In many people’s thinking, to ask—How does systematic theology help us read Scripture more faithfully?—is wrongheaded and backward. Rather, should we not ask—How does Scripture help us get our systematic theology right? In fact, to ask it the first way is to risk the danger of not letting Scripture speak for itself, thus making the Bible say what we want it to say instead of the other way around.

Although there is always a legitimate concern that we distort Scripture by reading it through the lens of something outside of it and not on its own terms, this concern fails to recognize that there is an organic interrelationship between the Bible, our interpretation of it, and our systematic theology. Unequivocally, we must affirm sola Scriptura, that is, Scripture alone is our final authority for our theology. Precisely because Scripture is God’s word written, it always has the authority to correct our doctrinal formulations. Yet, we also have to admit that even our view of Scripture, that is, what we think Scripture is, along with how we ought to interpret it, requires a specific theology of Scripture. Otherwise, we run the danger of not rightly dividing God’s Word of truth and making serious exegetical and theological mistakes. This should not surprise us since Christian theology is a “package deal,” which means that theological doctrines are interrelated and mutually dependent on one another. This is why if our theology is either inadequate or wrong in one area, it will affect other doctrinal areas and vice versa. As applied to Scripture and our interpretation of it, this means that a sound systematic theology (no doubt, ultimately warranted by Scripture) is also necessary to read Scripture more faithfully. Let me illustrate this point by focusing on three ways theology is necessary to read and understand Scripture correctly.

First, and in the most basic way, we need a theology of Scripture to view Scripture correctly, which is foundational to a faithful interpretation of it. Think of it this way: if I ask the question—How ought we to interpret Scripture?—should we follow the advice of biblical critic Benjamin Jowett (1817-93)? Jowett famously argued that we should read Scripture “like any other book.” But is this the correct way to interpret Scripture? It is important to note that how we answer this question depends on what our theology or view of Scripture is! For Jowett, he read Scripture “like any other book” because he assumed that Scripture was merely a human book, and as such, it was a book that reflected the cultural and philosophical mindset of its fallible, finite human authors. Thus, Jowett read Scripture as a book filled with interesting information from past religious people, but in the end, he also thought he could stand as judge and jury over Scripture, determining what he thought was true and false in Scripture. In other words, Jowett’s theology of Scripture determined how he viewed, read, and applied Scripture to his life.

The problem, however, with Jowett’s view is that his doctrine of Scripture (which in turn determined his interpretation of Scripture) is contrary to what Scripture is, and thus a wrong theology of Scripture. No doubt, Scripture is human. In fact, the Bible is written by numerous human authors, and these authors were fallible, finite men. But is Scripture merely human? If we take Scripture’s own claims regarding itself seriously, we must conclude that although it is written by human authors, it is no mere human book. On the contrary, Scripture is God’s Word written through the agency of human authors. This is why the biblical authors are not merely writing from their own finite, fallible perspectives; rather, they are writing the very words and texts that God wanted written and communicated to his people (2 Tim 3:15-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21).

But notice what I have done. I have spoken of what Scripture is by using the theological category of divine inspiration. When we say that Scripture is “inspired,” we do not simply mean that it is “inspiring” in the sense that it motivates us. Instead, we are claiming that the triune, eternal God has so acted in and through human authors that despite the fact that the biblical authors are finite and fallen, by the sovereign work of God’s Spirit, these authors have been kept from error, and as such, have written exactly what God wanted communicated. For this reason, Scripture is not merely a human book but instead God’s Word written. Yet, Jowett’s view of Scripture reflects a wrong theology of Scripture, which in turn led him to read and apply Scripture incorrectly. All of this reminds us that to read Scripture correctly, we also need a specific theology of Scripture. In other words, whether we read Scripture as just another book or as God’s written Word is dependent on our doctrine of Scripture. If our theology of Scripture is wrong, then inevitably, we will incorrectly view, receive, read, and most significantly, obey Scripture as God’s infallible and authoritative Word for our lives and the life of the church.

Second, and building on the first point, our theology will also determine whether we read Scripture as a unified revelation or just a hodgepodge of human thoughts. Scripture is written over a long period of time and by around forty different authors. Why should we think that all these authors are writing a unified, coherent revelation? In our human experience, we know that it is hard enough for one human author to be coherent, let alone forty different authors who lived at different periods of time. Why should we think that Scripture does not contradict itself and that it gives us a unified message that we can understand? Furthermore, whether we think Scripture is unified or not will affect how we read it and the conclusions we draw from it. So, how do we answer this question? Again, the answer to this question depends on your theology, and specifically your doctrine of God, and not all views of God are equal in this regard.

