The Bible regularly states that people know some things but not others. In English versions of the Bible, “knowledge” is usually a translation of the Hebrew noun da’at or the Greek noun gnōsis. Similarly, “know” is usually a translation of the Hebrew verb yada’ or the Greek verb ginōskō. Within each language, the noun and the verb share related forms.

God offers everyone knowledge to guide how one should live, but if spurned, the offer may be withdrawn (Prov. 1:28; Matt. 7:7–8; John 7:17; Phil. 3:15). Some people love simplistic thinking more than knowledge (Prov. 1:22), but fools who spurn knowledge in order to follow their own ways are warned that their complacency “will destroy them” (1:29–32). People are similarly warned not to value their own wisdom too highly (Prov. 3:7).

The Bible indicates that a basic knowledge of God is possible simply from observing the world. Genesis 1 states that God created light, land, stars, plants, animals, and people. The existence of the Creator provides an explanation for the existence of each and every thing, and for the world as a whole. Paul accordingly wrote that God’s eternal power and divine nature “have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Rom. 1:19–21).

Beyond this, a more substantial knowledge of God is possible because God has sometimes spoken or acted in history. God communicates using the limited forms that people can hear or perceive. The assembled people of Israel hear God speak at Mount Sinai from the midst of fire when he gives the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:4–27). God likewise speaks to Moses from a burning bush (Exod. 3). God speaks in a particular place and speaks using the words of a language. This does not deny God’s transcendence. It instead affirms it by showing that God is unlike idols made by humans, idols that “cannot speak” or act (Ps. 115:5).

In the Bible, God normally speaks to people indirectly through prophets. Ancient people did not believe every prophet’s testimony, so God gives Moses miracles to substantiate his claims (Exod. 4:1–9, 27–31). God likewise comes to Mount Sinai so that the people of Israel would trust Moses forever (19:9). Because the nation hears God speak, failure to believe Moses is considered unjustifiable. Eventually, the entire law and covenant are known through Moses. The written record of these events and the law, as validated by historic community practice, are considered sufficient basis for each later generation to believe Moses’ law. After Moses’ death, God speaks through other prophets. There are no grounds to reject their testimony, for they do not deny the law and commandments that God has given through Moses, make false predictions (Deut. 13:1–5; 18:20–22), or contradict each other.

In the NT, Jesus, like Moses, is a prophet (Matt. 21:11; John 7:40; 12:40), authenticated by miracles. He observes the law (Matt. 5:17; John 8:46), unlike his opponents (John 5:45–47). In turn, Jesus sends out disciples with his message and says, “Whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16). Consequently, the Bible gives knowledge of God largely through Moses and the prophets, and in the NT through the prophet Jesus, God’s Son, and the disciples whom he sends out with his message. Those who receive God’s Spirit will understand them more deeply (1 Cor. 2:9–16).

The process or result of perception; one’s worldview, attitude, thought, and opinion (Luke 24:45; 1 Cor. 14:4; Phil. 4:7; Rev. 13:18; 17:9). The mind perceives, orders, and controls how we understand our place in the world. Embracing all the instruments of senses, memory, and intellect, the mind constitutes the inner person, the heart or sense of self, and is therefore partly contrastive with the body (1 Cor. 2:16). However, the Bible does not attempt to explain the relationship between mind and brain, which is a matter of current scientific, psychological, philosophical, and theological debate. As a force, the mind directs the body for good or evil.

At the beginning of his argument in Romans, Paul claims that God gave sinful human beings over to a corrupted mind, which enslaved them to debasing thoughts and behaviors (1:28–32). This corruption is not confined to the individual; it is a worldview hostile to God (12:2). But through faith and grace, God calls forgiven, redeemed human beings to be transformed by the renewing of their minds (12:2). Having rejected the mind or thinking of God, we rediscover it and live accordingly. Paul, however, is referring not just to the mind of individuals but also to the communal mind (way of thinking) of the body of Christ, the church (see 1 Cor. 1:10).

The mind, then, is not so much a soliloquy as it is a conversation. It is not autonomous but rather is sparked by either the thinking of God (Christ) or Satan (see, e.g., Eph. 2:1–3). These worldview shapers occupy two distinct (conflicting) spheres. God and Satan do not partner in our perception. Although our minds are not autonomous, we are able to exercise some control over our thoughts. This brings an element of human freedom into the process of sanctification. The gospel invites Christians to begin a conversation with the Spirit of Christ; over time, as an expression of discipleship, this conversation transforms how Christians make sense of reality.

The term “predestination” means “to determine or decide something beforehand.” Some form of the Greek verb proorizō (“to determine beforehand”) occurs six times in the NT (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29, 30; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11). It is practically synonymous with the concept of foreordination and is closely related to divine foreknowledge (Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:1–2, 20). Various Scriptures indicate that God the Father is the one who predestines (John 17:6–10; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:3–5; 1 Pet. 1:2).

The specific objects of predestination are humans, angels, and the Messiah. These divine predeterminations occurred before the creation of the world and were motivated by the love of God (Eph. 1:4–5). In regard to humans, this means that in eternity past, God determined that some individuals would be the recipients of his salvation. However, this determination does not rule out the necessity of human choice, responsibility, and faith. The decision to predestine some individuals for salvation was based not upon anything good or bad in the recipients, but solely on God’s good pleasure and according to his holy, wise, and eternal purpose (Isa. 46:10; Acts 13:48; Rom. 11:33).

Predestination as Part of God’s Larger Plan

The scope of God’s plan. Predestination is a part of God’s all-encompassing eternal plan (Isa. 40:13–14; Rom. 11:34; Eph. 1:11). Several terms express God’s plan. Among these are his “decree” (Ps. 2:7), “eternal purpose” (Eph. 3:11), “foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23), and “will” (Eph. 1:9, 11). God’s plan involves all things that come to pass, including major and insignificant events, direct and indirect causes, things appointed and things permitted. It therefore encompasses both good and evil (Ps. 139:16; Prov. 16:4; Isa. 14:24–27; 22:11; 37:26–27; 46:9–10; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28; Eph. 1:11; 2:10).

The inclusion of evil in the plan of God does not mean that he condones, authorizes, or commits moral evil. The apostle John stresses that God is light and that there is no darkness in him at all (1 John 1:5). He is absolutely holy and cannot be charged with the commission of sin (Hab. 1:13). When addressing the topic of God’s plan and purpose, the biblical authors are careful to distinguish between divine causation and human responsibility. Both fall under the purview of God’s plan. There is divine certainty about what will happen, but moral agents are never under compulsion to commit evil (see Acts 4:28; Rom. 9:11; 1 Cor. 2:7; 11:2; Heb. 2:5, 10–16; 1 Pet. 1:2, 20; 2 Pet. 3:17). For example, when Luke refers to the greatest miscarriage of justice in the history of the world, the crucifixion of Christ, he indicates that it was predestined by God, but the moral turpitude of the act is attributed to “wicked men” (Acts 2:23). The dual nature of such events is aptly reflected in Joseph’s statement to his brothers who sold him into slavery: “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20 NASB).

Whereas the all-encompassing plan of God relates to his sovereign control over all things, predestination appears to be restricted primarily to certain divine decisions affecting humans, angels, and the Messiah (Isa. 42:1–7; Acts 2:23; 1 Tim. 5:21; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2:4). With reference to humans, Paul states, “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:11). Some scholars limit predestination to those things “in him,” thus linking this work of God to his purpose in salvation. Others argue that the following phrase, “who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,” demonstrates that all things fall under the purview of God’s controlling and guiding purpose (Eph. 1:11). It seems best to see the phrase “in him” as indicating the sphere in which believers are chosen and the term “predestinated” as one crucial aspect of the greater plan of God.

Divine foreknowledge and election. Some theologians argue that election and predestination are merely based upon God’s foreknowledge of those who will believe in him. Although God surely knows all those who will believe, the term “foreknowledge” connotes much more than simply knowing ahead of time who will come to faith. It means that God has sovereignly chosen to know some individuals in such an intimate way that it moved him to predestine them to eternal life (Rom. 8:29). Whereas the term “election” refers to God’s sovereign choice of those individuals, “predestination” looks forward toward the goal of that selection. Both predestination and election occur in eternity past (Eph. 1:4–5).

The purpose of predestination. Whereas election refers to God’s choice of individuals, predestination looks toward the purpose and goal of that choice. NT believers are designated as chosen by God and appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4). The express purpose is that they be adopted as his children (Eph. 1:5) and, as beloved children, become “conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). The idea is that those whom God has chosen are predestined in view of the purpose that he desires to fulfill in them, that of becoming his children who are conformed to the image of his Son. The ultimate purpose behind this plan is to bring glory to God (Eph. 1:5–6, 11–12).

Predestination and Reprobation

In his plan, God has chosen some individuals, nations, groups, and angels to fulfill special purposes, implying that other individuals, nations, groups, and angels have not been selected for those same purposes (2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:10; 1 Pet. 1:2). With regard to God’s choice in salvation, this has led some theologians to argue that those not chosen for salvation are by default chosen for eternal damnation. They maintain that predestination applies not only to individuals whom God plans to save, but also to those whom he does not plan to save (Prov. 16:4; Matt. 26:23–24; Rom. 9:10–13, 17–18, 21–22; 2 Tim. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:8; 2 Pet. 2:3, 9; Jude 4; Rev. 13:8; 20:15). This is sometimes called “reprobation.” The belief in the combined concepts of election and reprobation has been called “double predestination.”

While some scholars in the history of the church have argued that God is just as active in determining the reprobate as he is the elect, others have pointed out that God’s condemnation of the nonelect is based solely upon their sin and unbelief. A real distinction exists in the level of divine involvement with regard to the destiny of one class as compared with the other. God does not appear to have the same relationship to every event or thing in his creation. The degree of divine causation in each case differs. Scripture recognizes a difference between God’s direct working and his permissive will. In this view, God directly chooses some to be saved; however, he does not choose the others to be damned but rather passes them by, allowing them to continue on their own way and eventually suffer the just punishment that their sins deserve.

Whichever view one takes, it seems that the Scripture does not teach reprobation in the same way it teaches predestination leading to eternal life. Whereas the assignment to eternal death is a judicial act taking into account a person’s sin, predestination unto eternal life is purely an act of God’s sovereign grace and mercy not taking into account any actions by those chosen. Carrying the teaching of reprobation to the extreme threatens to view God as capricious, which clearly is not scriptural (1 John 1:5).

