To some Christians who are routine or vocational counselors, one might ask, “Are you using the Bible in your counseling?” But for those who are using Scripture when they counsel, the question might be, “Are you using it well?” We expect our pastors, authors, teachers, and ministry leaders to handle Scripture with skill and integrity. Shouldn’t we expect the same from our counselors? Sadly, and strangely, this is too often not the case. But good counselors are good theologians, and good theologians are reliable stewards of the Word.

Consider the following passage from the book of Acts:

“Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common…There was not a needy person among them” (Acts 4:32, 34a). [1]

Suppose you were counseling a person who had been sinful in handling their finances. They’ve come to you asking how to overcome temptations toward frivolous spending. Recalling this passage from Acts 4, do you counsel them to seek money from their church and other Christians? That would solve their immediate cash problem. And it is right there in chapter and verse, right? On the other hand, doesn’t Paul also say: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10)?

So, which is it? Should this person be given money, or should they work to repair the damage done by their lack of self-control? How do you know? This is a matter of “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). That is, it’s a matter of hermeneutics, which is the “science that teaches us the principles, laws, and methods of interpretation.” In this case, sacred hermeneutics, because we’re interpreting “the Bible as the inspired Word of God.” [2]

Counselors are accountable to handle God’s Word with integrity as much as any Christian who teaches and ministers it. And if we’re to love our neighbors and fellow Christians, we must care deeply to understand what the Bible is, and how to employ it responsibly. These sobering warnings stand: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1), and “the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (Deut. 5:11).

WHAT THE BIBLE ASSUMES ABOUT ITSELF

If we are counseling biblically, then some simple facts should be self-evidently uncontroversial about what we understand and believe the Holy Scriptures to be. 

As Christians, we can be sure that “All Scripture is breathed out [i.e., ‘inspired’] by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). We accept this with confidence, also knowing that God’s “divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence” (2 Pet. 1:3). Jesus himself prays to his Father for us, “Sanctify them in truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).

These are not “cleverly devised myths” about “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” but are divinely handed down to us through God’s chosen Apostles who were “eyewitnesses of his majesty,” giving us the “prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention,” “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:16, 20-21). 

Therefore, as Christians, we should confess God’s Word in the Bible to be…

Necessary— Scripture is “the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience…” [3]

Definite— Scripture is made up only of the unified 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New Testament. [4]

Authoritative— Scripture is completely true and holds supreme authority because it comes from God, and should be received as such, worshipfully, by God’s grace. [5]

Sufficient— Scripture contains everything “necessary for [God’s] own glory, man’s salvation, faith and [holiness in this] life,” to which “nothing at any time is to be added”. [6]

Clear— Scripture is plain enough in itself and its meaning for anyone to understand “those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation”. [7]

Open— Scripture’s own testimony is that it should be communicated to others, and done so in an understandable way. [8]

Final— Scripture is “the supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined,” in which “our faith is finally resolved.” [9]

Disagreement over these characteristics of Scripture is beyond the scope of this article. Assuming agreement, then, about what the Bible is, how can we be guided into faithfully interpreting it, so we can then faithfully counsel it? The following are several important principles of sacred hermeneutics, some of which may be more or less familiar to the average reader.

SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE

“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” [10] God’s Word is not our only interpretive authority, but it is our only infallible one. In other words, only God’s Word can interpret itself without any chance of error. This principle has historically been termed the analogia Scripturae or “the analogy of Scripture,” which can be defined as “the interpretation of unclear, difficult, or ambiguous passages of Scripture by comparison with clear and unambiguous passages that refer to the same teaching or event.” [11]

I’m not an infallible interpreter, and neither are you. Nor is your clergy, your counselor, your library, or whoever you like to watch online or listen to their podcast. Any number of extra-biblical authorities may be more or less faithful and helpful interpreters of the Bible, but God alone decides what he means by what he says. Therefore, to the degree we speak or counsel his Word accurately, according to his intentions, we do so with his authority. 

