From “Might Mean” to “Must Mean”: Why Bible Interpretation Needs a Process

Part 1 of a three-part series on the PEN Hermeneutic.

“This passage might mean that.”

That is often where Bible study begins. The problem comes when “might mean” quietly becomes “must mean.”

What happened between the two?

That is a question worth asking in any Bible study. We read a passage, see a possible explanation, and find that it fits what we already believe. Before long, we are teaching that explanation as though God has ruled out every other possibility. Yet we may never have asked the rest of Scripture to test it.

The problem is not that we formed a possibility. Bible study often begins there. The problem is that we promoted it to a conclusion before doing the reading and study necessary to establish it. Finding something a passage can mean is not the same as showing what it must mean when taken together with everything else God has said. And when we require others to accept our explanation, the difference matters.

Take “Who is the Antichrist?” The term is commonly associated with a single, future figure in Revelation—but does John use it that way? In his other epistle, John says that “many antichrists have [already] come” (1 John 2:18).¹ He also identifies the antichrist as anyone denying the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22).² A definition confined to a single, future individual cannot accommodate those statements. That conclusion is required by John’s words. But ruling out that definition does not identify every figure in Revelation. We have established something definite without establishing everything.

PEN insists that we cannot move from what Scripture might mean to what it must mean without first allowing Scripture to eliminate what it cannot mean: Possibility → Elimination → Necessity.

Paul tells the Ephesians that by reading they can understand his insight into what God has revealed (Ephesians 3:4-5).³ He directs Timothy to Scripture for teaching, correction, and preparation for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).⁴ God has supplied words we can understand—and words that can correct us.

That is why “What is required to understand the Bible?” points to Scripture, reading, prayer, and a diligent, open, seeking heart. Difficulty does not make understanding impossible. Neither does confidence excuse us from careful study.

“The sum of your word is truth,” says the psalmist (Psalms 119:160).⁵ If we accept one passage while setting aside another, we have not dealt honestly with that sum. A Bible student can be sincere, thoughtful, and mistaken. The question is whether we will allow the rest of God’s word to correct our reading.

PEN was not a method that was just invented one day. It grew out of the way this site—and the Bible study process behind it—developed over roughly a decade. That development also owes something important to Charlie Brackett and his book Bible Study for Joy and Profit.

Charlie taught what he called a “Three Questions Technique”: *What does it say? What does it mean? What should I do?*That basic discipline became the starting point for what later became the Bible Study Framework. For the purposes of SIS and answering Bible questions, the questions were adapted somewhat: What is written? What does it say? What is the context? Those questions eventually became the structure of the Scripture Blocks used throughout SIS.

He also connected his Bible study approach directly to Jesus’ exchange with the lawyer in Luke 10:25-28. Jesus asked, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” As Charlie observed, “God’s Word is infallible; a man’s understanding is fraught with the possibility of error.” The lawyer brought together separate passages from the Law, reached a conclusion, and Jesus affirmed that he had answered correctly. The distinction is important: God’s revelation was certain; the lawyer’s reading of it still had to be correct.

As more Questions were built from more Scripture Blocks, another principle became increasingly important. No passage stands alone. An explanation that seems reasonable in one verse still has to fit what God has said everywhere else that bears on the subject. That became the governing principle expressed in the name Scripture Interprets Scripture.

But applying that principle repeatedly exposed a pattern in the actual work of interpretation. We begin with what a passage might mean. Other Scripture can then show us what it can’t mean. And, after the alternatives have been tested and eliminated, Scripture establishes what it must mean.

For years, Might / Can’t / Must was the simplest way to describe that movement. Possibility / Elimination / Necessity—PEN gives the same process a more precise name.

So PEN is not a replacement for the Bible Study Framework or for Scripture Interprets Scripture. It grows out of both. The Framework disciplines us to examine what is actually written. Scripture Interprets Scripture tells us that the whole of God’s Word must govern our interpretation. PEN describes the process of moving from a possible interpretation, through Scriptural testing and elimination, toward whatever conclusion the evidence actually requires.

Scripture Interprets Scripture is the governing principle. PEN is the interpretive process. Neither phrase has authority of its own. Their usefulness depends entirely on whether they keep sending us back to what God has actually said.

At a trailhead, a promising path is a possibility, not proof that we have found the destination. Scripture is our map. It closes false trails and directs us toward a conclusion—but closing one trail does not mean only one remains.

