In Acts 8:30, Philip the evangelist came across a man reading the Book of Isaiah, and asked him, "Do you understand what you are reading?"  Two activi­ties are in view in the ques­tion - the activity of reading and then of understanding.

The reading of the Scriptures is brought be­fore us in Section 8 of Chap­ter 1, which has reminded us of the need to secure a robust, faithful translation of the Bible. Section 9 deals with how the Bible is to be interpreted, so that its meaning will be clarified to the reader. The Confession has already established the need for "the inward illumination of the Spirit of God ... for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word". At Luke 24:32, the Emmaus disciples realised how Christ had 'opened' the Scriptures, since in the previous verse he 'opened' their eyes. In the former work, as Spurgeon comments, He has many helpers; in the latter, He stands alone.

The possession of the truth is a miracle based on a chain of miracles - inspiration, leading to preservation, then to translation, and now to interpretation. It is possible to under­stand what we read.

A general rule is laid down by the Con­fession at this point, which is then broken down into three particulars. The general statement is that the infallible rule of the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. The old Roman doctrine had been that the church was indispensable for the uncovering of the meaning of the Bible. The Reformed doctrine was that the Bible not only conveyed doctrines within its pages, but also the meaning of these doctrines; it means what it says, and it explains what it says.

The sadness experienced on the Emmaus Road was a direct consequence of bad hermeneutics. By interpreting the Old Testa­ment prophecies in the light of their experiences and disappointments, they concluded that Jesus was not the Messiah. But Jesus opened the Scriptures for them, expounding, from Moses and the prophets, the things concerning Himself. The best teacher, with the best textbook, unfolded the best subject before their view. Ignorance of "all that the prophets had spoken" lay behind their despair.

The psalmist said "in thy light we shall see light" (Psalm 36:9), and only by coming back to the light of truth could the Emmaus disciples see light. Our interpretation of the Bible must be done in its own light, and not in the light of our traditions or feelings.

This all-important rule is fleshed out in three important principles.

First, the sense of Scripture is one. This was not always the view in the church. Some of the early fathers spoke of Scripture having a four-fold sense: a literal sense (the bare state­ment); an allegorical sense (with an alleged second meaning); a moral sense (requiring an ethical interpretation); and an anagogical sense (with a higher, spiritual meaning). With this approach, theologians and preachers could make the Bible mean virtually anything (an approach not completely extinct).

The Bible, to be sure, does contain alle­gory and symbolism. But a God of truth, the Reformers argued, does not speak with a double tongue. "I do not love strained meanings", wrote Calvin in his Commentary on Hosea. Melanchthon urged that "Scripture cannot be understood theologically unless it has first been understood grammatically". Which leads Patrick Fairbairn to say in his Hermeneutical Manual that "Nothing should be elicited from the text but what is yielded by the fair and grammatical explanation of the language" (p.67). The state­ments of Scripture can never have more than one meaning.

Second, the true sense of Scripture is full. Notwithstanding what has just been averred (or perhaps because of it), the statements of Scrip­ture may be applied in several different ways. The tabernacle, for example, had a clearly de­fined function in the Old Testament, but spoke of a coming atonement in the person of Christ. There is no need to twist the text to find Christ in the tabernacle - He is there already.

It is the same with all Old Testament typology. The realities of the Gospel, says Fairbairn, were "the ultimate objects which were contemplated by the mind of God, when planning the economy of His successive dispensations... He placed the church under a course of training, which included instruction by types, or designed and fitting resemblances of what was to come" (The Typology of Scripture, Vol. 1, p.69). The same elements of Gospel truth are in the Old Testament as in the New, only in a form more suited to the understanding of men at that time. The full sense of Scripture requires us to handle with care "the bond that holds type and antitype together" (G. Vos Biblical Theol­ogy, p.162).

Thirdly, use must be made of parallel passages, interpreting difficult passages in the light of clearer ones. The principal subjects made known to us in Scripture, says Cunningham, are "scattered over its pages... We know fully the mind and will of God upon any particular topic, either of doctrine or duty, only when we have examined and investigated the meaning of all the different portions of his word that bear upon it" (Theological Lectures, p.595).