This is true both in what Scripture says about itself and how it interprets itself. That is, not only do we accept the content of the Bible’s self-interpretation, but we also learn from the Bible its own principles of interpretation. The following are three of those principles, “expressly set down” in the Holy Scriptures. [12]

Clearer passages interpret less clear passages

The Apostle Peter says of the Apostle Paul’s letters that, “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16). Here is a clear statement from Scripture about handling difficult passages in Scripture. Evidently, to twist difficult passages is to court one’s own destruction.

For this reason, we ground ourselves first in plain, literal truths to keep from stumbling when handling more figurative or less straightforward texts. God cannot contradict himself (2 Tim. 2:13). So if you find that your interpretation of a difficult text disagrees with a more overt one, the problem is not with your Bible but with you. 

That said, clear passages cannot be removed from their grammatical context. [13] Words and phrases should be taken as intended based upon how they’re used. Jesus may quite plainly refer to himself as “the bread of life” (John 6:35), but that can’t mean he’s made of flour, water, yeast, and salt. Jesus is obviously communicating metaphorically. He’s using a figure of speech— an object lesson— to help convey an important spiritual truth to his listeners. If the language of a text is intended to be figurative rather than simply literal, then that’s how God meant it to be taken, and that’s how we must receive it. 

Literary genre also drives interpretation. The New Testament epistles (i.e., didactic letters), for example, are clearer by definition. They expound upon the teachings of Christ, clarify the gospel, and explain the spirit of the law in more explicit terms. Compare that with the book of Revelation. John’s apocalypse is highly figurative in nature and is something of a capstone of the entire Bible, assuming knowledge of all previous biblical revelation, especially the imagery used by Old Testament prophets like Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel. To treat Romans exactly the way we do Revelation would be foolish and ungodly. How many times have we all heard, “Train up a child in the way he should go; [and] even when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6), quoted as a promise rather than a principle? How many otherwise faithful parents have been needlessly tyrannized in their consciences by that one? The faithful interpreter and counselor will learn how to appropriately utilize the unique qualities of biblical narratives, parables, law, epistles, prophecy, apocalypse, poetry, and wisdom literature. [14]

Faithful interpretation also respects the historical context of the original authors and audience. This includes “the secular and biblical resources that enlighten historical events, customs, language usage, etc.” [15] It prevents anachronisms. That doesn’t mean there are no universals or continuity in the Bible, or that parts of the Bible are somehow entirely irrelevant to us today. Quite the contrary. Respecting historical context keeps us from reading what occupies our minds in our time and place into the intentions of the biblical author and his original audience in their time and place.

A simple and fairly innocuous example would be Paul speaking about seeing the things of Christ at present “in a mirror dimly” as compared to the future clarity we’ll receive when we see Christ “face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12). When you and I think of mirrors, we think of what’s over the sink in our 21st century bathrooms. Those mirrors provide a very clear reflection. But Paul had no concept of such things. He would have been looking at his reflection in polished metal. Now seeing “dimly” makes far more sense. 

Didactic passages determine more than narrative passages

Return to the introductory example from Acts 4 and 2 Thessalonians 3. There will always be portions of narrative text that must be taken as descriptive rather than instructive, like in Acts 4. Is this text really instructing all Christians for all of time to pool their money and possessions? That would be a tough sell. What we do have is explicit teaching from Paul’s second letter to the church in Thessalonica. This should take priority over the passage in Acts because it is specifically instructive about how to address those who won’t work for their own sustenance. Acts 4 is not instructing churches or individual Christians to bail out those who won’t do what is needed to faithfully steward their finances. However, 2 Thessalonians 3 is telling us something about how to address provisional stewardship. Again, issues like the one in this example will often be more complex and require higher degrees of wisdom, prudence, and pastoral dexterity, but the point stands. 