Predestination and Human Responsibility

God was in no way obligated or morally impelled to choose or predestine anyone to eternal life. His determination not to choose everyone in no way impinges upon his holy and righteous character (Rom. 9:13). On the contrary, justice would demand that all receive the punishment that they have rightly earned for their sins (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). Therefore, the predestination of some to become like his Son required that God exercise grace and mercy in providing for the cleansing of their sin, which he accomplished through the sacrifice of his beloved Son, Jesus Christ (Acts 2:23).

God’s predetermined plan does not force individuals to respond in predetermined ways, either to accept him or to reject him. In the one case, the sinner is drawn by God to himself but must also choose to place trust in Christ (John 6:37, 44). Even in the radical intervention of God in the life of Saul on the road to Damascus, where the divine call was indeed overpowering, Saul was given opportunity to respond either positively or negatively. In the case of those who are headed for eternal judgment, God’s working is not fatalistic or mechanistic in the sense that a person may want to choose God but God’s predetermined plan will not allow such a response. To the contrary, all are invited to come to Christ (Matt. 11:28; John 3:16). The apostle John clarifies, “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37 [cf. Matt. 11:28]). Those who do not come to God refuse to do so by their own volition (Matt. 23:37; John 5:40). They are not merely unable to come to God but unwilling to do so (John 5:40; 6:65; Rom. 3:11). The NT teaches that Christ died for their sins (John 3:16), pleadingly warns them to repent, and cites their transgressions as the reason for their condemnation (1 Pet. 2:8; 2 Pet. 2:21–22; Jude 8–16). When all aspects of the issue are considered, there is indeed a mystery that lies outside the boundaries of our comprehension regarding God’s sovereign working and human choice.

Reading, understanding, interpreting, and properly applying the word of God to life and ministry is the work of Bible study. The essence of this work is the systematic and methodical analysis of the biblical text. The methods that one uses to understand the text of Scripture will vary in keeping with one’s presuppositions concerning the nature of the Bible and the preunderstandings of the interpreter. A methodical study of the Bible considers the nature and state of the biblical text, the issues related to the interpreter, and a procedure for discovering authorial intent.

The Nature of the Bible

Revelation. We begin with the assumption (or presupposition) that the Bible is the revealed word of God, the contents of which were progressively made known to authors guided by the Holy Spirit. God guided the authors of Scripture, using their personalities and writing styles, so that the canonical books of the Bible were composed exactly as God intended. These books in their original form are inspired and inerrant. The word of God is true and trustworthy and thus a reliable rule for faith and practice.

The ability of God to communicate with his creation, along with his desire to make himself known to his human creatures, is the essence of revelation. The preservation of God’s communication, the revelation of his will to people in the word of God, is what makes the Bible a unique literary document, distinguished from all other literary productions. God manifests himself in a general way to all people through creation and conscience (general revelation) and in a special way to select individuals at particular times (special revelation). These communications and manifestations are available now only by consulting certain sacred writings. The revelation given by God and recorded by people in the canon of Scripture is what God spoke in the past. However, the living and abiding nature of the word (Heb. 4:12) spoken in a past, historical context continues to be relevant. The voice of God can still be heard today. Just as revelation determines how theology is formulated, so revelation determines how a biblical text is to be read in the process of literary analysis.

Given the nature of the Bible’s origin, it is historically accurate in what it teaches. This accuracy is not limited to spiritual and doctrinal issues; it is inseparably connected with the historical and factual. Thus, when the Bible makes reference to political and historical figures, it speaks with authority and accuracy.

Accessibility and clarity. The word of God is a written text revealed and inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16–17), who engaged about fifty authors over a period of approximately eleven hundred years. The OT text was originally recorded in Hebrew and Aramaic (Gen. 31:47; Ezra 4:8–6:18; 7:12–26; Jer. 10:11). The NT text was originally recorded in Koine Greek. Since the text was composed using the languages and literary conventions of the day, it was written to be intelligible and understandable. The biblical text has been distributed throughout the world and translated into just about every major language, so that the text continues to be accessible to many people today.

As Martin Luther observes in The Bondage of the Will, the clarity of the Bible is twofold. There is external clarity that can be discerned through the laws of grammar, and there is internal clarity attained through the work of the Holy Spirit illuminating the reader of Scripture. Related to these points is the perspicuity of Scripture, which refers to the clarity of Scripture in its main points. Unnuanced, these principles can create unfortunate misunderstandings. The clarity and perspicuity of Scripture relate to the result or the outcome of Bible study and only to major teachings. The intended message of Scripture is clear, understandable, and accessible.

Historical, literary, and theological aspects. While the Bible is written to be clear and accessible, the process of discerning the clarity is complex and involves a thorough examination of the historical, literary/linguistic, and theological aspects of each biblical text. Since the Bible is a document characterized by literary, historical, and theological impulses, it must be interpreted with these impulses in mind.

The historical character of the text affirms that the historical details (culture, setting, time, people or characters in the story, and readers of the composition) of a narrative are absolutely essential to the meaning and the message of the text. Historical details create the stage for what God is doing with his people in time and space. Historical details remind the reader that the written word has a context. The text is anchored to time and place.

The literary character of the text involves both the rhetorical strategies and the linguistic factors of a written text that are critical to the communication process. The act of literary communication involves the author/sender sending a message or text to the reader/recipient. The Bible must be interpreted in keeping with the act of literary communication: author, reader, and text. Literary types, structural development, and discourse function are formal features of the text that contribute to the communicating author’s intended meaning. The OT uses at least five basic literary types or genres: law, historical narrative, poetry, wisdom, and apocalyptic. The NT uses some of the same literary types, as well as parables and the epistolary, or letter, form. Gospel can also be considered a distinct literary form.

Finally, the text has a theological aspect, an ideology, a message, and an intention that God reveals on the historical stage by means of appropriate literary devices.

Unity and diversity. There is a definite unity to the diversity of the Bible that must be grasped in the interpretive process. Opinions vary depending on one’s understanding of the origin and nature of Scripture. Some readers stress the diversity of the biblical text, choosing to highlight apparent contradictions and irresolvable situations. Others go to the other extreme and may be in danger of oversimplifying, collapsing contexts, and ignoring the message of the text. Consider, for example, the importance of not reading too much into the discussion of faith and works as developed by Paul and James. The diversity of emphasis in these two authors is not contradictory in the overall message of the Bible.

Diversity obviously exists in the languages, writers, cultures, and message of various books of the Bible. However, given the reality of divine authorship, these diverse pieces are woven together coherently. There are longitudinal themes such as kingdom, covenant, and messiah that run from the OT into the NT. In addition, there is the developed use of terminology across both Testaments with terms such as “redemption” and “the word.”

The unity/diversity aspect of the biblical text ultimately contributes to an enriched understanding of both biblical and systematic theology. Biblical theology tends to consider the diversity of the writers and the different time periods and is willing to let diverse themes stand together. Systematic theology, which builds upon the findings of biblical theology, is more attentive to the unity of Scripture. These approaches complement each other and encourage what is called an “analogy of faith.” Once again, Luther gave shape to this phrase by opposing the ecclesiastical tradition of the church in favor of Scripture as the basis of dogma. The “analogy of faith” principle advocates that doctrine must cohere and not contradict the holistic teaching of Scripture. Doctrine cannot be a formulation of a few proof texts.

Summary. These summations concerning the nature of Scripture are by no means exhaustive, but they do provide a foundation for determining the nature and use of various interpretive methods. The process of interpretation will be given more attention below, but at this point it is worth emphasizing that methods of Bible study must contribute to the discovery of the author’s intended meaning. Since God is the ultimate author, our concern is to know his intended meaning. This goal is not without challenge. Many conclude that original authorial intent is unattainable because of the distance between our present cultural and historical situation and that of the biblical writers. An additional obstacle is the variety of interpretations that arise from community use of the biblical text. The challenges of time, culture, geography, and language can be faced successfully to arrive at the clear meaning of Scripture by means of a methodical analysis of all aspects of the biblical text.

The Role of the Interpreter

Before considering the relation of the interpreter to the process of Bible study methods, it is helpful to sort out who is the audience of a text. Written texts are composed with someone in mind, an original audience or recipients, who may or may not read the finished product. Beyond the original readers there is an extended audience of readers throughout time, including us, who read and interpret the word of God and seek to apply it to their lives.

Preunderstandings and presuppositions. The readers of the biblical text apply the methods of Bible study in order to understand the intended meaning of Scripture. In addition to the science of methodology there is an art to interpretation that involves recognizing personal preunderstandings brought to the text and presuppositions influencing an interpretation of the textual data.

So how do we differentiate a preunderstanding from a presupposition? “Preunderstanding” refers to the preconceived notions and understandings that one brings to the text, which have been formulated, both consciously and subconsciously, before one actually studies the text in detail. This includes specific experiences and encounters with the text that tend to make us assume that we already understand it. Sensitivity to preunderstanding reminds us that we are never approaching the text for the first time, completely neutral or totally objective. Our personal experiences, cultural influences (music, movies, literature), family background, church, race, and nationality are factors influencing our preunderstanding. These preunderstandings are ultimately corrected or nurtured by the constant influence of the biblical text.

Presuppositions, on the other hand, are the faith commitments held by Christians that do not change each time they study the Bible (in contrast to preunderstanding). This article, for example, began with a statement of presuppositions regarding God and the Bible. The analogy of faith deems such presuppositions to be unchangeable constants.

Approach to the text. How, then, should the interpreter approach the text? Although total objectivity is not a realistic goal, Christian readers do want to understand what God has revealed for them. So, the text is approached through faith and by means of the Holy Spirit, who gives understanding of the word that God authored. In order for this to happen, the reader must stand before the biblical text and allow it to speak rather than standing behind it to push it in a predetermined direction. The goal of Bible study is discovery of meaning, not creation of meaning.