For example, think of open theism. Around twenty-five years ago, open theism received a lot of attention. Open theism emerged out of evangelical circles, and it argued that God cannot know the future free choices of humans until they occur in time. Since God had chosen to give humans libertarian freedom, this meant that God could not know or guarantee ahead of time what we would choose. Obviously, a number of serious implications follow from such a view, especially the fact that God’s sovereign control over the world is greatly limited, along with the fact that God’s knowledge is a growing knowledge dependent on his interaction with the world.

Open theism was thoroughly critiqued biblically and theologically, and thankfully, it was rejected by the Baptist Faith and Message (2000). But my point in raising it is to illustrate the point that such an aberrant theology if accepted, would undercut any confidence that Scripture is a unified revelation. Why? Because if open theism is true, then God would not be able to predict the future or know ahead of time whether Adam would sin and thus could not have planned our redemption from eternity, something Scripture explicitly affirms (see Matt 16:21; Acts 2:23; Rev 13:8). Instead, God would have to make ad hoc plans in human history as he responds to the free choices of his creatures. But if this is so, it is difficult to think that Scripture, given all of its diverse authors who wrote over a long period of time, is a unified, coherent revelation. After all, God does not know the future; he cannot guarantee that his purposes will take place, and given the ad hoc nature of his plans, he would often have to resort to plans B, C, and D to accomplish his purposes. Given such a situation, it is difficult to think that God can predict ahead of time his plan, especially a detailed plan that foretells the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and his cross and resurrection. In other words, if open theism is true, there is no theological reason to think that Scripture is unified and even inerrant in all that it teaches. An open theist doctrine of God directly affects how we view Scripture, how we read Scripture, and whether we think Scripture is a unified, coherent revelation.

In fact, setting open theism aside, it is important to ask what doctrine of God is able to warrant a high view of Scripture. What theology proper can make sense of the fact that Scripture is God’s authoritative, infallible, and inerrant Word written through the free agency of human authors? Although I would need to defend this at length, I would argue that the doctrine of God required to undergird a high view of Scripture and Scripture as a unified, coherent revelation is a theology of the triune God who knows all things, ordains all things, and who can sovereignly guarantee that free, fallible, finite human authors write exactly what he wants written. In other words, what is required to provide proper theological accounting for what Scripture is, is the sovereign God of Scripture as laid out in the Reformed confessions. It is only this view of God that simultaneously holds together God’s complete sovereign agency over the world and the free agency of human authors. Theologies such as open theism do not affirm these truths—truths that are necessary to uphold a high view of Scripture and to give us confidence that Scripture is a unified and true revelation. In fact, although Arminian theology is not the same as open theism, it, too, has a difficult time accounting for these truths as well. All of this discussion illustrates how one’s theology, and in this case, one’s doctrine of God, determines one’s view of Scripture and whether one thinks that Scripture is a unified revelation that unfolds God’s eternal plan centered in Christ Jesus our Lord, which in turn affects our interpretation of Scripture. Thus, apart from a correct doctrine of God, inevitably, we will view and read Scripture incorrectly.

Third, a sound theology also helps us read Scripture by allowing us to “put together” the truths of Scripture in a faithful way. Systematic theology is best understood as “faith seeking understanding.” Our theology begins with Scripture as God’s Word and all that it teaches. Yet, theology, by the use of sanctified human reason, reflects on the whole counsel of God as it seeks to “make sense” and understand the teaching of Scripture in a coherent, consistent manner. But to do so, we not only need sound exegesis but also a sound theology otherwise, our putting together the pieces of Scripture will often end in error. In this way, our theology allows us to interpret individual texts better because we have a framework to understand what these texts mean in light of the entirety of God’s revelation, along with the theological reflection of the church. Let me offer a few examples from Christology to illustrate my point.

Scripture teaches that Jesus is the eternal Son/Word (John 1:1) who has assumed a human nature (John 1:14). But what exactly is a human nature? And should we think of the incarnation as a kind of blend of deity and humanity in Christ? In the early church, the heresy of Apollinarianism argued that the Son assumed a human nature without a human soul, while the heresy of Monophysitism argued that incarnation resulted in a third, blended nature, that is, a kind of divine-human hybrid. The Chalcedonian Definition rightly rejected these views given that a human nature consists of a body and a soul, and that the Creator-creature distinction does not allow for a divine-human hybrid. The theology of Chalcedon was warranted by Scripture, but it also helps us properly interpret what it means that the “Word became flesh” (John 1:14). A correct interpretation of this text is that John is using “flesh” to mean a full human nature and that a complete human nature is a body-soul composite. We cannot interpret “flesh” as merely a human body without a human soul. Here is an example of how our correct interpretation of John’s Gospel is helped by and made more faithful in light of the sound theology of Chalcedon.