Does Acts 4 encourage generosity in general amongst Christians? Of course! And there are plenty of didactic texts to that end (e.g., Matt. 6:2-4, 24; 2 Cor. 9:7; Eph. 4:28). Still, your counsel should follow first from Paul’s instruction to the Thessalonians far more than the descriptive example given in Acts 4. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see any instruction for Christians to make that degree of financial pooling and redistribution of resources into standard or perpetual Christian practice.

Near context is more important than far context

A classic and crucial example of this principle is found in how the New Testament defines “justification”. On the one hand, Paul says, “we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom. 3:28). On the other hand, James says that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). So, which is it? Are you justified through faith alone, or by a combination of faith and good works? The stakes couldn’t be higher with this question. Salvation itself hangs in the balance. If we get this wrong, our entire counseling ministry is forfeit. 

Since God never contradicts himself, could it be that Paul and James are using the same word in different ways? In fact, it does. The writings of Paul help us define what Paul means before the writings of James do, and vice versa. Further, Paul’s writing in the same letter should be considered first before what Paul says in his other letters. 

Upon examination, both Paul and James use Abraham to prove their point. Paul speaks using Genesis 15:6 about how Abraham was justified earlier in his life:

“For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:2-5). 

How is a person justified according to Paul? They believe in him who justifies the ungodly, and their faith is counted to them as righteousness. Hence, Paul’s later comment in the same letter: “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). Then, reading Paul’s other letters, we see he confirms this definition:

“…we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Gal. 2:16). 

“…not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil. 3:9). 

James instead refers to Abraham in Genesis 21 being “justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar” (James 2:21), 30 years after the events of Genesis 15. He specifically says this in reference to the fact that Abraham’s “faith was completed by his works” (v. 22). James then quotes the same line from Genesis 15:6, but as proof of Abraham’s justification being authenticated (v. 23), answering his original question:

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (James 2:14).

Paul is speaking about Abraham being counted righteous by way of faith, while James is speaking of that same faith being vindicated by the works it produces. Having made this distinction, however, does Paul not elsewhere affirm both messages in their appropriate order? 

Concerning justification as credited righteousness through faith: 

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).

In the very next verse, concerning the fruit and vindication of genuine, justifying faith: 

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (v. 10). 

These conclusions are at the heart of our ardent insistence that the law and gospel are harmonious, but also necessarily distinct. Faith and faithfulness are not the same thing, though faithfulness always follows genuine, Spirit-wrought faith. Faith is the instrument of God’s grace to justify sinners. It is simply “accepting, receiving, and resting upon [Christ] alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.” [16] Faithfulness is the product of genuine justifying faith. The point is that attempting to understand “justification” without paying attention to the near and far context will ultimately confuse us at best. At worst, it denies the gospel, which is a risk none of us should be willing to take. This is also why word studies are often dangerous. When divorced from these other interpretive considerations, word studies can have the appearance of wisdom, but in fact, can ultimately cause more problems than they solve. [17]

ALL OF SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE

Though near context is more determinative than far, that doesn’t make attention to broad context optional or inconsequential. Rather, we are obligated not just to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture (analogia Scripturae), but, more specifically, we must also demand that all of Scripture be taken into account. This is called the analogia fidei, or “the analogy of faith.” Meaning that “the overall theology of Scripture, the whole counsel of God, must be involved in the final interpretation of particular texts and contexts of Scripture.” [18] What follows are four interpretive principles, not “expressly set down” so to speak, but “necessarily contained” in the Holy Scriptures. [19] In that sense, these principles are theological in nature rather than purely exegetical.

Scripture is a unity that cannot contradict itself

From Genesis to Revelation, all of the Bible is God’s perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, enduring, true, and altogether righteous Word (Psa. 19:7-9). So much so that if anyone adds to it or takes away from it, they are accursed (Rev. 22:18-19; cf. Gal. 1:8-9). God’s Word can no more contradict itself than God can contradict himself. Again, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16). 