A critical factor in Bible study is the realization that the process is an exercise with sacred dimensions. The primary object in this task is to know God, to understand his will, and to love and trust him, which is Paul’s desire for all Christians (Col. 1:9–14; Eph. 1:15–23; 3:14; Phil. 3:8–13). God is glorified when we find our joy and delight in him through an enriched understanding of his word. This can happen when one depends upon the Holy Spirit for understanding (1 Cor. 2:9–16). The study of the sacred text is a delicate balance of thinking, working, and analyzing while reverently and humbly depending upon the Spirit.

The Methods of Bible Study

Terminology. The activity of interpretation is best described as a spiral, a twist of assorted factors that take the reader from the intention of the original context to the present context of life within the community of the church. The process involves terms and procedures that can be confusing. The word “hermeneutics” is most commonly understood to describe the science and art of biblical interpretation. The goal of hermeneutics is to discern the original intent of the text (“what it meant”) and the contemporary significance of the text (“what it means”). Scholars regularly discuss which of these two is primary in hermeneutical process. The term, however, is broad enough to cover both aspects.

The English word “exegesis” is derived from a Greek term meaning “to lead out.” When applied to Bible study, it defines the nature of the work as taking meaning out of the text and not reading meaning into it. The exegetical process involves the study of words, syntax, grammar, and theology. Another critical term, “contextualization,” refers to an aspect of the interpretive process involving cross-cultural communication of the text’s significance for today.

Defining these key terms in hermeneutics brings to the surface an ongoing discussion associated with Bible study, the question of meaning, which is defined in several ways. Meaning is understood by some as the author’s intention. Some scholars explain meaning as referent (what the author is talking about), others describe it as sense (what is being said about the referent), and finally it can be understood as significance (a contemporary, cross-cultural significance).

Inductive Bible study. How one gets to meaning involves a process of study, the crux of which is the practice of inductive Bible study. Although this objective process can be defined in several ways, it is distinguished by four key elements.

(1) The first element is observation. This involves a careful, close reading of the text to determine exactly what it says. This step makes repeated use of the who, what, when, where, and why questions that enable the reader to become fully saturated with the particulars of the passage. Attention to textual detail will result in accurate interpretation. Observation requires a will to observe, exactness in making observations, and persistence and endurance in the process. Observation is focused on the words of the passage, the structure (the relations and interrelations between terms), the literary form, and the atmosphere or tone. (2) Interpretation follows. The goal of this element is to define meaning and to answer the question, What does this text mean? (3) Correlation, the third element, asks, How does this text relate to the rest of the Bible (cf. analogy of faith)? (4) The fourth element, application, asks, What does this text mean to me?

Each step in the inductive process is elaborate and includes its own particular interests and issues that are critical for determining meaning. Take, for example, the issues of meaning associated with the second step, interpretation. This process must be fully engaged for accuracy in interpretation. The business of interpretation involves a constant interaction of parts. Microaspects are observed in light of macrofeatures, and vice versa.

The interpretive process of the text is fairly standard. Given the nature of inductive analysis, the inductive process begins at the microlevel of examining and interpreting terms, words, and sentences. It then highlights the next structural levels of paragraphs, units of paragraphs, chapters, and then the book itself.

Context and literary type. Since context and literary type are critical elements in the exercise of analysis, attention will be given to each. It is often said that context determines meaning. This statement is a reminder that a term, a theme, or a structural element is ultimately governed by a larger set of factors. The term “trunk,” for example, in the context of a family vacation could refer to what is packed, whereas in the conversation of lumberjacks it could be a reference to a tree. Context takes into consideration all historical referents. In addition, context includes all the individual parts of a composition (phrases, sentences, paragraphs, chapters). Examination of a book’s particular historical context involves also looking at the geography, politics, economics, and cultural practices of a given audience featured. The danger of ignoring context in biblical study is that original authorial intent is replaced with all kinds of self-centered textual understandings.

Literary type is also a critical factor in the inductive process. Another word for literary form is genre, derived from a French term that can be translated “kind, sort, style.” It denotes a type or species of literature or literary form. Genre analysis profitably yields an understanding of the author’s intention in a given literary composition. For example, genre triggers the reader’s expectations and reading strategy. Genre guides the reader in understanding how to read and interpret a given text. For example, we read and interpret a story differently from the way we read and interpret a poem. Each of these genres has its own rules and strategies for communicating meaning. Genre analysis involves observing the form along with the mood, setting, function, and content of the text.

Each literary type has a set of distinctive characteristics that must be examined. To understand what the biblical authors are saying (and what God is saying through them), we must play by the rules of the literary genre that they selected. Genre is a generalization or an abstraction within which variation occurs. Thus, a genre may be defined broadly and include many texts that share fewer traits, while on the other hand it may be defined in a more narrow way and include fewer texts sharing many more traits.

The process of genre analysis is undertaken inductively. The analysis begins with the literary class, continues with the individual texts, and then interacts with both. Genre can be understood only by analyzing the parts of a given text. Although there are plenty of helpful textbooks devoted to virtually every literary type, one must keep in mind that genre descriptions arise out of the details of the text. Genre is not a predescribed form that is imposed on the text for the discovery of authorial intent.

Once the historical, literary, and theological aspects of the particular book are settled, the book is then analyzed in its specific canonical context (NT or OT) and then considered in the overall canon (the Bible). The results of this process are then pursued in relation to the interests of biblical and systematic theology.

Summary. The method of inductive Bible study is not only a specific procedure of analysis, but also a guide for a variety of methodical practices. The process of inductive Bible study encourages a spirit of attention to detail and reminds the reader of the overall goal in interpretation: to know what the text meant and means. In addition, the very nature of the inductive method promotes a curiosity and yields a definite joy of discovery. The inductive process is a guide to the interpreter in an analysis of either the Hebrew or the Greek text.

Other methods of Bible study. There are other methods of Bible study associated with distinct views of the Bible’s nature and origin. These critical methods of interpretation arise out of a discussion regarding how the Bible should be interpreted. The history of this discussion goes all the way back to the third century AD with the debates between the Alexandrians and Antiochians. The sixteenth-century Reformation, the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, and the twentieth century were significant turning points that yielded new ways of conceiving the world and the biblical text. Thus, it is important to understand that there are no neutral methods of biblical interpretation.

Historical-critical approaches. The more-popular critical methods of Bible study came to the forefront in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries with the rise of deism and rationalism. The prevailing opinion of this time was the fundamental similarity of all historical texts and all historical events. The historical-critical method was founded on the principles of criticism, analogy, and correlation. The supernatural origin of the Bible is denied, and it is considered to be a book like all other historical documents. The biblical text is viewed as a tradition created. It is an artifact of the evolutionary process preserved and passed along to a subsequent generation and must be approached with an attitude of doubt.

In contrast to the approach taken in this article, the historical-critical understanding of the locus of revelation is not the biblical text revealed by God. The locus of revelation shifts outside the text. The reader no longer looks to the text to hear the word of God. The reader now looks behind or beyond the biblical text to another story, one that is independent of the biblical text. Instead of studying a process of progressive revelation, the historical-critical methodologies are committed to sorting out complex historical traditions. Sources are identified, sorted chronologically, and studied for their distinctive themes. The methods are sometimes organized according to the particular interests of schools of thought: history of religions, history of traditions, history of forms, history of redactions.

Literary approaches. Finally, there are methods of Bible study associated with the set of literary presuppositions. First, this approach to the biblical text takes an ahistorical view of the text. In other words, there is no concern for its historical cause and effect. It is concerned only with a synchronic analysis of the finished product. Second, the text is viewed as an autonomous entity. Once a text is completed, it has a life of its own. The interpretive process is then devoted to the text’s final form, looking at the whole instead of the parts. Meaning comes from the language and style of the text. Finally, meaning is understood as aesthetics; it is not related to authorial intention or a historical occasion. Theoretically, the literary approach views the text as if it is cut off from an author and from a historical context. In this construct, meaning shifts from the past to the present. Interpretation then is an interaction of text and reader. The methods of interpretation associated with these literary presuppositions include literary criticism, rhetorical criticism, structuralism, narrative criticism, and reader response criticism.

Bible formation and canon development are best understood in light of historical events and theological principles. In the historical-theological process we learn what God did and how he engaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God. The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who made himself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to reveal himself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative and thus copied and preserved for future generations. The process of recognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scriptures occurred over time and involved consensus.

Bible Formation

Revelation. The process of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act of revelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in a progressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God the Holy Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that they composed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used the biblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in a manner that kept them from error in composing the original written product, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constitute God’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

Both Testaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation of a body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thus says the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh. 24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Every part of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This is confirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt. 19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

Four NT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factual statement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in 2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the Holy Spirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the prophetic word, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the words in the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Peter comments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literary documents in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority. Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative. Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliably composed in the originals, it is binding upon people in their relationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derives from God’s eternal character and the content of his word preserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God is authoritative and requires obedience.

The authority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in the creation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled from the garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’s spoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief and conduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it (Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritative word embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11). The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1; 53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel for his own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spirit impresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as the reliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

God made provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of his authoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. God commanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18; 24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative and personal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3). Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved (Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35; 1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonization is the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word “canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, or rule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, it designates the collection of books revealed by God, divinely inspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritative norm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is that God spoke to his human creatures and his word was accurately recorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composed by human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functioned authoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God then recognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspired and authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

The canonical process. The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that the Scriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process for recognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of this process is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles, and historical precedents.

Canonical identification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, who worked in connection with the believers to recognize the written documents given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spirit enabled believers to discern a book’s authority and its compatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positively settled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets as the OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NT authors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God and to contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Over time, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a body of literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During this process, some believers struggled with the message, content, and ambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT. The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT provided the foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon. Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical were those that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinally sound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

In the collection task some texts were recognized (homologoumena), some were disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox (pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespread acceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until the third century AD.

Structure and content. Over the centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, often influenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, the Samaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT, was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything in Israel or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary in their inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and in their list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

The Babylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all the books now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as the Tanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law” (torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings” (ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-four books (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, as are 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are the same as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions. The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided into the Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The Latter Prophets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writings section contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with some historical material.

Historical references to this canonical format are found in extrabiblical sources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus Ben Sira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphal book Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD 37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44 (cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division is preserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated with Bishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin church father (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD 305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions follow a fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

The twenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated with churches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world. Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius (AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical list associated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentary lists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms of usage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used the twenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, New Testament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

Bible formation and canon development are best understood in light of historical events and theological principles. In the historical-theological process we learn what God did and how he engaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God. The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who made himself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to reveal himself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative and thus copied and preserved for future generations. The process of recognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scriptures occurred over time and involved consensus.

