic of the kind for which I’ve argued in this course will lead you to the basic meaning of Old Testament passages, only a New Testament informed Christ-centered hermeneutic will lead you to the fuller meaning.

Now the christocentric planar approach sounds both reasonable and worshipful, and many of our true brethren in the Lord who love Jesus have used it and do use it. Compared to the other methods, it’s definitely nothing like the dangers of historical critical or reader response or even sometimes the allegorical hermeneutic.

Nevertheless, the christocentric planar approach is ultimately an erroneous method that leads to erroneous theology.

Question 3: Why Reject the Sensus Plenior Method?

Here’s my third question and the the big one that we’ll explore with the rest of the class. Why should you not accept any census planer method no matter what that method is called over and against the literal hermeneutic?

I’m going to give you five reasons. Five reasons not to accept the sensors plier method but stick with the literal hermeneutic.

Reason 1: Pre-Understanding Is the Enemy

Number one, because the great enemy of all sound Bible interpretation is pre-understanding.

Anytime you approach a Bible passage with a predetermination of what it is about and what you will discover in it, you will end up ising the passage rather than executing it. Even if you approach it with good intentions, you will end up distorting the passage to make it say what you believe it should say rather than what the original author meant.

“The great enemy of all sound Bible interpretation is pre-understanding.”

Census plener requires that you pre-understand every Old Testament Bible passage to be about Christ and the gospel in some way even before you look at or study the passage. This is not letting God speak. This is putting words into God’s mouth by isogesis.

Said another way, without the objective controls of the literal hermeneutic, Bible interpretation becomes at least on one level inherently subjective.

It’s whatever you think or whatever you reason according to your own mind.

And if you find some new gospel picture in the words or events of the Old Testament, who can say that you’re wrong? Because it doesn’t depend on those original Old Testament texts.

Reason 2: Fuller Meaning Crowds Out Original Meaning

Two, another reason not to accept census planer is because a deeper, fuller meaning will always crowd out the original literal meaning.

Census of plenner interpreters think that you can have your cake and eat it too. When it comes to Bible interpretation, you can have the literal meaning according to historical grammatical hermeneutics and you can have the allegorical meaning according to New Testament gospel realities. You don’t have to choose. You can enjoy both.

In practice, the method does not work this way.

“A deeper, fuller meaning will always crowd out the original literal meaning.”

For example, in Abraham’s famous near sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22, what is God teaching most prominently in that narrative?

Many Christians would say the foreshadowing of Christ’s death on the cross at the hands of his father. I mean, look at all the parallels. He puts the wood on his son. The son willingly goes, he’s presented as a sacrifice.

This is a foreshadowing of the gospel.

That sounds nice. But that’s a census planer understanding of the passage.

That is not a meaning discoverable by the little hermeneutic in the original context. It’s one that must be imposed upon the text. What is the original literal meaning of the Genesis 22 account?

Most Christians don’t know or even care because once you have the deeper meaning, who wants to go back to the more basic one? I mean, Jesus is everything. We’ve already got what we need.

Thus, the census plan hermeneutic ends up in practice suppressing the original meaning of many Old Testament Bible passages and the necessary application of those passages to the Christian life.

Reason 3: Confusing Interpretation and Application

Third reason not to accept census plenner because the census planer approach confuses the proper steps of exogesis according to the literal hermeneutic confuses or mislabels.

Some census planer advocates will passionately assert that sound Christian Bible interpretation of the Old Testament should not look or sound like sound Jewish Bible interpretation. Come on. We cannot pretend that any Old Testament reality is unaffected by Jesus in the Gospel. We’re not Jews, we’re Christians.

To that, I say a hearty amen.

The problem, though, is how a census puner interpreter allows an investigation into the passage’s significance, an application to infect the interpretation of that passage’s meaning.

One maxim of the literal hermeneutic is one meaning, many applications.

“One meaning, many applications.”

Every Bible passage, including in the Old Testament, has only one meaning according to the author’s original intent as demonstrated in the passage and that does not change over time.