What this means is that no passage of Scripture gets to be interpreted in a vacuum. Confessional phrases like “necessarily contained” [20] and “by good and necessary consequence” [21] simply refer to those “doctrines and precepts that are truly contained in and intended by the divine Author of Scripture, yet are not found or stated on the surface of the text and must be legitimately inferred from one or more passages of Scripture.” [22] This principle is the foundation of systematic theology, “which depends heavily on deducing divinely intended consequences from the text of Scripture.” [23]

The chief example would be the doctrine of the Trinity— a doctrine which, if knowingly denied without repentance, means damnation. To repudiate that God is one “divine and infinite Being [in whom there are] three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and the Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided,” [24] is to deny the Christian faith entirely.

The problem, of course, is that there is no proof text which expressly states that God is one divine Being in three divine Persons, coequal and coeternal. [25] This is something we must gather systematically from the Bible as a unified whole. The point being, there are things in Scripture that are not expressly stated and yet are so essential that they define the Christian faith and salvation. To the degree that it “is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence upon Him.” [26]

Imagine you are counseling someone who routinely feels as though God has become disappointed with them. Key attributes of God to highlight in this case would be divine immutability and impassibility— that God cannot change, nor does he suffer at the hands of humans or any part of his creation. God can’t become disappointed because he can’t become anything. He simply is— “I AM WHO I AM” (Exod. 3:14). 

What, then, are you to do when your counselee runs across passages like Genesis 6, which describes God’s disposition toward humanity immediately before wiping them out via the flood: “And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart” (v. 6)? If you can’t see beyond the immediate context, you will likely make God out to be more like humans than himself— constantly subject to changing emotions and desires. But God is not a bigger, better version of us. He is holy, holy, holy (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8). His ways and thoughts are perfect beyond our comprehension (Isa. 55:8-9). 

We seem to instinctively know that God doesn’t actually have corporeal hands, eyes, ears, feet, or a mouth (John 1:18; 4:24; Acts 14:15; 1 John 4:12), even if the Bible speaks as though he does in an entirely anthropomorphic sense (Psa. 34:15; Isa. 41:13). This is no less true, however, when the Bible speaks of God anthropopathically— he doesn’t have changing emotions and affections, and he can’t be moved to change in any way by his creation, even if, from our perspective, that’s how it appears and is narratively recorded. We have other plain statements in other parts of Scripture about God’s being that specifically define who he is and put into context how we should interpret texts like Genesis 6 in light of the totality of Scripture. For instance, God does not change (Mal. 3:6), is incorruptible (Rom. 1:23), is without variation (James 1:17), and is not a man that he should lie or change his mind (Num. 23:19).

John Calvin is exactly right when he says that God “lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children…Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness.” [27] This is “creature-language to describe an infinite and perfect God.” [28] In other words, as it’s often been said, God is talking baby talk to us. But without a systematic view of all of Scripture, we run the risk of making God’s Word out to contradict itself and God out to be something he isn’t, ontologically speaking.

Scripture is a diversity that progressively reveals God’s redemption

Though we must read the Bible systematically, we must also read it in respect to how it unfolds along a redemptive-historical timeline. If we are to rightly handle the Word, we cannot neglect to consider which covenantal context the original author, characters, and audience find themselves under. This is the principle behind biblical theology. 

This is most apparent to us as New Covenant believers in that we do not observe the judicial or ceremonial laws unique to Old Covenant Israel. That’s because each covenant in Scripture includes certain positive laws that are not matters of morality— unlike the Ten Commandments, which are always applicable and speak to us about God’s eternally holy character— except that God posited them under that particular covenant administration. 