Bible Formation

Revelation. The process of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act of revelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in a progressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God the Holy Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that they composed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used the biblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in a manner that kept them from error in composing the original written product, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constitute God’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

Both Testaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation of a body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thus says the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh. 24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Every part of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This is confirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt. 19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

Four NT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factual statement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in 2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the Holy Spirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the prophetic word, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the words in the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Peter comments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literary documents in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority. Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative. Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliably composed in the originals, it is binding upon people in their relationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derives from God’s eternal character and the content of his word preserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God is authoritative and requires obedience.

The authority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in the creation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled from the garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’s spoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief and conduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it (Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritative word embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11). The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1; 53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel for his own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spirit impresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as the reliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

God made provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of his authoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. God commanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18; 24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative and personal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3). Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved (Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35; 1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonization is the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word “canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, or rule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, it designates the collection of books revealed by God, divinely inspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritative norm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is that God spoke to his human creatures and his word was accurately recorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composed by human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functioned authoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God then recognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspired and authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

The canonical process. The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that the Scriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process for recognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of this process is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles, and historical precedents.

Canonical identification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, who worked in connection with the believers to recognize the written documents given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spirit enabled believers to discern a book’s authority and its compatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positively settled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets as the OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NT authors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God and to contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Over time, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a body of literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During this process, some believers struggled with the message, content, and ambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT. The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT provided the foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon. Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical were those that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinally sound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

In the collection task some texts were recognized (homologoumena), some were disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox (pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespread acceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until the third century AD.

Structure and content. Over the centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, often influenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, the Samaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT, was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything in Israel or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary in their inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and in their list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

The Babylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all the books now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as the Tanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law” (torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings” (ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-four books (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, as are 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are the same as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions. The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided into the Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The Latter Prophets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writings section contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with some historical material.

Historical references to this canonical format are found in extrabiblical sources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus Ben Sira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphal book Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD 37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44 (cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division is preserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated with Bishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin church father (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD 305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions follow a fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

The twenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated with churches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world. Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius (AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical list associated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentary lists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms of usage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used the twenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, New Testament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

An innate awareness of wrong, with an inclination toward thinking and acting rightly. The OT describes moral awareness as a willingness to obey God’s revealed will (Deut. 30:14; Ps. 1:1–2; Prov. 1:7). People are not presented as morally perfect, but, to the degree of their knowledge, they are expected to act rightly (Gen. 4:1–16; 1 Sam. 25:31). Abimelek, king of Gerar, appeals to ignorance because of Abraham’s deception (Gen. 20:1–7). Job appeals to the purity of his conscience (Job 27:6).

A fuller revelation of God’s will is given in the Mosaic law. God gives commandments in part to heighten the Israelites’ awareness concerning right and wrong, so that with their obedience they might enjoy a covenant relationship within God’s holy presence (e.g., Deut. 28:1–14). This informed social conscience was intended to curb evil behavior (Gal. 3:19). The author of Judges anticipates the need for the law by complaining that “everyone did as they saw fit” (17:6; 21:25).

However, the biblical narrative also makes room for paradoxical situations and competing values, which complicate moral reasoning (e.g., Gen. 38; Judg. 11:29–40). In the law, God expressly forbids child sacrifice, but he commands Abraham to present his son Isaac as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:1–14). On a rooftop Peter receives a vision in which the Lord commands him to kill and eat unclean animals (Acts 10:1–8). In both cases, God tests faith by commanding the believer to betray personal conscience, to open his heart to a fuller revelation of the divine plan. Even the moral reasoning of God is not always straightforward. God is committed to doing right, but he also weighs decisions with compassion and mercy. Abraham and Moses appeal to God’s character, and they are able to intercede on behalf of sinful people (Gen. 18:22–33; Exod. 32). Jonah even comes to despise this quality of God’s character, which appears to compromise justice (4:1–11).

These tensions anticipate the gospel, which claims that God loves sinners and has provided a means to express mercy toward them without compromising justice (Rom. 3:21–26). Like the Mosaic law, the gospel also provides further revelation into God’s will and therefore a more informed conscience. With citations drawn from throughout the OT, Paul claims that all people suffer from a distorted conscience (Rom. 3:9–20). God has spoken to all people through their conscience, but despite this innate awareness of right and wrong, both Jews, who possess God’s commandments, and non-Jews, who know something about God from nature (creation), have compromised their own ethical stance, so that they have only themselves to blame (1:18–32). This universal inner conflict, emphasized by Jesus and Paul, removes appealing to one’s conscience as a means of justification at the future judgment (Mark 7:1–23; Luke 13:1–5, 22–30). Furthermore, this habitual compromising leads to present self-deception and a skewed perception of the world.

But through repentance and faith in the gospel, returning to God (the Creator), a person’s conscience may be renewed and aligned with the mind and actions of Jesus Christ (Rom. 12:1–2; 1 Cor. 2:16). Despite this restoration, the complexity of moral reasoning is not always overcome. Indeed, living in Christ with others from different cultural backgrounds and values often requires deeper reflection. Paul acknowledges that there can be different perceptions by believers, which can lead to different practices. Eating meat that may have been sacrificed to idols is neutral or wrong depending upon one’s conscience and that of the observer (1 Cor. 8:1–3). He applies the same perspective to Jewish calendar observance and food laws (Rom. 14:1–23; but see Gal. 4:8–11). But the apostle also presumes that personal conscience can grow in knowledge. Ultimately, believers’ consciences should be informed by relating everything to the lordship of Christ (Rom. 2:15; 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:12; 4:2; 5:11), meditating on the goodness of all creation (Titus 1:10–16), and placing the well-being of others before their own (Phil. 2:1–11).

In its narrower sense, the word “epiphany” refers to special occasions in redemptive history when there was a sudden manifestation of an ordinarily invisible being. For instance, while fleeing from his brother, Esau, Jacob saw in a dream a ladder to heaven on which the angels were ascending and descending, and God stood above it. God reassured Jacob by reaffirming his covenant promise to him. Upon waking, Jacob observed, “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I was not aware of it” (Gen. 28:16). The resurrection appearances of Christ are epiphanies (see Acts 9:3–4). Christ’s return will be an epiphany that all will see.

In its broader sense, an epiphany is any dramatic moment of revelatory insight. For instance, when the prodigal son came to his senses, he realized that even though he had become estranged, he was still a son, and so he still could turn to his father for help (Luke 15:17–19). At conversion, a person experiences a sort of epiphany, coming to understand for the first time not only oneself but also who God is, and suddenly becoming aware of the truth of his promises and of his love (1 Cor. 2:9–10).

The Bible contains two kinds of statements related to proper conduct. Some of them describe the nature of God, the sort of world he created, and what he has done for particular groups of people. It also contains statements telling us what we ought to do, both as creatures of this God and, in some instances, as the unique beneficiaries of his redemptive activity. Consequently, the Bible sets forth a moral viewpoint or ethical system, supported by reasons that justify its content and urgency. The writers of Scripture were not moral philosophers, outlining their position in technical detail; nevertheless, they intended to reveal what pleases our God and Savior, so that the saints are “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). The Bible, therefore, is the foundational resource for moral discernment, the definitive statement of what Christians must do and who they must become.

The Sources of Moral Knowledge

Scripture identifies two sources of moral knowledge. First, all human beings have the law of God “written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:15). We have a conscience, a God-given awareness of right and wrong that acquits or convicts us, depending on how we respond to it. The fall of humankind has damaged this source of knowledge, and our consciences can become “seared” through chronic disobedience and doctrinal treason (1 Tim. 4:2). We do not, therefore, see infallibly what our duties are. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul argues that every human being knows enough of God’s law—and indeed, enough about his nature as God—to eliminate every defense on judgment day (Rom. 1:18–20). No one will be able to say to God in that hour, “I had no idea who you were and no hint of what you expected of me.”

Second, as noted above, we have the Bible as a source of knowledge, this one being fully adequate and sufficiently clear to guide our choices. Knowing Scripture is necessary for Christian ethics because it offers a high-definition view of what conscience can (even in its best moments) scarcely grasp. The Bible proclaims not only what the church must do, often in straightforward, concrete terms, but also (at least, in many cases) why God’s will has its particular content and why obedience is an emergency, not a safely deferred, improvement project. The Bible does not, and really could not, answer every ethical question put to it in unambiguous detail. New technologies and cultural shifts have created dilemmas unimagined in the first century or any previous age. But the church can be assured that a faithful reading of and response to Scripture will, by the grace of God, please him even today, whatever our particular circumstances.

The Logic of Biblical Morality

The moral teaching of Scripture has an identifiable structure consisting of duties and final objectives. When we obey God’s commandments, which is our duty, his ultimate goals or objectives in creating us are realized. In this sense, biblical morality is complete and informative compared to systems derived from other worldviews. It explains what life is all about, but also what we must do from day to day. This entire picture emerges from Scripture because its theological statements are always practically applied and never presented with merely theoretical interest.

The objectives of biblical morality. The objectives of an ethical system are its final ends or purposes: the results that obedience is supposed to yield. In the Bible, two objectives have this ultimate significance, one being the anticipated side effect of the other.

To glorify God. The biblical writers proclaim the spectacular goodness of God. He is maximally excellent in all ways as the Creator, including wisdom, power, justice, and love. He is the holy God who, almost in spite of that fact, loves us and gave his Son, Jesus, to suffer for our sins so that we might live eternally in his presence. In these respects, God stands alone, not simply in experience but necessarily so. No one ever has, and no one ever could, be like him. Thus, the final objective of all human striving must be to glorify this God—to know him, to praise him, and to value what he values. Our actions must testify to his excellence, honoring him and encouraging others to do likewise. Obedience treasures what God treasures, shuns what he abhors, and allows his power to work in our lives, causing us to live in unity with our fellow believers. These patterns of behavior define what it means to glorify God.