However, the significance or application of a Bible passage does change over time depending on the circumstances of the readers and including the availability of further revelation.

For Christians, the meaning of Old Testament passages since they were originally me written has not changed and has not been added to. But the significance and application have changed dramatically and must be noted.

Psalm 51: A Case Study

To give an example of what I mean, think about Psalm 51, David’s psalm and confession and repentance after sinning with Bashibba. We we were there a few weeks ago in in the preaching. Is Psalm 51 and its original meaning about Jesus?

No, it can’t be. For sinful David does not speak in the role of the coming Messiah. Nor does David describe or make any specific illusions to the Messiah in the psalm.

The meaning instead of the psalm is an instructive example of true repentance.

“The meaning of the psalm is an instructive example of true repentance.”

But how does Jesus coming centuries after Psalm 51 was written change the application or the significance of the psalm? Let me ask you, what’s one way that Jesus coming affects the application or significance of Psalm 51?

Can you explain more what you mean by that, Glenda?

Okay. Certainly, we can compare David part of the Davidic covenant and a a Messiah of a kind. We can compare Jesus to Christ and notice how Jesus is what David couldn’t be. What else?

Yeah, Mark.

It ends with then I will teach your ways and sinners will be converted to me. It seems to have a Okay. So Mark is noting a connection, the forgiveness, transformation and testimony about God that marks the true repentance of David. It is described more fully in the gospel of Jesus in the New Testament. What David is describing is shown to be true in Jesus and specifically revolving around Jesus.

It’s not simply that you confess your sins and come to God and ask him to transform you. That as the New Testament explains is accomplished in Christ by Christ through Christ. It’s the same thing and yet explained more fully in the New Testament and in Jesus Christ.

Dwayne, what were you going to say?

We have clarity in the New Testament.

Okay, very good. So, Dwayne does know a specific detail in the psalm where David prays to God, don’t take your holy spirit from me. But David was operating under a a different reality as uniquely empowered Messiah leader of his people than we are as New Testament Christians who when given the Holy Spirit cannot lose the Holy Spirit.

So there’s a different application of that section of the psalm and that’s the psalm of a whole because we have a different reality related to the Holy Spirit. One of the ways that the significance and application changes or is expanded by Jesus in the gospel of the New Testament is to explain how a holy God can forgive sin.

Do you remember as I brought that up in the sermon a couple of weeks ago?

David comes to God on the basis that God will forgive sin. He knows that God will do that. But God is holy. How can God forgive sin? It’s never explained in the psalm, but it is in the gospel of Jesus.

The mystery of Psalm 51 and of the whole Old Testament is explained by Jesus coming. So the significance, the application of what David is talking about now has is now clarified in the New Testament. By Jesus coming, we have a a greater understanding of the terrible cost of forgiveness and how much more wonderful God’s mercy is because of it. The son of God had to die in the place of murderers and adulterers like David and like and like you and me.

And as I said before, the New Testament Jesus coming, it explains more specifically where true repentance directs a person to Jesus himself.

Interpretation vs. Application: A Critical Distinction

Now I say these things still wanting to clarify the meaning of the psalm Psalm 51 has not changed. It is still written as an instructive example of true repentance, but the application and significance have definitely changed by Jesus coming in and revelation. If you’re going to preach Psalm 51 as a Christian teacher, you have to relate it to Jesus and what his coming how his company his coming expands the significance of what David wrote.

Do you appreciate their critical difference?

Jesus and his gospel. They should impact our understanding of Old Testament Bible passages not at the interpretation level but at the application level at the level of significance.

“Jesus and his gospel should impact our understanding not at interpretation but at application.”

Christian interpreters must not bring the New Testament revelation of Jesus into the interpretation step of Old Testament passages or else those interpreters will inevitably isete.

But Christian interpreters must bring the New Testament revelation of Jesus into the application step or else those Christians will apply the Bible anacronistically as if we were all Hebrews.