Apart from the Israelite judicial and ceremonial laws unique to that people and nation under the Old Covenant (Rom. 5:14; Eph. 2:15; Heb. 8:13; 10:1-10), these would include commandments like: “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat” (Gen. 2:17). None of us is careful about what fruit we pick up from the grocery store in case it might have come from said tree. That’s no longer applicable to us, and there’s nothing inherently moral about eating fruit. Rather, as Christians who have come to faith after the life, death, resurrection, and heavenly reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are instead positively commanded to observe the Lord’s day (John 20:1, 26; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Heb. 4:3-10; Rev. 1:10) and the ordinances of baptism (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27) and the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20; Acts 2:24; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). Not because days, religious baths, or eating bread and wine have innate ethical natures. Rather, in the most simple terms, under the New Covenant as the Church, Jesus very intentionally said so. Now, to disobey his ordinances is grounded in God’s moral law, namely, the idolatry of refusing to perform his commands.

Later revelation has interpretive priority over earlier revelation

This is true concerning any portion of Scripture. For example, anything in the Old Testament that follows chronologically after the Torah (i.e., the first five books of the Bible) contextually assumes the Torah.

This principle is, however, especially relevant when speaking of the interaction between the Old and New Testaments. In one sense, the New Testament is itself an interpretive commentary on the Old Testament in light of the person and work of the incarnate Christ. [29] Paraphrasing Augustine: “the New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.” [30] The New Testament is, by definition, a fuller and clearer revelation than the Old Testament. For this reason, “there must be a final dependence upon the NT revelation to determine how the OT is fulfilled in it.” [31] And, not a literalistic, but a truly “literal reading— a reading that gets at the plain sense of the text— will allow the New Testament to interpret the Old.” [32]

You cannot read, for example, God’s promise to us in his condemnation of Satan: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15), and at the same time ignore Paul’s insistence that “offspring” here is a direct reference to the singular Christ (Gal. 3:16). If we, having all 66 books of our one Bible, do not interpret Genesis 3 in light of passages like Galatians 3— and many others— then we twist the text of Scripture. We would, in this case, essentially be taking away from God’s Word. Remembering the previously mentioned warnings, we would do well to eagerly avoid such errors.

Scripture is about Jesus from start to finish

I’ve saved this one for last because it’s the most difficult and controversial, and it’s something of a culmination of everything discussed so far. Yes, this principle means the Old Testament is about Jesus, too. Recall our Lord’s warning to the erring Jews in Jerusalem at Bethesda: 

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40). 

Recall also, after his resurrection, speaking to his Apostles on the road to Emmaus: 

“…beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself…Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled’” (‭‭Luke‬ ‭24‬:‭27‬, ‭44).

In both these instances, the only Scriptures they would have had at the time would have been the Old Testament, and Jesus says that all of those Scriptures— in every part— concern him. Thus, we cannot ignore this fact when interpreting any portion of the Old Testament or any reference to it found in the New. 

The theological term for seeing Christ (among other things) foreshadowed in the Old Testament is typology. The original Greek term is τύπος. [33] Its most concrete meaning is “a mark made as the result of a blow or pressure,” [34] or “an original pattern that was pressed into wax or metal to make an official seal.” [35] But its figurative definition— which is how the Bible uses it— is “an archetype serving as a model.” [36] In Scripture, “types are historical events, people, places, and institutions that are intended by God to direct faith to something greater, namely, the reality to which the type is pointed.” [37] An antitype (ἀντίτυπος [38]), then, is the fulfillment of a type— the reality to which a type points or refers.

Most supremely, Paul tells us that Adam “was a type [τύπος] of the one who was to come” (Rom. 5:14), referring to Christ. Hence, elsewhere, Paul names Jesus as “the last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45), who succeeded where the first Adam failed, achieving the new creation that humanity had forfeited in our sin. 

That one may feel fairly obvious. But Paul is also quite plain in stating that “the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4), referring to the rock Moses struck in the wilderness so that Israel would have water to drink (Exod. 17:6; Num. 20:11). In fact, he assigns spiritual meaning to several things from Israel’s wilderness journey including the cloud they followed, the Red Sea they passed through, the manna they ate, as well as the water they drank from the rock (1 Cor. 10:1-5). He then calls all these things types, when he says that “these things happened to them as an example [τύπος], but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come” (v. 11). 

