Applying the Bible after the Manner of the Bible

In my previous article, I explained that the nature and teaching of the Bible calls for its application to our present circumstances. This article will, I trust, uncover examples in Scripture that model direct application in preaching. “Direct application” refers to going beyond the explicit statement of the biblical text and discovering relevance for the lives of modern readers and hearers.

A handful of examples from Scripture will suffice to establish that preachers are justified in making, and even required to make direct application. First, Old Testament prophets made direct, specific, and practical applications to God’s people (for example, Isa. 1:15–17; Jer. 7:3–10; Amos 2:4–12; Zech. 7:9–10).

Second, when the exiles returned from Babylon, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Levites detailed specific ways the people should respond to the teaching of God’s Word (Neh. 8:8–10).¹

Turning to our supreme example, Jesus himself made direct application to those under His teaching. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus states a general principle (Matt. 5:20—“unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven”) before elaborating on what that would look like in day to day life—arenas of life such as speech, purity, marriage, interpersonal relationships, the spiritual disciplines, worries, hypocrisy, evangelism, prayer, and assurance of salvation.² Jesus refused to content Himself with teaching general life principles void of practical application. The Lord’s words to the churches in Asia Minor also overflow with direct application (Rev. 2–3). He tailors His application to each church based on its particular situation.

Jesus further underscores the importance of application in His dealings with the teachers of His day. In His dispute with the Pharisees over His disciples picking grain on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1–8), He scolds these hypocritical teachers for failing to apply the timeless truth taught in 1 Samuel 12:1–6. Undoubtedly, the Pharisees had read this passage, yet they had failed to apply its principle to new situations because their traditions were more important to them than a discerning application of biblical principles.

“[Jesus’ statement, ‘If you had known’] implies that the Pharisees’ failure to apply Hosea 6:6 indicates that they do not truly understand the verse. Proper application of Scripture is what proves that one properly understands Scripture. So Jesus’ controversy with the Pharisees is not over whether to apply Scripture but over how to apply it.”³

The twenty-first century is even further removed from David’s day and will require a different application than the one Pharisees needed to make.

When a teacher cannot (or will not) apply a timeless truth of Scripture to new situations, his understanding of the passage is called into question. John Frame asserts that “a person does not understand Scripture unless he can apply it to new situations, to situations not envisaged in the original text.” One example he cites is Jesus’ rebuke of the Sadducees in Matt. 22:29.⁴ Frame might overstate his case, but he grounds his concern in reality. Jesus’ indictment of the Sadducees appears to confirm Frame’s basic assertion. The ability to apply a text reveals the depth of an expositor’s understanding of God’s intentions for the passage.

Moving on to the preaching of the early church, note how the early Church’s evangelistic sermons called for specific responses to biblical truths. (Acts 2:37; 7:51). Murray Capill says, “Luke is at pains to show that preaching, by its very nature, is designed to elicit a response—very often a dramatic one.”⁵ True expository preaching, whether to evangelize or to make disciples, labors to secure the proper response(s) from the hearer.

Summary of the Case for Biblical Application

The nature of Scripture as a paradigmatic book, the biblical teaching on the importance of application, and the biblical examples of applicatory preaching all underscore the mandate for direct application by expositors. As the Word guides the modern believer in how to face contemporary issues, its unfolding gives light (Ps. 119:130) and guidance in specific situations through its implications.

Some pastors dismiss application as legalistic and champion “Scripture alone.” Certainly no God-fearing pastor wants to add to Scripture. However, no pastor, whether separatist or broadly evangelical, preaches only the explicit statements of Scripture. Every pastor makes application in some way, whether he is cognizant of it or not.⁶ While every Bible-teaching pastor must embrace the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, a high view of Scripture’s sufficiency and the need for application-filled preaching are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they go hand in hand. Even though the Bible does not directly interact with many situations a modern believer encounters, Scripture is still sufficient because of its paradigmatic nature. Applying the Bible to new situations actually unleashes its sufficiency. Casillas spotlights the importance of this overlooked fact by noting that “application is the only way the Bible can be sufficient for our lives. This is because of a basic challenge that prompted [my] book: Scripture does not deal explicitly with many of the questions we face.”⁷

Granted, invalid applications can arise if a pastor’s exegesis of the text is faulty or if his understanding of the modern cultural issue is lacking. In these cases, his applications are not obligatory for the congregation. I plan to address in a later article some checks and balances when making applications since invalid applications are a genuine concern. But when the application suggested by the pastor is consistent with the timeless truth of the biblical text and demonstrates an accurate understanding of the issue in its contemporary setting, then the application is binding on God’s people in that culture. Does that sound extreme? John Frame writes, “unless applications are as authoritative as the explicit teachings of Scripture … then scriptural authority becomes a dead letter. To be sure, we are fallible in determining the proper applications; but we are also fallible in translating, exegeting, and understanding the explicit statements of Scripture.”⁸

Genuine application must have authority, otherwise, how could Scripture be sufficient for everything pertaining to life and godliness?

Michael Miller is the pastor of Foundation Baptist Church in Calgary, Alberta. He published a form of this article in The Whetstone, the newsletter of the Western Canada Baptist Fellowship. We republish an edited version here by permission.

1. See Daniel Overdorf, Applying the Sermon: How to Balance Biblical Integrity and Cultural Relevance (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009), 42. [↩]
2. See Overdorf, 67. [↩]
3. Ken Casillas, Beyond Chapter and Verse: The Theology and Practice of Application (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2018), 111. [↩]
4. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 84. [↩]
5. Murray Capill, The Heart is the Target: Preaching Practical Application from Every Text (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2014), 36. [↩]
6. For instance, pastors who use a rock band in their worship services have made an application, at least indirectly—this music is appropriate for Christians. They might protest, “I never bind my congregation’s conscience to my standards,” yet they are suggesting (at least indirectly) how they believe the congregation should or should not apply the Bible’s teaching on music and worldliness. [↩]
7. Casillas, 152. [↩]
8. Frame, 84. [↩]