This is an important distinction to remember. And by the way, I think some census planer advocates of the christoentric or redeptive historical persuasion, they aren’t so much arguing for a different hermeneutic than the literal as for an important emphasis in preaching the Old Testament, relating the Old Testament back to the gospel.

And if that’s what they mean, that’s fine. But don’t call it a new hermeneutic. That’s going to confuse the issue. A hermeneutic strictly speaks to a method of interpretation.

We don’t want to start with the pre-understanding, but we do once we’ve completed the process of interpretation want to relate what the Old Testament says to the New Testament to appreciate rightly proper application and significance. And people may say that’s a distinction without a difference. No, no, no. It is an important difference.

It’s the difference between issis and it’s one that we need to maintain.

“It’s the difference between eisegesis and exegesis, and it’s one we need to maintain.”

Reason 4: The Old Testament About Jesus Does Not Mean Every Passage Is About Him

Number four, a fourth reason not to accept the census plan hermeneutic because Jesus’ revelation that the whole Old Testament is about him does not require every Old Testament passage to be about him either directly or indirectly.

None of the passages often cited to prove that the Old Testament is about Jesus—Luke 24:27, Luke 24:44, John 5:39—require that every verse, every chapter, or every Bible book in the Old Testament be about Jesus in some way or other.

“Jesus’ revelation that the Old Testament is about him does not require every passage to be about him.”

Rather, these New Testament verses only teach that generally, broadly speaking, though also specifically in certain parts, every major portion of the Old Testament speaks of Jesus.

Take Luke 24:27. The context of this verse is Jesus’ contention that the disciples on the road to Emmaus should not be slow to believe in Jesus’ resurrection because of what the Old Testament already said.

Luke 24:27: “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, he explained to them the things concerning himself in all the scriptures.”

What ‘All the Scriptures’ Really Means

Okay. What are all the scriptures in this verse? Is it literally every scripture of the Old Testament?

Did Jesus start in Genesis 1:1 and explain, “Okay, here’s what we learned about the Messiah, me here,” and then they go verse by verse after that? No, that would be impossibly long and detailed, especially on a few hours walk. So all the scriptures in Luke 24:27 must refer to a representative rather than an exhaustive Bible study.

“‘All the scriptures’ must refer to a representative rather than an exhaustive Bible study.”

So what exactly did Jesus explain? To which portions of the Old Testament did he go?

Well, the verse right before verse 26 has Jesus mention the necessity of Christ suffering and then entering into his glory. He says, “This is what was spoken, taught in the Old Testament.” So would it not be reasonable to suppose that Jesus went to passages throughout the Old Testament foreshadowing and proving those two realities specifically?

Maybe Genesis 3:15 and the protoevangelium. Maybe the sacrificial system as explained in the Torah. Maybe Deuteronomy 18 and Moses foretelling of a coming prophet like Moses. Maybe Psalms 16:22 and 110 foretelling the Messiah’s life and ministry.

Maybe Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant passage. Maybe Zechariah 12:10, which prophesies that Israel will one day look on God as the one they pierced and mourn for him as for an only son.

There’s so much foretelling of Christ in the Old Testament and the need for his ministry that one could accurately say that the whole Old Testament—the law, the prophets, and the writings—they speak of Christ. And this according to the literal hermeneutic, not some fuller meaning added later.

Shadows and Substance in Colossians

Furthermore, the New Testament verses that speak of shadows in the Old Testament now being replaced by the substance of Christ, they do not speak of the Old Testament as a whole, but of the specific requirements of Moses law, especially the ritual requirements.

Listen to Colossians 2:16-17. Colossians 2:16-17.

Paul writes, “Therefore, no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day, things which are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” It was these law requirements that were a shadow pointing to and giving way to a greater reality, not Israel and not the Old Testament as a whole.

Colossians 2:16-17: “Things which are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”

So yes, we Christians are to understand on a general level that the whole Old Testament does speak of, point to, and culminate in Jesus Christ.