To be happy in God’s presence. The second goal or objective of biblical morality is to be happy in ways that are proper for God’s creatures. In this sense, the Christian system of ethics differs from moral theories that either reject happiness altogether, viewing it as an unworthy goal, or else reduce it to a merely practical necessity—that is, we sinners need our incentives. On the contrary, the God of Scripture plainly desires our happiness and often presents himself as the final source of it when calling his people to obedience. This tendency follows from the perfect goodness of God and his freedom in creating all things. He did not have to make anything else, but he did so; and because he has no needs, his purposes must have been selfless rather than selfish. He created in order to give rather than to get, and the very best he desires for any of us is the happiness that results from our glorifying him together, as one body in Christ. Likewise, then, biblical morality differs from ethical systems that make human happiness an intrinsic good, so that any means to it is acceptable. God wants us to be happy, but our happiness must come from bringing him glory. All other forms of happiness are deceptive and transitory. The heavenly scenes of the book of Revelation show the church what happiness God has in store for them if they overcome the trials of this life (so, e.g., Rev. 4–5; 7; 21–22; cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Heb. 12:2).

The means of biblical morality. Not surprisingly, the Bible also shows us how to glorify God—how to reflect his majesty in our daily lives, how to praise him, and how to value what he values. Within the whole of this teaching, several major themes can be discerned, five leading examples of which appear below, allowing some overlap between them.

Trusting in God’s promises. Biblical faith is the confidence that God will do for us what he has promised. We believe that he can and will meet our needs and not allow us to endure pointless suffering. When we trust him, we proclaim his greatness and acknowledge our own dependence upon him. Both Rom. 4 and Heb. 11 make this point in ways that reflect upon OT history with an application to the present Christian life. The gospel is a promise concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and faith assures us that God will reckon these events to our account. Conversely, we often violate God’s commandments because we doubt that he will give us what we need when we need it (so, e.g., Abraham’s capitulation to Sarah in Gen. 16, with its corresponding negative results).

Keeping holiness and impurity separated. God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect Creator of the universe. All things depend on him for their existence, and he is extreme both in his commitment to justice and his desire to love. Consequently, God’s creatures encounter him as “holy,” as the ominously transcendent or dangerously perfect deity. He stands alone, apart from everything else, and life in his presence cannot entail business as usual. The shorthand way of expressing this duty is to say that we ourselves must be holy, as he is holy, by shunning all forms of impurity. In this way, for example, the ancient Israelites prepared themselves to enter Yahweh’s presence and gave him public honor (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; Ps. 24:3–4; Isa. 6:1–5; cf. 1 Pet. 1:15–16).

In Scripture, the distinction between the pure and the impure, or the holy and the unholy, is sometimes intrinsic and sometimes pedagogical. Breaking any of the Ten Commandments makes one intrinsically impure. It is always evil, everywhere, for anyone to have other gods, make idols, and disrespect parents. It is evil to lie, steal, and murder. Even breaking the Sabbath is wrong if it expresses unbelief in God’s ability and willingness to provide. But some lines between purity and impurity—or, in other cases, just between the sacred and the common—seem to be drawn by God for instructional purposes only. They do not separate good from evil as such, but they compel the Israelites to “practice Yahweh’s presence” by honoring boundaries imposed on domestic life. It is not evil to eat pork, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and permitted in the NT (Lev. 11:7; Mark 7:19). It is not evil to wear blended cloth, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and passed over in the NT (Lev. 19:19). Therefore, as suggested, Levitical rules of this kind must have had some instrumental purpose, serving an objective beyond themselves. They impose the holiness of Yahweh on everyday choices, as the Holy Spirit now presses the claims of God upon his church. This separation of impurity and holiness is, in any case, a constant theme in the OT, and it carries over into the NT as well, where it informs the question “What must I do to be saved?” (cf. Acts 16:30).

Imitating God/Christ. The biblical writers also construe the moral life as an imitation of God and/or Christ, especially when the virtues of mercy, humility, and endurance are at stake. In the OT, Yahweh’s behavior toward people becomes the standard for Israel’s own conduct. So, for example, he says, “But let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight” (Jer. 9:24). In the NT, similar inferences appear, as when Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matt. 5:9), the son being one who follows in his father’s footsteps. We must love our enemies, so that we may be “children of (our) Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:44–45). We must “be perfect,” as he is perfect (Matt. 5:48). Jesus commands his disciples to wash one another’s feet, after his own example (John 13:14–15). They must love each other as he has loved them (John 15:12). The new commandment to love one another, following the Lord’s example, puts on display his character and their own relationship to him (13:34–35). Jesus prays that his disciples will be “one,” just as the Father and the Son are one (17:22). Paul’s hymn in Phil. 2:5–11 serves this purpose: we must imitate the humility that surrendered all, even to the point of crucifixion. Hebrews 12:1–2 holds up Christ as one who “for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame,” resulting in his glory.

Living out our unique identity. Scripture defines the moral ideal for all persons, whoever they are, because its perspective is not relativistic. Murder, idolatry, and lying are not wrong for some and right for others. Nevertheless, most of the Bible’s moral teaching has a target audience, so that it often contains inferences to this effect: “You shall do X (or doing X is urgent for you), either (a) because you belong to God in a special way or (b) because he has done this special thing for you.” In the OT, the target audience is Israel; in the NT, the corresponding group is the church. In both Testaments, however, the same ethical particularism operates, thereby giving the moral exhortations of Paul and Peter, to cite two clear examples, a recognizably “Jewish” structure or theme.

The linkage between gift and task, or supernatural identity and behavior, is the basic structure of the Sinai covenant itself. The text moves from prologue, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt,” to moral exhortation, beginning with, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:1–3; Deut. 5:6–7). Echoes of this prologue also occur frequently in the OT as motive clauses. God will say, in effect, “You shall do X, for I am the Lord your God,” or “You shall not do Y, for I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt.” In some cases, the motive clause identifies the people themselves, as in, “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 7:6). Or again, “You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession” (Deut. 14:1–2). In some cases, God refers to the people’s unique condition to shame them, as in, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me” (Hos. 11:1–2). Loyalty was especially urgent, given Israel’s experience of God’s particular love.

In the NT, the mandate to live out one’s special identity appears often, especially (though not exclusively) in the writings of Paul and Peter. In Rom. 6 those who have been emancipated from sin must resist its waning influence. In Rom. 8 those who are under the Holy Spirit’s new management must walk in accordance with him and shun the mind-set of the flesh. The Corinthians have become an unleavened batch of dough; therefore, they must “Get rid of the old yeast,” which tolerates extraordinary sin (1 Cor. 5). The members of Christ’s one body are to function as one new humanity (1 Cor. 12:12–31). If the Galatians live by the Spirit, they must also walk by the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Peter tells his readers to love one another because they have been “born again” of “imperishable seed” (1 Pet. 1:22–23). They are a “chosen race,” a “royal priesthood,” and a “holy nation”; therefore, they must proclaim his excellence and abstain from carnal passions (1 Pet. 2:9–11). Jesus himself says that because he is the vine and we are the branches, we must abide in him (John 15:1–11). In all these cases, the target audience has a special relationship to God that imposes on them corresponding duties or priorities, so that they reflect his holiness, value what he values, and attain the goals that he has set before them.

Living in unity with one another. The first sin separated God from humankind and damaged all other relationships (Gen. 3). From that point onward, Adam and Eve would live in tension (Gen. 3:16), and their son Cain kills his brother Abel (Gen. 4:8). Disunity results from sin; and in some cases, God scatters sinners as judgment on their wickedness (e.g., Gen. 11:1–9; 1 Kings 11). It is “good and pleasant” when “God’s people live together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), and obedience to OT teaching would make them do so. Nevertheless, sin stands between Yahweh and his people, and it stands between one Israelite and another. Disunity, in all these dimensions, is the unfinished business of the OT story.

The NT presents unity as both an effect and a duty (or a gift and a task) of the new life in Christ. We are one in Christ, and we must live in unity of fellowship with one another. Jews and Gentiles—indeed, people from all walks of life—become one body, a new kind of people, defined by relationships that are “thicker than blood,” so to speak, as blood is thicker than water. Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, enforces this theme throughout his letters, so that his exhortations concentrate on the church, in the first instance, rather than the individual. Christians must display the social virtues of love and humility, resisting selfish ambition and pride, both of which separate believer from believer and each from the head of the church, who is Christ. Romans and Ephesians make a positive case for Christian unity among Jews and Gentiles, while Philippians (perhaps, in a broader sense, also Galatians and Colossians) confronts a divisive tendency. The essential vice denounced in 1–2 Corinthians is arrogant grandstanding, which rejects Paul’s “message of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18) and subdivides the church into cults of personality. Worldly forces are centrifugal, leading us away from one another and into competition for influence, wealth, and public honor. In contrast, the Holy Spirit’s force is centripetal, creating unity where no one would expect it and leading each person to self-sacrifice so that others in the body of Christ might be built up in him.

At creation, God made human beings to depend on him to reveal his purposes, so that their response to life would always involve trust in, and loving obedience to, his counsel. The entrance of sin created a barrier between people and God. Fallen humanity, in its autonomy, seeks to understand the world apart from knowledge of God (1 Cor. 2:14).

In Scripture, ignorance frequently refers to one’s inability to understand who God is or one’s true identity and purpose (Eph. 4:18). In ignorance, humanity disregards God’s revelation (Rom. 1:22–25). The darkened, idolatrous heart is the source of human blindness (Jer. 17:9; Ezek. 14:2–3). Satan holds people captive in blindness (2 Cor. 4:4). God revealed himself through prophetic messengers, but throughout the OT, God’s people disregarded their message. Although God raised up judges to lead his people, they repeatedly reverted to idolatry: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (Judg. 21:25).

Jesus is the true light, which gives light to every person (John 1:9). Yet people loved darkness and would not come into the light for fear that their deeds would be exposed (John 3:20). However, through the Word, the Spirit can transform the hearts of people such as Paul, who formerly opposed Christ and his church in ignorance and unbelief (1 Tim. 1:13).

Ignorance, however, does not always entail sin. Our finitude implies that our knowledge will always be limited. God has appointed teachers to facilitate our growth in understanding (Eph. 4:11–12).