Another analogy is a puzzle. God’s Word is the completed picture, and each passage is one piece. A piece may seem to fit—even closely enough that we can force it into place—but as more of the puzzle comes together, the larger pattern can expose that it never belonged there. Paul tells Timothy to “follow the pattern of the sound words” he had received (2 Timothy 1:13–14).⁶ PEN guards against declaring must mean too early: possibilities remain possible until the rest of Scripture eliminates what cannot fit and the larger pattern requires what remains.

The temptation is to skip that testing. “I can read it this way” quietly becomes “This is what it means.” Then any passage that challenges the interpretation is treated as a problem to explain away. We are defending our first impression instead of allowing God to correct it.

We call attention to this danger in “What is Scripture weighting?” We may privilege a particular writer or “red letters“, favor one testament, or protect a doctrine we have already accepted. In each case, some of God’s word is prevented from doing its work in our conclusion.

Consider the Question about original sin. David’s statement about being brought forth in iniquity (Psalms 51:5)⁷ is used to argue that guilt is inherited. But Ezekiel explicitly denies that a son bears his father’s iniquity (Ezekiel 18:20).⁸ We cannot make David teach inherited guilt while leaving Ezekiel unanswered. The Question brings those passages together and returns to David’s confession of his own sin. The proposed interpretation has to answer to both passages, not just the one that first suggested it.

Possibility asks what a passage might mean. We begin with its actual words and context: a “Scripture-Block”. We distinguish what it says from what we have supplied.

Elimination asks which proposed meanings Scripture rules out. A reading that cannot be reconciled with God’s word cannot become true merely because it fits one verse in isolation.

Necessity asks what conclusion Scripture compels after that testing. Our preferred explanation, the most familiar explanation, and the only explanation we have thought of are not automatically the necessary explanation.

Eliminating one possibility does not itself establish Necessity. John rules out an exclusively future, single-person definition of antichrist. That does not permit us to declare our preferred identification of Revelation’s beast necessary. That is another claim, and it needs its own Scriptural demonstration. Necessity is reached only when the relevant Scripture leaves no viable alternative and therefore requires the conclusion.

PEN is the interpretive path from possibility, through elimination of false trails, to necessary conclusions compelled by the whole counsel of God.

Paul told the Ephesian elders that he had not withheld God’s whole counsel from them (Acts 20:26-27). We should take the same care not to select only the portions that favor our answer.

Then more than one possibility remains.

“Did Priscilla teach Apollos?” shows why that matters. Acts 18:26 says that Priscilla and Aquila explained the way of God to him more accurately.⁹ They taught him together. But was she more knowledgeable than her husband? Did she contribute more to the explanation, or less? The account does not tell us, and the SIS Question explicitly leaves those possibilities open. The fact that she participated does not establish how much she contributed. Neither may we turn a possible supporting role into a required conclusion that she only supported him.

Paul warns the Corinthians against going beyond what is written as he confronts their pride and divisions (1 Corinthians 4:6-7).¹⁰ We should be equally careful about making our explanation carry authority the written account has not given it.

PEN does not promise that every question will reach Necessity. We may have eliminated several wrong explanations and still lack Scriptural grounds for choosing between the remaining ones. In that case, we should say so. Calling something necessary does not make the missing evidence appear.

That is humility about our understanding, not doubt about God’s word. Scripture is sufficient; our examination of it may be incomplete. We should neither weaken a conclusion Scripture establishes nor strengthen a conclusion beyond what Scripture supports.

Nor does the process make us infallible. If we have overlooked a relevant passage, misunderstood its context, or dismissed an alternative without adequate reason, our claimed necessity needs correction. The framework must remain subject to Scripture just as the interpreter does.

Part 2, “The PEN Hermeneutic: Letting Scripture Eliminate What Scripture Cannot Mean,” takes up the practical work of Elimination: identifying possibilities, testing them through context and other Scripture, and learning what it means for Scripture actually to rule an interpretation out. Just as importantly, it shows why eliminating one possibility does not automatically establish another.

Part 3, “From PEN to Necessary Inference: Where CENI Fits,” takes up the final movement toward Necessity. CENI—Command, Example, and Necessary Inference—recognizes that Scripture can communicate binding truth not only through express commands, but also through approved examples and conclusions that necessarily follow from what God has revealed. The practical difficulty is knowing when an inference is truly necessary rather than merely possible or preferred. PEN helps fill that gap by testing the inference before we give it the weight of biblical necessity.

PEN does not replace CENI. It helps discipline the path toward its Necessary Inference: PEN is not a method for making more necessary inferences. It is a method for preventing possible inferences from being mislabeled as necessary ones.

When we say, “This passage might mean X,” we have begun an inquiry. When we say, “Taken together, Scripture requires X,” we are making a much stronger claim.

What has Scripture actually ruled out—and what does it require us to conclude?