Practically speaking, at the level of theology and application, we should connect whatever we learn from the Old Testament with whatever we learn from the New Testament.

But the literal hermeneutic will serve us just fine for these ends. We do not need to add, nor are we justified in adding an allegorical layer on top of all all Old Testament revelation.

Reason 5: Problem Passages Can Be Explained Literally

Number five, a fi a fifth reason not to accept the census planer approach is because the few New Testament problem passages seemingly validating a census planer interpretation of the Old Testament, they can be understood in a way that instead affirms a literal hermeneutic.

Understand that for most citations of the Old Testament and the New Testament, the New Testament writers explain those Old Testament passages in a way that is obviously consistent with the literal hermeneutic. That’s most cases. There are relatively few New Testament uses of the Old Testament that seem to take the Old Testament out of context or take the Old Testament in a figurative way.

Therefore, you would think that interpreters would want to follow the rule rather than the exception.

Furthermore, while a few uses of the Old Testament in the New Testament are genuinely headscratching, we must admit that the New Testament writers are being moved by the spirit of God in a way that you and I are not. If the writers of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit to give a unique application of Old Testament texts, we who are not inspired should not attempt to do the same.

“If the writers of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit, we who are not inspired should not attempt the same.”

Apart from these arguments, however, the problem passages in the New Testament become less problematic when we allow for the possibility of the apostles doing something different in those Old Testament citations than reporting onetoone prophetic fulfillment or revealing a hidden allegorical meaning in the Old Testament.

In certain instances, the New Testament writers may instead be doing one of the following. Drawing out a pointed parallel between New Testament and Old Testament realities to describing an initial or first fruits fulfillment of a prophecy not yet completely fulfilled or applying an Old Testament principle to a New Testament situation.

I’d like to show you an example of each of those on one of the traditionally described problem passages. Three examples of dealing with problem passages according to a literal hermeneutic.

Example 1: Matthew 2 and Hosea 11 — Drawing a Parallel

The first example I want to show you is an example of a New Testament author drawing a poignant parallel between Old Testament and New Testament. And for this go to Matthew chapter 2 14 and 15.

You can turn there in your own Bibles.

It’s page 958 if you want to use the ones that we provide. Matthew 2 14 and 15.

The context here is somewhat famous.

Joseph has just been warned by God in a dream to flee to Egypt from Herod after the wise men have just visited the toddler Jesus.

Matthew 2:14 and 15 then says, “So Joseph got up and took the child and his mother while it was still night and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” If you just read that passage and don’t go to the Old Testament citation, you’d be like, “Oh, look, another fulfilled prophecy. Jesus is the Messiah.” But let’s go to the Old Testament passage.

Hosea 11:1 is a scripture that Matthew says is fulfilled. And if you go there, page 9006 in the Pew Bible, Hosea 11:1 in its original context does not seem to be a prophecy about the coming Messiah, but instead a historic description of Israel.

I’ll give you verse two just for context. Isaiah 11:1 and 2, God speaking.

When Israel was a youth, I loved him and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they called them, the more they went from them. They kept sacrificing to the bales and burning incense to idols.

Oh. Did Matthew take Hosea 11:1 out of context? Is this proof of the necessity for the census planer method?

There’s some hidden meaning here in Hosea 11:1 that by the spirit Matthew was able to pick up on and present to us.

No. Because Matthew is doing something different than reporting a one-toone direct prophecy. In Matthew 2:15, I’ll go back there. Now, in Matthew 21:15, Matthew is not reporting a fulfilled prophecy, but an appropriate correspondence between Messiah, King Jesus, and the people he came to lead and save.

After all, a good king identifies with his people and goes through all that they go through.

How appropriate then, Matthew shows, especially to his Jewish readers, that King Jesus, like Israel, should also go down to Egypt and then be called out of Egypt as God’s son. The king is just like his people. He goes through what they go through.

“A good king identifies with his people and goes through all that they go through.”

