The PEN Hermeneutic: Letting Scripture Eliminate What Scripture Cannot Mean

Part 2 of a three-part series on the PEN Hermeneutic.

We have an explanation for a passage that seems to fit. Now what?

The first part of this PEN series ended by asking what Scripture has actually ruled out and what it requires us to conclude. Here we need to do the work between those two questions: the work of Elimination—the middle movement of PEN.

That work may change our answer. A passage we expected to support us may not apply. Another may rule out the interpretation we brought to the study. Still another may establish only part of what we wanted to prove. Are we willing to let each passage do that?

Scripture Interprets Scripture remains the governing principle. PEN describes the process within it; it supplies no authority of its own. The Questions grouped under the PEN Hermeneutic theme give us examples to examine. The point is not to borrow their answers. It is to follow the Scripture and see what warrants each conclusion.

Consider the Question about “believing children” in Titus 1:6. Paul describes an elder’s children as believers, not open to charges of debauchery or insubordination (Titus 1:5-9).¹ Does “believing” require that they are baptized Christians, or is Paul describing children faithful and submissive within the household?

Those are proposed readings. Naming them does not make them equally well supported, and it does not settle the question. We need to distinguish the words Paul supplied from the conclusion we supplied.

Suppose our first argument is, “They are called believers; therefore they must be Christians.” Paul tells Agrippa that he believes the prophets, yet the conversation still distinguishes that belief from becoming a Christian (Acts 26:27-29).² That eliminates the claim that believing, by itself, always establishes Christian identity. It does not, by itself, establish what “believing” means in Titus.

So we return to Titus. What accompanies the word? The children’s conduct and submission. What does Paul say when addressing the same qualification elsewhere? In 1 Timothy 3:1-7, he connects submissive children and household management with a man’s ability to care for God’s church.³ This is a relevant parallel because the writer, office, and household qualification are the same—not merely because both passages mention children.

That comparison supplies positive grounds for the SIS Question’s reading of faithfulness within the household. Notice the progression: the initial verbal shortcut fails; Titus’s immediate context remains; Paul’s parallel instruction helps explain the requirement. Agrippa does not settle an elder’s qualification. Paul must explain Paul.

This is the work reflected in a Scripture Block: what is written, what it says, and its context. Read those before deciding how the passage applies. An application is something we must establish, not something we may quietly insert into our restatement of the verse.

Revelation 20:5-6 says that those sharing in the first resurrection will reign with Christ for a thousand years.⁴ Does the number itself require a literal period of exactly 1,000 years?

Before answering, consider the passages brought together in the SIS Question about a literal one thousand year reign. In Psalm 50:10, God claims every beast of the forest and the cattle on a thousand hills.⁵ Is His ownership limited to those hills? The opening statement already rules out that restriction. “A thousand” expresses the breadth of His ownership; it does not leave the cattle on hill 1,001 belonging to someone else.

In 1 Chronicles 16:15, the people are told to remember His covenant “forever,” the word He commanded, “for a thousand generations.”⁶ The wording places the number alongside “forever.” We should not turn it into an expiration date.

What have those passages established? Scripture uses “a thousand” without making it an exact numerical limit. Consequently, “the verse gives a number” is not enough to prove that Revelation requires a literal count of years. That argument has been eliminated. The final interpretation of Revelation 20 has not thereby been established.

We would make the same mistake in reverse if we said, “It is figurative in Psalms, so it must be figurative here.” The other passages show a use Scripture permits. Revelation’s own words and context still have to establish how John is using it.

Return, then, to the passage. What is being described? Who shares in this resurrection? What does John say about the second death, priesthood, and reigning with Christ? How does the passage fit the surrounding vision? The Extended Context for Revelation helps keep that setting in view. We cannot extract the number and leave the rest of the account behind.

Genre matters because a vision communicates through images. That is a reason to examine how Scripture explains those images, not permission to assign them any meaning we like. Nor does calling a book symbolic prove that every number in it is symbolic. Each claim still needs its own evidence.

A passage can close a false trail without identifying the destination.

Both examples require more than finding another passage with the same word. The comparison must bear on the claim. Agrippa tests what belief alone establishes; Timothy addresses the same household qualification; the uses of “a thousand” test whether the number always imposes a numerical limit.