Reading, understanding, interpreting, and properly applying the word of God to life and ministry is the work of Bible study. The essence of this work is the systematic and methodical analysis of the biblical text. The methods that one uses to understand the text of Scripture will vary in keeping with one’s presuppositions concerning the nature of the Bible and the preunderstandings of the interpreter. A methodical study of the Bible considers the nature and state of the biblical text, the issues related to the interpreter, and a procedure for discovering authorial intent.

The Nature of the Bible

Revelation. We begin with the assumption (or presupposition) that the Bible is the revealed word of God, the contents of which were progressively made known to authors guided by the Holy Spirit. God guided the authors of Scripture, using their personalities and writing styles, so that the canonical books of the Bible were composed exactly as God intended. These books in their original form are inspired and inerrant. The word of God is true and trustworthy and thus a reliable rule for faith and practice.

The ability of God to communicate with his creation, along with his desire to make himself known to his human creatures, is the essence of revelation. The preservation of God’s communication, the revelation of his will to people in the word of God, is what makes the Bible a unique literary document, distinguished from all other literary productions. God manifests himself in a general way to all people through creation and conscience (general revelation) and in a special way to select individuals at particular times (special revelation). These communications and manifestations are available now only by consulting certain sacred writings. The revelation given by God and recorded by people in the canon of Scripture is what God spoke in the past. However, the living and abiding nature of the word (Heb. 4:12) spoken in a past, historical context continues to be relevant. The voice of God can still be heard today. Just as revelation determines how theology is formulated, so revelation determines how a biblical text is to be read in the process of literary analysis.

Given the nature of the Bible’s origin, it is historically accurate in what it teaches. This accuracy is not limited to spiritual and doctrinal issues; it is inseparably connected with the historical and factual. Thus, when the Bible makes reference to political and historical figures, it speaks with authority and accuracy.

Accessibility and clarity. The word of God is a written text revealed and inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16–17), who engaged about fifty authors over a period of approximately eleven hundred years. The OT text was originally recorded in Hebrew and Aramaic (Gen. 31:47; Ezra 4:8–6:18; 7:12–26; Jer. 10:11). The NT text was originally recorded in Koine Greek. Since the text was composed using the languages and literary conventions of the day, it was written to be intelligible and understandable. The biblical text has been distributed throughout the world and translated into just about every major language, so that the text continues to be accessible to many people today.

As Martin Luther observes in The Bondage of the Will, the clarity of the Bible is twofold. There is external clarity that can be discerned through the laws of grammar, and there is internal clarity attained through the work of the Holy Spirit illuminating the reader of Scripture. Related to these points is the perspicuity of Scripture, which refers to the clarity of Scripture in its main points. Unnuanced, these principles can create unfortunate misunderstandings. The clarity and perspicuity of Scripture relate to the result or the outcome of Bible study and only to major teachings. The intended message of Scripture is clear, understandable, and accessible.

Historical, literary, and theological aspects. While the Bible is written to be clear and accessible, the process of discerning the clarity is complex and involves a thorough examination of the historical, literary/linguistic, and theological aspects of each biblical text. Since the Bible is a document characterized by literary, historical, and theological impulses, it must be interpreted with these impulses in mind.

The historical character of the text affirms that the historical details (culture, setting, time, people or characters in the story, and readers of the composition) of a narrative are absolutely essential to the meaning and the message of the text. Historical details create the stage for what God is doing with his people in time and space. Historical details remind the reader that the written word has a context. The text is anchored to time and place.

The literary character of the text involves both the rhetorical strategies and the linguistic factors of a written text that are critical to the communication process. The act of literary communication involves the author/sender sending a message or text to the reader/recipient. The Bible must be interpreted in keeping with the act of literary communication: author, reader, and text. Literary types, structural development, and discourse function are formal features of the text that contribute to the communicating author’s intended meaning. The OT uses at least five basic literary types or genres: law, historical narrative, poetry, wisdom, and apocalyptic. The NT uses some of the same literary types, as well as parables and the epistolary, or letter, form. Gospel can also be considered a distinct literary form.

Finally, the text has a theological aspect, an ideology, a message, and an intention that God reveals on the historical stage by means of appropriate literary devices.

Unity and diversity. There is a definite unity to the diversity of the Bible that must be grasped in the interpretive process. Opinions vary depending on one’s understanding of the origin and nature of Scripture. Some readers stress the diversity of the biblical text, choosing to highlight apparent contradictions and irresolvable situations. Others go to the other extreme and may be in danger of oversimplifying, collapsing contexts, and ignoring the message of the text. Consider, for example, the importance of not reading too much into the discussion of faith and works as developed by Paul and James. The diversity of emphasis in these two authors is not contradictory in the overall message of the Bible.

Diversity obviously exists in the languages, writers, cultures, and message of various books of the Bible. However, given the reality of divine authorship, these diverse pieces are woven together coherently. There are longitudinal themes such as kingdom, covenant, and messiah that run from the OT into the NT. In addition, there is the developed use of terminology across both Testaments with terms such as “redemption” and “the word.”

The unity/diversity aspect of the biblical text ultimately contributes to an enriched understanding of both biblical and systematic theology. Biblical theology tends to consider the diversity of the writers and the different time periods and is willing to let diverse themes stand together. Systematic theology, which builds upon the findings of biblical theology, is more attentive to the unity of Scripture. These approaches complement each other and encourage what is called an “analogy of faith.” Once again, Luther gave shape to this phrase by opposing the ecclesiastical tradition of the church in favor of Scripture as the basis of dogma. The “analogy of faith” principle advocates that doctrine must cohere and not contradict the holistic teaching of Scripture. Doctrine cannot be a formulation of a few proof texts.

Summary. These summations concerning the nature of Scripture are by no means exhaustive, but they do provide a foundation for determining the nature and use of various interpretive methods. The process of interpretation will be given more attention below, but at this point it is worth emphasizing that methods of Bible study must contribute to the discovery of the author’s intended meaning. Since God is the ultimate author, our concern is to know his intended meaning. This goal is not without challenge. Many conclude that original authorial intent is unattainable because of the distance between our present cultural and historical situation and that of the biblical writers. An additional obstacle is the variety of interpretations that arise from community use of the biblical text. The challenges of time, culture, geography, and language can be faced successfully to arrive at the clear meaning of Scripture by means of a methodical analysis of all aspects of the biblical text.

The Role of the Interpreter

Before considering the relation of the interpreter to the process of Bible study methods, it is helpful to sort out who is the audience of a text. Written texts are composed with someone in mind, an original audience or recipients, who may or may not read the finished product. Beyond the original readers there is an extended audience of readers throughout time, including us, who read and interpret the word of God and seek to apply it to their lives.

Preunderstandings and presuppositions. The readers of the biblical text apply the methods of Bible study in order to understand the intended meaning of Scripture. In addition to the science of methodology there is an art to interpretation that involves recognizing personal preunderstandings brought to the text and presuppositions influencing an interpretation of the textual data.

So how do we differentiate a preunderstanding from a presupposition? “Preunderstanding” refers to the preconceived notions and understandings that one brings to the text, which have been formulated, both consciously and subconsciously, before one actually studies the text in detail. This includes specific experiences and encounters with the text that tend to make us assume that we already understand it. Sensitivity to preunderstanding reminds us that we are never approaching the text for the first time, completely neutral or totally objective. Our personal experiences, cultural influences (music, movies, literature), family background, church, race, and nationality are factors influencing our preunderstanding. These preunderstandings are ultimately corrected or nurtured by the constant influence of the biblical text.

Presuppositions, on the other hand, are the faith commitments held by Christians that do not change each time they study the Bible (in contrast to preunderstanding). This article, for example, began with a statement of presuppositions regarding God and the Bible. The analogy of faith deems such presuppositions to be unchangeable constants.

Approach to the text. How, then, should the interpreter approach the text? Although total objectivity is not a realistic goal, Christian readers do want to understand what God has revealed for them. So, the text is approached through faith and by means of the Holy Spirit, who gives understanding of the word that God authored. In order for this to happen, the reader must stand before the biblical text and allow it to speak rather than standing behind it to push it in a predetermined direction. The goal of Bible study is discovery of meaning, not creation of meaning.

A critical factor in Bible study is the realization that the process is an exercise with sacred dimensions. The primary object in this task is to know God, to understand his will, and to love and trust him, which is Paul’s desire for all Christians (Col. 1:9–14; Eph. 1:15–23; 3:14; Phil. 3:8–13). God is glorified when we find our joy and delight in him through an enriched understanding of his word. This can happen when one depends upon the Holy Spirit for understanding (1 Cor. 2:9–16). The study of the sacred text is a delicate balance of thinking, working, and analyzing while reverently and humbly depending upon the Spirit.

The Methods of Bible Study

Terminology. The activity of interpretation is best described as a spiral, a twist of assorted factors that take the reader from the intention of the original context to the present context of life within the community of the church. The process involves terms and procedures that can be confusing. The word “hermeneutics” is most commonly understood to describe the science and art of biblical interpretation. The goal of hermeneutics is to discern the original intent of the text (“what it meant”) and the contemporary significance of the text (“what it means”). Scholars regularly discuss which of these two is primary in hermeneutical process. The term, however, is broad enough to cover both aspects.

The English word “exegesis” is derived from a Greek term meaning “to lead out.” When applied to Bible study, it defines the nature of the work as taking meaning out of the text and not reading meaning into it. The exegetical process involves the study of words, syntax, grammar, and theology. Another critical term, “contextualization,” refers to an aspect of the interpretive process involving cross-cultural communication of the text’s significance for today.

Defining these key terms in hermeneutics brings to the surface an ongoing discussion associated with Bible study, the question of meaning, which is defined in several ways. Meaning is understood by some as the author’s intention. Some scholars explain meaning as referent (what the author is talking about), others describe it as sense (what is being said about the referent), and finally it can be understood as significance (a contemporary, cross-cultural significance).

Inductive Bible study. How one gets to meaning involves a process of study, the crux of which is the practice of inductive Bible study. Although this objective process can be defined in several ways, it is distinguished by four key elements.