And Matthew continues this same idea in the next part of the passage, pointing out another appropriate correspondence between King Jesus’ experience and the experience of his people. In Matthew 2:16-18, for the sake of time, I won’t read it. It describes Herod’s attempted slaughter of the babies in Bethlehem. And then Matthew quotes the Old Testament, Jeremiah 31:15.

What’s Matthew doing? Again pointing out a correspondence, a striking and appropriate correspondence. Just as there was weeping over lost children when Israel went into exile, which is what Jeremiah 31:15 talks about, so there is weeping over lost children in Bethlehem when King Jesus goes into exile.

You see, Jesus fulfills neither Old Testament texts, Hosea 11:1 or Jeremiah 31:15, as direct prophecies. They’re not written as direct prophecies, but he does fulfill them in the sense of an appropriate parallel experience.

This is what Matthew is bringing out.

Look, the promised king in Matthew 1:2, he has the appropriate lineage on the Messiah and he goes through the same thing that his people went through and he fulfills all these direct prophecies.

Jesus is the Messiah that you Jews are to believe in. Repent and believe in Jesus and you’ll be saved. That’s Matthew’s point.

A sensious planer understanding is not necessary to make sense of these instructive comparisons that New Testament authors make like Matthew of certain New Testament situations and Old Testament situations.

By the way, Galatians 4:24 is another example of comparison between Old Testament and New Testament.

Just highlighting par parallels an instructive or poignant correspondence between situations in the two testaments to understand that passage you should also note that the phrase we don’t have time to go through it specifically but when Paul says this is allegorically speaking a lot of people make a lot of that phrase and they’re like oh he confirms allegorical interpretation no he’s saying that what what he’s presenting is an allegory not what Genesis is presenting He’s saying this that what I’m saying is allegorical. It’s anal New Testament situations. Paul is giving his own spoken analogy rather than drawing out a hidden meaning of Sarah and Hagar in Genesis 16 to 21.

It’s the same concept as what Matthew’s doing in the passages we looked at. A New Testament author is drawing out drawing out a pointed parallel. So that’s one thing we will see in some of these pro problems.

Another way though or another example of how a problem passage can be explained with a little hermeneutic is a first fruit or initial prophetic fulfill fulfillment. And for that let’s go to the book of acts to see an example of that. Let’s go to the book of acts 15 14 to 18.

Example 2: Acts 15 and Amos 9 — First Fruits Fulfillment

The context here is the Jerusalem Council deliberating over the issue of whether new gentile believers should be instructed to become like Jews and keep Moses law.

Acts 15:14 to18.

Oh, I should say this first. The council is decided after the apostle James stands up and relates the following.

Let’s now read the verses.

James speaking. Simeon has related how God first concerned himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name. With this the words of the prophets agree just as it is written after these things I will return and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen and I will rebuild its ruins and I will restore it so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord and all the Gentiles who are called by my name says the Lord makes things known from long ago. I want to stop there.

Now the scripture that James quotes is the Septuagent translation of Amos 9:11-12. What’s the Septuagent Greek translation of the Old Testament?

Amos 9 11-12 in context is a prophecy of Israel’s national restoration after suffering God’s overwhelming and cleansing judgment. In the verses that follow Amos 91 11 and 12:es 13 to 15 of Amos 9, they specifically mention Israel’s results in abundance and prosperity. All Israel’s people being brought back from lands around the world to be put back into Israel and Israel never the people of Israel never being removed from their land again.

So that’s in the same section as this prophecy that James quotes. Now the key part of Amos 9:11-12 for James and the Jerusalem council is the revelation that in the future God will gather Gentiles to himself as his own saved people without first becoming Jews.

And this is exactly what is happening in the ministries of Peter and Paul. So is Amos prophecy therefore being fulfilled?

The problem is that Amos clearly prophesied this turning of Gentiles to the Lord and the connection of the king of Israel and even its Davidic king being restored. That’s the booth. That’s the tabernacle of David being restored.