There are other examples as well. Peter says that the flood in Noah’s day was a type and that baptism is its antitype: “There is also an antitype [ἀντίτυπος] which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21, NKJV). 

The prophet Hosea, speaking for God, says, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos. 11:1). Then Matthew comes along nearly 800 years later in his Gospel account and says that statement was ultimately about Jesus. Joseph, Jesus’ step-father, “rose and took the [Christ] child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’” (Matt. 2:14-15). Israel is the type, and Christ the antitype. Jesus is the true and better Israel.

Likewise, all who are in union with Christ by faith, in every period of redemptive history, are counted as the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). 

“For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter” (Rom. 2:28-29).

“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring” (Rom. 9:6-8).

“For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3). 

What more could we say? For time would fail us to tell in detail of how the Church fulfills and is fulfilling in Christ the holy things of Israel-past. Christ’s Church is made up of living stones being built up into a spiritual temple, to be a holy and royal priesthood, a chosen race, a holy nation, and a people of his own possession (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). We are included in the commonwealth of Israel and all her covenants of promise. We’ve been “brought near by the blood of Christ,” breaking down the dividing wall of hostility, “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two.” No longer are we strangers and aliens but “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord…a dwelling place for God by the Spirit,” granting access in one Spirit to God the Father (Eph. 2:11-22). Israel is the type, and Christ— in union with his Church— is the antitype. 

Hebrews 8, in speaking of Christ as a true and better eternal high priest, says that Jesus is “seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man” (vv. 1-2). The author then makes clear that Jesus is a better high priest forever, unlike the Levitical priests on earth. They would repeatedly offer insufficient gifts and sacrifices according to the law, within the earthly tabernacle, which only served as “a copy and shadow of the heavenly things” (vv. 3-5). The earthly tabernacle and temple were the types; Christ and the heavenly holy places are the antitype. 

Likewise, the whole of Hebrews 11 essentially tells us of various character types from the Old Testament that pointed forward in faith to Christ and the consummation of all things. All of these Old Testament saints, “though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us [the Church] they should not be made perfect” (Heb. 11:40). These character types of Christ include Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the nation of Israel, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, all the prophets, and more. The author goes so far as to say that it was impossible that Abraham, for example, was looking forward to Canaan, but instead to “a better country, that is, a heavenly one” (vv. 14-15). And Moses “considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward” (v. 26). 

All these serve as types and point to Christ, the new creation, and the eschatological new heavens and new earth as their antitypes. 

What does this all mean? The Bible isn’t about you. In the end, we have one ultimate, overarching job as Christians and biblical counselors— to make much of Christ! He must increase; we must decrease (John 3:30). Typology does that, as do all these preceding interpretive principles for rightly handling God’s Word of truth. Not only will that preach— Now, that’ll counsel!

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

Perhaps, after reading this, you’re convicted about ways you’ve inadequately handled the Scriptures with your counselees. If that’s you, praise God! Be encouraged, dear brother or sister, “whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Matt. 23:12). The Spirit convinces a person of these things, not the flesh. Allow his Word to shape and mold you, and then take it to others for those same ends. Become sharper instruments and weapons of righteousness who know how to sharpen iron with iron. Are you willing to do the exciting yet difficult work of learning to interpret your Bible better? Are you willing to do it for God’s glory and the good of those you counsel? 

Perhaps, reading this, you haven’t come across much that’s new to you. Are you willing to persevere in a ministry of integrity? Are you willing to teach others?

Perhaps, reading this, you aren’t sure how you feel or what you think. That’s okay; just don’t stay there. Are you willing to take a good, hard look at yourself and your ministry? If not, why might that be? If so, how will you make sure this issue doesn’t slip through the cracks of your busy life, or be drowned out by avoidance?

Brothers and sisters, may this prayer ever-increasingly characterize the thoughts and intentions of your hearts and the hearts of those you counsel: “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law” (Psa. 119:18).