(1) The first element is observation. This involves a careful, close reading of the text to determine exactly what it says. This step makes repeated use of the who, what, when, where, and why questions that enable the reader to become fully saturated with the particulars of the passage. Attention to textual detail will result in accurate interpretation. Observation requires a will to observe, exactness in making observations, and persistence and endurance in the process. Observation is focused on the words of the passage, the structure (the relations and interrelations between terms), the literary form, and the atmosphere or tone. (2) Interpretation follows. The goal of this element is to define meaning and to answer the question, What does this text mean? (3) Correlation, the third element, asks, How does this text relate to the rest of the Bible (cf. analogy of faith)? (4) The fourth element, application, asks, What does this text mean to me?

Each step in the inductive process is elaborate and includes its own particular interests and issues that are critical for determining meaning. Take, for example, the issues of meaning associated with the second step, interpretation. This process must be fully engaged for accuracy in interpretation. The business of interpretation involves a constant interaction of parts. Microaspects are observed in light of macrofeatures, and vice versa.

The interpretive process of the text is fairly standard. Given the nature of inductive analysis, the inductive process begins at the microlevel of examining and interpreting terms, words, and sentences. It then highlights the next structural levels of paragraphs, units of paragraphs, chapters, and then the book itself.

Context and literary type. Since context and literary type are critical elements in the exercise of analysis, attention will be given to each. It is often said that context determines meaning. This statement is a reminder that a term, a theme, or a structural element is ultimately governed by a larger set of factors. The term “trunk,” for example, in the context of a family vacation could refer to what is packed, whereas in the conversation of lumberjacks it could be a reference to a tree. Context takes into consideration all historical referents. In addition, context includes all the individual parts of a composition (phrases, sentences, paragraphs, chapters). Examination of a book’s particular historical context involves also looking at the geography, politics, economics, and cultural practices of a given audience featured. The danger of ignoring context in biblical study is that original authorial intent is replaced with all kinds of self-centered textual understandings.

Literary type is also a critical factor in the inductive process. Another word for literary form is genre, derived from a French term that can be translated “kind, sort, style.” It denotes a type or species of literature or literary form. Genre analysis profitably yields an understanding of the author’s intention in a given literary composition. For example, genre triggers the reader’s expectations and reading strategy. Genre guides the reader in understanding how to read and interpret a given text. For example, we read and interpret a story differently from the way we read and interpret a poem. Each of these genres has its own rules and strategies for communicating meaning. Genre analysis involves observing the form along with the mood, setting, function, and content of the text.

Each literary type has a set of distinctive characteristics that must be examined. To understand what the biblical authors are saying (and what God is saying through them), we must play by the rules of the literary genre that they selected. Genre is a generalization or an abstraction within which variation occurs. Thus, a genre may be defined broadly and include many texts that share fewer traits, while on the other hand it may be defined in a more narrow way and include fewer texts sharing many more traits.

The process of genre analysis is undertaken inductively. The analysis begins with the literary class, continues with the individual texts, and then interacts with both. Genre can be understood only by analyzing the parts of a given text. Although there are plenty of helpful textbooks devoted to virtually every literary type, one must keep in mind that genre descriptions arise out of the details of the text. Genre is not a predescribed form that is imposed on the text for the discovery of authorial intent.

Once the historical, literary, and theological aspects of the particular book are settled, the book is then analyzed in its specific canonical context (NT or OT) and then considered in the overall canon (the Bible). The results of this process are then pursued in relation to the interests of biblical and systematic theology.

Summary. The method of inductive Bible study is not only a specific procedure of analysis, but also a guide for a variety of methodical practices. The process of inductive Bible study encourages a spirit of attention to detail and reminds the reader of the overall goal in interpretation: to know what the text meant and means. In addition, the very nature of the inductive method promotes a curiosity and yields a definite joy of discovery. The inductive process is a guide to the interpreter in an analysis of either the Hebrew or the Greek text.

Other methods of Bible study. There are other methods of Bible study associated with distinct views of the Bible’s nature and origin. These critical methods of interpretation arise out of a discussion regarding how the Bible should be interpreted. The history of this discussion goes all the way back to the third century AD with the debates between the Alexandrians and Antiochians. The sixteenth-century Reformation, the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, and the twentieth century were significant turning points that yielded new ways of conceiving the world and the biblical text. Thus, it is important to understand that there are no neutral methods of biblical interpretation.

Historical-critical approaches. The more-popular critical methods of Bible study came to the forefront in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries with the rise of deism and rationalism. The prevailing opinion of this time was the fundamental similarity of all historical texts and all historical events. The historical-critical method was founded on the principles of criticism, analogy, and correlation. The supernatural origin of the Bible is denied, and it is considered to be a book like all other historical documents. The biblical text is viewed as a tradition created. It is an artifact of the evolutionary process preserved and passed along to a subsequent generation and must be approached with an attitude of doubt.

In contrast to the approach taken in this article, the historical-critical understanding of the locus of revelation is not the biblical text revealed by God. The locus of revelation shifts outside the text. The reader no longer looks to the text to hear the word of God. The reader now looks behind or beyond the biblical text to another story, one that is independent of the biblical text. Instead of studying a process of progressive revelation, the historical-critical methodologies are committed to sorting out complex historical traditions. Sources are identified, sorted chronologically, and studied for their distinctive themes. The methods are sometimes organized according to the particular interests of schools of thought: history of religions, history of traditions, history of forms, history of redactions.

Literary approaches. Finally, there are methods of Bible study associated with the set of literary presuppositions. First, this approach to the biblical text takes an ahistorical view of the text. In other words, there is no concern for its historical cause and effect. It is concerned only with a synchronic analysis of the finished product. Second, the text is viewed as an autonomous entity. Once a text is completed, it has a life of its own. The interpretive process is then devoted to the text’s final form, looking at the whole instead of the parts. Meaning comes from the language and style of the text. Finally, meaning is understood as aesthetics; it is not related to authorial intention or a historical occasion. Theoretically, the literary approach views the text as if it is cut off from an author and from a historical context. In this construct, meaning shifts from the past to the present. Interpretation then is an interaction of text and reader. The methods of interpretation associated with these literary presuppositions include literary criticism, rhetorical criticism, structuralism, narrative criticism, and reader response criticism.

The English word derives from the Latin omnis (“all”) and sciens (“knowing”). Though not found in Scripture, the term accurately describes an exclusively divine attribute. God has perfect infinite knowledge of himself and everything actual and possible (1 Sam. 23:8–13; Job 37:16; Pss. 33:13–15; 139:2–6, 11–12; 147:5; Prov. 15:3; Isa. 40:14; 46:10; Dan. 2:22; Matt. 11:21–23; John 21:17; Acts 15:18; 1 Cor. 2:10–11; Heb. 4:13; 1 John 3:20). God’s omniscience is eternal, encompassing all things past, present, and future. It includes complete knowledge of all human choices, the occurrence of all events, and the outworking of all contingencies.

An oration is a formal public speech; an orator is a person skilled in delivering an oration. Classical oratory flourished in fifth-century BC Athens, when itinerant intellectuals, known as Sophists, trained pupils in the art of persuasive speech. The Greek philosopher Plato disdained the Sophists as hucksters more concerned with making money and winning arguments than with presenting truth. He and his successor Aristotle extolled reason and virtue over mere persuasiveness in rhetoric. Greek oratory was admired and taught by the Romans to their young men, who needed to speak persuasively in lawcourts and public assemblies. The Roman orator Cicero stressed skills necessary for effective oration: proper word choice and sentence construction, practiced gestures and vocal modulation, appropriate emotion, wit, and charm, along with a prodigious memory and copious knowledge of history and law.

Skilled oration is particularly stressed in the Greek and Roman venues of the apostle Paul. But even in the OT the “eloquent orator” is part of Judah’s support system (Isa. 3:3 KJV). Moses decries his inadequacy as God’s spokesperson due to his lack of eloquence (Exod. 4:10). Before Paul’s apostleship, the unschooled Peter becomes an effective orator of the gospel to his Jewish audiences (Acts 2:14–40; 3:12–26; 4:8–13), while the Greek Jew Stephen’s oratorical defense of the Hebrew Scriptures’ fulfillment in Christ so inflames the Sanhedrin that they stone him (Acts 7:2–57).

Paul orates the gospel to the pagan Greek cultures of the Roman Empire. In Athens, his orations arouse the interest of philosophers (Acts 17:17–20). He quotes Greek poets in his oration at the Areopagus (17:22–31). In Ephesus, Paul’s orations about the kingdom of God (19:8–9) jeopardize the idol trade, antagonizing the local artisans. An oration by the city clerk calms and diffuses the resultant riotous mob (19:35–40). Paul uses oratory in his legal defense before the governor Felix (24:10–21) and in his attempt to persuade King Agrippa of the truth and reasonableness of the gospel (26:2–29). But Paul’s speaking skills are not admired by all (2 Cor. 10:10), and Paul himself disdains the so-called wisdom of those who value such eloquence (1 Cor. 1:18–22; 2 Cor. 10:5; 11:6). He stresses that his message is not a matter of clever and confident oratorical skills but is instead taught by the Holy Spirit and empowered by God (1 Cor. 2:1–4, 13; 4:20).

An oration is a formal public speech; an orator is a person skilled in delivering an oration. Classical oratory flourished in fifth-century BC Athens, when itinerant intellectuals, known as Sophists, trained pupils in the art of persuasive speech. The Greek philosopher Plato disdained the Sophists as hucksters more concerned with making money and winning arguments than with presenting truth. He and his successor Aristotle extolled reason and virtue over mere persuasiveness in rhetoric. Greek oratory was admired and taught by the Romans to their young men, who needed to speak persuasively in lawcourts and public assemblies. The Roman orator Cicero stressed skills necessary for effective oration: proper word choice and sentence construction, practiced gestures and vocal modulation, appropriate emotion, wit, and charm, along with a prodigious memory and copious knowledge of history and law.

Skilled oration is particularly stressed in the Greek and Roman venues of the apostle Paul. But even in the OT the “eloquent orator” is part of Judah’s support system (Isa. 3:3 KJV). Moses decries his inadequacy as God’s spokesperson due to his lack of eloquence (Exod. 4:10). Before Paul’s apostleship, the unschooled Peter becomes an effective orator of the gospel to his Jewish audiences (Acts 2:14–40; 3:12–26; 4:8–13), while the Greek Jew Stephen’s oratorical defense of the Hebrew Scriptures’ fulfillment in Christ so inflames the Sanhedrin that they stone him (Acts 7:2–57).