That clearly has not happened by the days of the Jerusalem council.

So is James taking a word of prophesi prophecy about Gentiles out of context to validate Paul’s ministry?

Should we go allegorical and understand Amos 9 11-12 to be describing a future spiritual reality rather than a literal one as Amos originally intended or is it both? Yes, this literal thing will happen in the future, but spiritually there’s another thing that’s going to happen and that’s the part that’s being fulfilled. There’s there’s two meanings here.

No, we don’t need to go allegorical or find an extra hidden meaning for James.

In this passage is simply pointing out how the church’s present situation initially fulfills and prefigures what Amos prophesied will happen one day in full. In James’s day, Israel, nationally speaking, is not yet repented or restored. But first fruits among the Jews have already been gathered in according to the new covenant promise and thus are tasting of the prophesied escatological reality.

Meanwhile, though the kingdom of Israel has not yet been restored, Gentiles are also already turning to Israel’s God without becoming Jews.

And therefore, we can say James is not saying that Amos 9 to 9:11-12 has been fulfilled, but that it is being fulfilled. Its first fruits are already evident.

“James is not saying Amos 9:11-12 has been fulfilled, but that it is being fulfilled.”

And according to And according to this and according to the first fruits of this prophecy, Gentiles don’t need to become Jews to be saved. We can settle this controversy at the Jerusalem Council. These Gentiles, they don’t need to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

This is an initial fulfillment, first fruits fulfillment of a prophecy that still will be realized in full, but it’s already beginning to come to pass. And they can see and they can see a portion of it.

By the way, this principle of an initial or first fruits fulfillment of prophecy, it explains also the apostle Peter’s citation of Joel 2:28-32 in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:15-21. As I mentioned last week, when the people accuse the apostles of being drunk and Peter says, “These guys aren’t drunk. Rather, this is the fulfillment of what the scripture says.

In the last days, your sons will prophesy, your daughters will dream dreams, and and I’ll do these various things. He’s not saying, “Oh, that’s fulfilled now spiritually in the church.” No, he’s saying that we already are seeing the first fruits of what God said would happen with the whole nation one day.

Therefore, men of Israel, listen to what I’m telling you. That’s Peter’s point.

Again, an allegorical or census pler interpretation of the Old Testament is not necessary if we recognize how the apostles sometimes point out first fruits or initial fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Example 3: 1 Corinthians 9 and Deuteronomy 25 — Applying a Principle

For a final example of dealing with a problem passage, let’s look at an application of an Old Testament principle to a New Testament situation in 1 Corinthians 9 8-10.

1 Corinthians 9 8-10.

What’s the context here?

Context of this passage is Paul teaching on how ministers of the gospel have the right to expect compensation for their ministry. Even though Paul has not chosen to use this right as proof of God supporting this arrangement, Paul quotes the Old Testament. Let’s now read the verses 1 Corinthians 9 8-10.

I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the law also say these things? For it is written in the law of Moses, you shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.

God is not concerned about oxen, is he?

Or is he speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written because the plowman ought to plow in hope and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.

Now, the verse that Paul quotes here from the law of Moses is Deuteronomy 25:4, which at first glance appears to be taken out of context. How can Paul take a Mosaic law about animals and apply it to New Testament Christians?

More strikingly, Paul stresses that God was not concerned about oxen and giving the law originally, but about people instead.

How could that be? Unless this law of Moses has some sort of hidden allegorical meaning.

Actually, a closer look at the context of Deuteronomy 25:4 reveals that the law about the threshing ox is the only one in a larger section that deals with animals. The others are all about proper interactions between people.

This concept suggests that we should infer whatever principle the law teaches about animals as applying to people too.

Also, it’s worth asking why a law would need to be written about musling oxen while treading grain.

Any ox owner in those days would have known that preventing an ox from eating while threshing would only discourage and weaken the ox. Meaning that over time the ox would work less well for the owner.

