Hermeneutics is the systematic study and methodology of interpretation. Though it began as a discipline focused on texts, it now encompasses all forms of human understanding and communication. For Christians, hermeneutics most often raises a central question: How do we properly interpret Scripture?
One of the foundational principles is simple but essential: “Let Scripture interpret Scripture.” If the Bible is “breathed out by God” (2 Tim. 3:16), then it is God’s Word—right, accurate, and true. Therefore, when one passage appears to say “X” and another seems to say “not X,” we are not free to ignore either one. Instead, we must take all of Scripture into account and understand how the two fit together within the unified message God has given.
Yet even Bible‑believing Christians face obstacles to proper understanding. Our traditions—helpful or not—shape our expectations. Language differences create challenges. And one often‑overlooked issue is the matter of chapter and verse divisions. The Bible is inspired; the divisions are not. They exist to help us reference passages, but many of them interrupt the flow of thought and unintentionally reshape how we read.
Consider Ephesians 5:21: “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Paul then gives examples. Wives submit to their husbands. Husbands demonstrate Christlike, self‑sacrificial love—a form of submission expressed through giving up self. Then comes a chapter break, but Paul is still giving examples of submission: children submitting to parents, fathers not provoking their children, slaves submitting to masters, and masters treating their slaves well. The chapter break often resets our thinking, causing us to miss the continuity of Paul’s argument.
A similar issue appears in Romans 5. The chapter opens with a beloved verse: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). “Peace with God” is a comforting phrase, but its full weight is easy to miss if we begin reading at chapter 5 without considering the four chapters that precede it.
Paul begins Romans by declaring that the gospel reveals the righteousness of God (Rom. 1:17). That revelation starts with the righteous wrath of God (Rom. 1:18–19). For nearly three chapters, Paul details humanity’s failure to honor God and the reasons for His wrath (Rom. 1:18–3:20). This is “no peace with God” on a massive scale—just condemnation, fully deserved.
Only then does Paul unfold the gospel: salvation by faith, not works. He illustrates this with Abraham as a prime example (Rom. 3:21–4:25). After all of this groundwork, we finally reach chapter 5’s “therefore.” Suddenly, “we have peace with God” becomes enormous. We did not have peace; we had wrath. Hopeless, deserved wrath. But God provided a solution—faith in the propitiation of Christ’s blood. He is both just and the justifier. Abraham shows us what this looks like—righteousness "reckoned" on the basis of faith, not earned. And now, astonishingly, “we have peace with God.” Set against “the wrath of God is revealed,” this is no gentle reassurance. It is a staggering declaration: we are at peace with God.
To understand Scripture properly, we must read it as a whole and interpret it as a unified message. No contradictions. No mistakes. When we do, grace becomes bigger, mercy becomes larger than life, and God is glorified.
6 comments:
It's been said before (I've probably ever said it on this blog before) that the divisions of the Bible are set like they were placed by an itinerate priest falling asleep on the back of a horse. I wonder what would happen if one day the pastor stood up to the pulpit, read the entire book of Romans, have the benediction and ended the service. No commentary, no affirmations. We miss out on so much cohesiveness of thought, and then lose context because we read one or two verses.
We have discussed in the past the benefit of reading the epistles as one piece of writing (i.e. as a letter is normally read), without the unnatural chapter and verse divisions found in our Bibles. (Additionally, I find that consulting a book outline of the epistle helps me see the entire composition as a more integrated whole.) Context and intertextuality are important components of understanding Scripture “precept upon precept.” Unskilled Bible teachers neglect the sound practice of “letting Scripture interpret Scripture” and often pull verses out of their settings and subsequently develop unsound doctrine through an incorrect interpretation of them in isolation. In the case of understanding Rom. 5:1, as you point out, one really does need comprehension of the foundation Paul establishes from the start of the epistle in order to fully appreciate the gospel he moves forward to construct upon it.
With a post title of “Herman Who?” today, I think that these “hermeneutical” chuckles are in proper context ;):
“I can do all things through a verse taken out of context.” [a quip from Keith Foskey, referring to the common mishandling of Phil. 4:13, of course]
Two theologians fell into a heated argument over a point of hermeneutics. Finally, one became so angry that he took the other out and beat the exegesis out of him.
How do you define a hermeneutical circle?
It's a process where you first read the text to understand the context, then you understand the context so you can read the text, and so on until you completely lose your mind.
Eisegesis is essentially the method where you look at a verse, nod your head, and say, "Ah, that's exactly what I meant!"
David, I take it that you are not a fan (as I am) of John MacArthur’s teaching philosophy and method of “Unleashing God’s Truth, One Verse at a Time,” which reflects his style of sequential, verse-by-verse expository teaching/preaching. When following that method, sometimes only a few verses of Scripture are read and then “unpacked”--but always with their context and the previous verses in view. I could see reading the entire Book of Romans at a sitting in private reading, but I think a teaching pastor should offer commentary and exposition of Scripture. I am mindful, in fact, that in his posts, Stan often looks closely at single verses--including today, with Rom. 5:1--in its proper context, of course.
No, I'm an advocate of verse by verse preaching. But I do think something is lost when we break the Bible up the way we do also. When the early church met, do you think they did verse by verse expository preaching, or read the letter in full? I'm not saying I want every Sunday to read a book from the Bible, but I was musing about how a congregation would take such an event. We are so mostly biblically illiterate today that most of us don't even know the general story of the Bible.
Thanks for clarifying; I see your point. Clearly, believers should be pursuing Bible literacy through personal study outside of weekly corporate worship services, e.g. Sunday School classes, small-group Bible studies, individual study, formal schooling, etc. Regarding the early churches, I can imagine that once they became generally very familiar with the letters from the apostles directed to them (and others that were later circulated), they no doubt then broke them down into sections to draw out the meaning. I think a mix is in order: a general familiarity with the writings (to form doctrine) and also a more in-depth study of their contents (for application). Hopefully believers are getting fed well that way, but you are right--those who just hear a few snippets of Scripture on Sunday mornings (if that!) are not getting enough of God’s Word into their systems.
Post a Comment