Paul orates the gospel to the pagan Greek cultures of the Roman Empire. In Athens, his orations arouse the interest of philosophers (Acts 17:17–20). He quotes Greek poets in his oration at the Areopagus (17:22–31). In Ephesus, Paul’s orations about the kingdom of God (19:8–9) jeopardize the idol trade, antagonizing the local artisans. An oration by the city clerk calms and diffuses the resultant riotous mob (19:35–40). Paul uses oratory in his legal defense before the governor Felix (24:10–21) and in his attempt to persuade King Agrippa of the truth and reasonableness of the gospel (26:2–29). But Paul’s speaking skills are not admired by all (2 Cor. 10:10), and Paul himself disdains the so-called wisdom of those who value such eloquence (1 Cor. 1:18–22; 2 Cor. 10:5; 11:6). He stresses that his message is not a matter of clever and confident oratorical skills but is instead taught by the Holy Spirit and empowered by God (1 Cor. 2:1–4, 13; 4:20).

The biblical writers proclaim that only one God exists, yet they also refer to three persons as “God.” The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Furthermore, these three persons relate to one another as self-conscious individuals. Jesus prays to the Father (John 17). The Father speaks from heaven concerning the Son (Matt. 3:17; Luke 3:22). Jesus vows to send the Spirit as “Advocate” after his ascension, and he will do what Jesus himself did while he was among us (John 16:7–8). The challenge of Christian theology, therefore, is to formulate a doctrine of God that captures all these elements, each of which surfaces in both Testaments.

Old Testament

In the OT, evidence for the Trinity appears mostly at the implicit level. Yahweh is called “Father” in Isaiah (63:16; 64:8), Jeremiah (3:4, 19; 31:9), and Malachi (2:10). Isaiah declares, “But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name” (Isa. 63:16). Yahweh identifies himself as “Father” implicitly when he claims Israel as his “son” (Hos. 11:1), and the same principle applies to Ps. 2:7, where God declares to his anointed, “You are my son; today I have become your father.” These cases do not compare in numbers with the NT evidence, but a person thought of as “God the Father” certainly appears in the OT.

Messianic texts of the OT introduce us to God the Son. In Isa. 9:6 a “child is born” who will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The day of “Immanuel,” or “God with us,” is foreshadowed in Isa. 7:14 (cf. Matt. 1:22), while Isa. 40:3–5 anticipates the appearance of the Lord “in the wilderness” (cf. Matt. 3:3). Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven” being given “authority, glory and sovereign power” (Dan. 7:13–14). In Ps. 110:1 Yahweh says to David’s “Lord,” “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Similarly, the OT seems to distinguish the Spirit of God from Yahweh while implying the Spirit’s own personality. Genesis 1:2 makes that case, as does Exod. 31:3, where Yahweh fills Bezalel with the “Spirit of God” (cf. Exod. 35:31; Num. 11:29). In 1 Sam. 16:14 a contrast is made between the “Spirit of the Lord” that leaves Saul and an “evil spirit from the Lord” that torments him; also we find a repentant David pleading that God would not take away his “Holy Spirit” (Ps. 51:11). The Spirit can be put on persons by God, with the result that they prophesy (Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28–29) and do what pleases him (Ezek. 36:26–27). In the OT, therefore, we see two persons (the Son and the Holy Spirit) who are both God and also distinguishable from one to whom they answer and by whom they are sent.

New Testament

The NT contains abundant evidence for “God the Father,” often because of Jesus’ teaching. The “Father” appears several times in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:16; 6:6–9, 14, 18, 26, 32; 7:11). Matthew 7:21 stands out because of Jesus’ reference to “my Father who is in heaven,” by which he identifies himself as the Son (see also Matt. 15:13; 16:17; 18:10; and Luke 24:49). Paul’s greetings normally come from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in Rom. 1:7: “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (also 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:1–3; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2). Paul introduces the Father and the Son in 1 Cor. 8:6: “For us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (see also 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Phil. 2:22). Other significant texts include Heb. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:2–3; in the latter, the scattered believers are those “who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood. . . . Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” The NT evidence for “God the Father” is clear.

Biblical texts that point to the deity of Christ supply evidence for the second claim: the Son is God. Some of the texts listed above say as much, but one can take this case further. In context, John’s prologue refers to Jesus as the “Word” and proclaims that he was “with God” and “was God” (John 1:1). Jesus also relates to the Father in ways that imply his own deity, as he declares in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” After significant doubting, Thomas confesses the deity of Christ in John 20:28: “My Lord and my God!” NT passages that identify Jesus as the “Son of God” point to his deity, as Peter does in Matt. 16:16: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Even demons identify Jesus as the Son. They call out, “What do you want with us, Son of God? . . . Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” (Matt. 8:29; cf. Mark 5:7). The so-called Christ Hymn of Phil. 2:6–11 puts Jesus on the level with God, saying that he did not consider “equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.” The author of Hebrews declares that Jesus is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (1:3). Colossians 1:15–16 says that Jesus is the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” and the one by whom “all things were created,” and Col. 1:19 states that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” According to Titus 2:13, Jesus is “our great God and Savior.” The entire sequence of Rev. 4–5 highlights the deity of Christ, culminating in the praise “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” as both the Enthroned One and the Lamb are worshiped as God (5:13–14).

The NT writers underscore both the deity and the distinctive personality of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by the Spirit’s power (Matt. 1:18–20), and when Jesus is baptized, the Spirit descends upon him as a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10). Jesus drives out demons by the Spirit, and one dare not speak against the Spirit when he does so (Matt. 12:28–32). Luke’s Gospel puts added emphasis on the ministry of the Spirit, as we also see in Acts. He empowers various people to praise and prophesy (Luke 1:41, 67) and to be witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17–18, 38). Sinners can lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), and the Holy Spirit bears witness along with the apostles to the risen Christ (5:32). In John’s Gospel, the Spirit becomes the counselor and teacher of the disciples, reminding them of their Lord’s instructions (John 14:26; 16:13). The Spirit brings assurance of sonship (Rom. 8:16) and helps disciples when they pray (8:26). This person even knows the very thoughts of God (1 Cor. 2:11). Accordingly, the Great Commission requires baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). All three members of the Trinity have a part in the advancement of the kingdom, the Spirit no less than the Father and the Son.

Relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit

The evidence considered thus far demonstrates that three persons are called “God” in Scripture: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But the Scriptures also point to a chain of command in their relationship to one another. The Son obeys the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to apply the work of the cross to the church. This “functional subordination” of the Son to the Father, some might argue, would follow simply from the analogy chosen by God to reveal himself to us. The “Son” would obey his “Father,” not vice versa, though they share a common dignity as God, just as a human father and son share a common humanity. But the NT writers expressly tell us that they relate to each other in this way. In Matt. 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22) Jesus announces, “All things have been committed to me by my Father” (cf. John 3:35; 5:22). The latter transfers authority to the former as his subordinate. The Father even (for a season) knows more than the Son regarding the last days: “About that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36), though he also dignifies the Son: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does” (John 5:20). The Son’s commitment to please his heavenly Father is a prominent theme of the NT, as Jesus declares in John 5:19: “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” No text brings out this dependence of the Son upon the Father more clearly than Heb. 5:7–8, where the Son is said to have “offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered.” It is debated by theologians whether this functional subordination relates only to the period of the Son’s earthly ministry, or whether it is an eternal subordination.

The Spirit, though equal in personality and dignity with the Father and the Son, proceeds from them to apply the work of the cross and empower the church for ministry. In John 14:26 Jesus says, “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” In John 15:26 Jesus announces that he also sends the Spirit out: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” The Spirit only conveys what he has received: “He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13). The same “chain of command” appears in John 16:15, where Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

Trinitarian Heresies

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, while being distinguishable persons. The Son obeys the Father; and these two persons of the Trinity send out the Holy Spirit to implement our deliverance from sin. A defensible explanation of the Trinity will respect all these dynamics, taking special care not to illustrate them with misleading images or simply lapse into various forms of polytheism. One of the earliest heresies of the church came from Marcion, a second-century theologian who distinguished the Father of Jesus from the supposedly vindictive God of the OT, which leaves us with more than one God. Later came the heresies of modalism and subordinationism (or Arianism). Modalists claimed that the persons of the Trinity are no more than guises worn by the one person of God. One minute God is the Father, the next he is the Son or the Holy Spirit. Subordinationists such as Arius (died AD 336) went beyond the functionality of the NT’s chain of command, arguing that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not themselves God but are essentially subordinate to him. Jehovah’s Witnesses have fallen into this latter error, suggesting that Jesus is “a god” but not the Creator God.

These early heresies pressed the church to refine its understanding of the Trinity. In his response to Marcion’s error, Tertullian coined precise language to describe the persons of the Godhead, so that God’s “threeness” and “oneness” are preserved. He used the Latin term trinitas to describe the Christian God and argued that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share the same “substance.” The Son (also, then, the Holy Spirit) is not simply of “like substance” (Gk. homoiousios) with God the Father, but rather is “consubstantial” (Gk. homoousios) with him: the Son is God, and so is the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed of AD 325 incorporated this explanation and, in so doing, also set aside the idea that either the Son or the Holy Spirit was created by God, as the Arian heresy requires. Nicaea also rejected adoptionism, which regards Jesus as a man whom God promoted by endowing him with supernatural powers.

Each of these heresies—plus, say, the strict monotheism of Islam—attempts to relieve the tension seen among the claims that constitute the Trinity; however, orthodox Christians will remember that tensions and paradoxes are not automatic contradictions. No philosopher or theologian has ever expressly demonstrated that the Trinity entails logical nonsense, and Christianity’s detractors carry the burden of proof in this case. It is one thing to allege that an idea is contradictory, and quite another thing to show with an argument that it is so. On the positive side, the Trinity must remain a central doctrine of the church because it affects all the others, especially the entire work of redemption. If God is not triune, then Jesus is not God; and if he is not God, then he cannot save us, nor can we worship him as our Lord. The sacrifice that he offers for our sin would not, in that case, be supremely valuable. Consider also the application to us of what Christ has done. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then he cannot speak for God as one who knows perfectly his thoughts and gives us the word of God, our Bible. Scripture indicates that God is triune, and sinners need him to be so.