Shouldn’t need to tell people to do this. They would already know this is going to hurt me in the long run if I if I don’t let my ox feed.

Perhaps the law was written to remind Israelites that they should be compassionate even to their working animals as Proverbs 12:10 also describes.

And if Israel was to be compassionate to their animals, how much more so their neighbors?

A perhaps more likely impetus of the law, however, was for those who are borrowing or renting another person’s animal to thresh grain or do some kind of work, as the animal did not belong to the borrower. The borrower might feel less inclined to take care of the animals long-term needs to save himself a little bit of money.

But failing to take care of another’s animal or to withhold from that animal and by extension that animal’s owner deserve compensation would be fundamentally unkind and unjust.

Thus, this one law about musling oxen isn’t just about threshing animals, but about compassionate and just relations between people, especially when it comes to work.

So then when Paul cites Deuteronomy 25:4 and 1 Corinthians 9:9, Paul is not interpreting the verse away from its original sense. He’s just applying that Old Testament principle in a new analogous situation.

“Paul is not interpreting the verse away from its original sense—he’s applying that Old Testament principle in a new situation.”

And Paul’s statement about God caring about people rather than animals. It is hyperbole, but true according to the original sense of the Deuteronomy passage. In the law, God was not merely concerned with oxen, but much more with people and their compassionate and just dealings with one another in the realm of work.

Therefore, again, 1 Corinthians 9:9 does not need sensus plier to make sense of the Old Testament citation. An accurately applied little hermeneutic explains the text well enough.

Conclusion and Closing Prayer

There are more passages I could walk you through and there are more questions that I could answer, but that’s pretty much all the time that we have for today. I’m coming to the end of my lesson. If you still have a question that I didn’t address or that has just come to your mind now, please let me know afterwards.

You can come talk to me or you can send me an email. I’ve tried to deal with questions I thought were most important. But we do have question and answer sessions throughout this course to deal with the questions that come to your own minds.

But let me know ahead of time. Don’t wait till the day of to ask it because we need we need to have time to prepare those answers.

But that’s it for this week. Next week we go to our next doctrine or set of doctrines and our brother Mark will lead us through that. We’ll be talking about some important doctrines related to the nature of the Bible. It’s funny when arranging this course I was like, do we talk about the Bible first? Do we talk about hermeneutics? Because you need hermeneutics to understand the Bible, but you need to understand what the Bible is to have proper hermeneutics. So it’s kind of like they’re both true at the same time. We had to pick one or the other. But this is pretty fundamental.

“You need hermeneutics to understand the Bible, but you need the Bible to have proper hermeneutics.”

Mark is going to start leading us through that next week. So be back for that. And I know Mark is going to do a great job presenting those things to us. So let me end our time with a word of prayer. And again, if you have questions, come talk with me afterwards.

Heavenly Father, we thank you for your word and that you have made it understandable.

Yet God, we recognize there’s a lot of debate and confusion, even some passions. Lord, regarding the right way to interpret your scriptures, we’re not going to be postmodern. Lord, we’re not going to say, “All right, you have your way and I have my way and let’s just all be happy.” We do want to come to what is the right way to interpret the Bible.

And we do recognize, God, that sometimes we disagree about how this is true. Yes, the Old Testament, the scriptures, they speak about Jesus. They point us to Jesus. They have us recognize the centrality of Jesus in all of redemptive history and in salvation and in our lives today.

I pray God that in zeal for proper hermeneutics, we would not forget that, but that we would as we rightly apply a little hermeneutic on your scriptures, that we would see that in all the ways that you’ve meant us to the things that speak about Jesus directly, but also the things that relate to Jesus by application and significance. God, I pray that we would not somehow study the Bible and miss Jesus. That we would not learn doctrines and somehow fail to come to know you or to love you and worship you as you ought to be.

Lord, continue to help us and guide us in our understanding. Continue to show us wonderful things in your law. In Jesus name, amen.

Share this sermon:

More from Defending Doctrinal Distinctives