Or think of a second example. How should we interpret Jesus’s statement that he does not know the exact time of the end but only his Father knows (Matt 24:36)? The Arians in the early church wrongly interpreted this statement to mean that Jesus is not the divine Son but only a human. The problem with this interpretation is that it contradicts all the texts, along with Jesus’s own self-identity, that Jesus is the divine Son and thus equal with the Father as Yahweh (John 1:1, 18; 8:58; 20:28; Phil 2:6; Col 1:15-17; Heb 1:1-3).

Or the ontological kenoticists wrongly interpreted Jesus’s statement to mean that as a result of the incarnation, the divine Son “set aside” his omniscience (along with his omnipresence and omnipotence!). But this, too, is incorrect. Why? Not only because it contradicts Scripture but also a sound theology of the doctrine of God as taught by the Nicene Creed helps us see why such an interpretation is impossible. As the church reflected on Scripture, she rightly concluded that a correct understanding of God’s nature means that all of his attributes are essential to him. This truth was underscored by noting that God is one, both in terms of singularity and simplicity. In other words, God alone is God and there is no other (i.e., singularity), and God is not composed of parts: God is his attributes (i.e., simplicity). By contrast, the kenotic view denies God’s simplicity. They argue that some of God’s attributes are essential to him while other attributes are accidental, meaning that they can be set aside. This is why kenoticists argue that the divine Son in the incarnation was able to “set aside” his divine omniscience and still be God. The problem with this understanding of God’s nature and attributes is that it is not true to Scripture and the creedal confession of the church. In other words, our theology helps eliminate some interpretative options, which in turn encourages the church to find a better explanation of how to explain such texts.

In terms of a better explanation, the church argued that Jesus’s statement of not knowing the end was best explained as the Son’s knowing and acting as a human. After all, as a result of the incarnation, the Son subsists in and acts through two natures without violating the integrity of either nature. Again, this illustrates how our theology, warranted by Scripture, also helps us interpret biblical texts and “make sense” of them as we seek to account for all the biblical teaching regarding Jesus as God the Son incarnate. A sound and faithful theology of Christ allows us to read Scripture in a more careful, faithful, and consistent way while also “putting together” all the teaching of Scripture so that nothing is left out or distorted.

One last example. How do we reconcile biblical texts that focus on Christ’s deity and his humanity, which seemingly result in a contradiction? When Jesus stands before the religious leaders and proclaims that he is “I AM” (John 8:58), he is claiming that he is Yahweh, which is a claim of deity. Yet the one who identifies himself as Yahweh is also born and grows in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52). How do we make sense of this? Scripture teaches both truths and sets them side-by-side. This is where a sound theology helps. As the church reflected on these truths, they made a number of theological points. First, they affirmed that in the incarnation, the divine Son now has two natures and acts in both natures simultaneously. Second, they affirmed the communicatio idiomatum, which means that what is true of Christ’s natures is also true of him as the person of the Son. Thus, when Jesus says that he is God and human simultaneously, he is not saying something contradictory; instead, he is defining the different respects that he is God and human. As God, he is Yahweh, eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient. As human, the same he, that is, the person of the Son, is born, grows, gets tired, learns, etc. Both of these statements can be applied to the one Son because he is, in the language of Chalcedon, “one person in two natures.”

These three examples from Christology illustrate how our systematic theology about Christ helps us “make sense” of Scripture so that all the biblical teaching is accounted for, and nothing is left out. By contrast, what happens with false teaching is that one set of biblical texts is taught at the expense of other texts. But a sound theology, especially in the area of the doctrinal confession of the early church, helps us not pick and choose but to hold together in a coherent fashion the whole counsel of God.

Do we need theology to help us read Scripture more faithfully? Yes! Scripture is the ultimate warrant and authority for our theology, and as our theology is correctly formulated, it also allows us to read Scripture with greater precision and accuracy and to avoid theological mistakes. In the end, this reminds us that our greatest need is to be faithful Bible readers who read Scripture theologically so as to grow in our knowledge of our great and glorious triune God and to be those who faithfully proclaim Christ so that the church is grounded in the truth and not tossed back and forth by every wind of doctrine.