As Part 1 explained, SIS calls the practice of setting Scripture aside Scripture weighting. We may favor one writer, one testament, or a doctrine we have already accepted. The result is the same: some of God’s word is no longer permitted to correct us.

Beginning with an explicit statement does not give that Scripture greater authority than a difficult passage. It gives us something definite that our interpretation of the difficult passage must accommodate. We are testing an uncertain reading, not disqualifying the passage itself.

The test works both ways. If our supposedly settled explanation makes another passage impossible to account for, we need to examine that explanation too. Calling our starting point “clear” does not put our understanding beyond correction.

Nor can we harmonize passages by changing the subject of one until it no longer challenges us. Read the surrounding argument. Identify who is speaking, whom he addresses, and what question he is answering. As the Editorial on context in Bible study explains, sometimes that requires the whole book. A shared word is a reason to investigate a connection, not proof that the connection applies.

The whole counsel of Scripture includes the passage we would rather not answer. Harmonization means letting it constrain our conclusion, not gathering enough agreeable verses to drown it out.

Sometimes Scripture does more than constrain our options. It supplies a connection we would have no authority to invent.

The Question “Can we interpret Bible prophecy?” uses Hosea 11:1: God loved Israel and called His son out of Egypt.⁷ In the immediate context, Hosea recounts God’s care for His people and their subsequent rebellion. Reading that history alone, we would not be authorized to announce that it must describe an event in Jesus’ childhood.

Yet Matthew 2:13-15 expressly connects those words with Jesus and the family’s stay in Egypt. We do not have to manufacture the connection or leave it merely possible. Matthew gives it to us. A reading that excludes this application cannot accommodate what Matthew wrote.

That does not mean every neighboring statement in Hosea now describes Jesus. The next verse speaks of idolatry. Matthew’s application of the cited words does not authorize us to carry that rebellion over to Christ. We accept the connection Scripture makes and preserve the distinction Scripture requires.

There is a practical difference between following an inspired explanation and noticing a resemblance. Similar language may suggest a possibility worth studying. It does not give our suggested fulfillment the authority of Matthew’s statement. Where Scripture has not supplied the necessary connection, “it sounds like” must not become “God says it is.”

After those comparisons, we should be able to say what changed. Which possibility was eliminated? Which passage eliminated it? What remains?

Agrippa’s belief defeats a shortcut; it does not independently decide Titus’s qualification. Figurative uses of “a thousand” defeat the claim that the number alone demands literal years; they do not settle John’s vision. Matthew, by contrast, expressly establishes the application to Jesus. We have no need to leave that connection merely possible.

These are different results. All represent progress in understanding. None permits us to report more certainty than we have established.

Suppose two readings remain consistent with the words, context, and relevant passages we have examined. We may have reasons to favor one. But if we cannot show why Scripture rules the other out, we have not shown that our choice is necessary. The next step is further study, or an acknowledgment of the limit—not a stronger assertion.

That does not require entertaining every fanciful suggestion. A legitimate possibility must account for the text. But we must give competing readings a fair hearing rather than defining them away to protect our answer. And merely surviving the tests we thought to apply does not establish that we have considered all the relevant evidence.

We should say precisely what we have learned. “This passage might mean that” identifies a possibility (“P”). “It cannot mean that” requires us to show what Scripture rules out (“E”). “It must mean this” requires evidence that leaves no viable alternative (“N”). The last statement carries a burden the first does not.

These examples are enough to demonstrate the process, but they are hardly the only places where it matters. Consider a few other SIS studies and ask what Scripture actually permits—and requires—us to conclude.

• Once saved, always saved — What does “not a result of works” in Ephesians 2:8–10⁸ establish about salvation when verse 10 and other passages about faith, obedience, and perseverance are read alongside it?
• AD 70 and “at hand” — Does “at hand” in 1 Peter 4:7⁹ require an AD 70 fulfillment when tested against what Scripture says about Christ’s coming, resurrection, and judgment?
• The indwelling of the Holy Spirit — Which statements about what the Spirit does or gives require a literal, personal indwelling, and which conclusions remain inferences we still need to test?

Begin with a claim precise enough to test. Read the passage’s argument before collecting cross-references. Then ask what else Scripture says that claim must accommodate. Seek the passage that might correct you, not just the next one you can cite in support.

Keep returning to the original text. Does the explanation account for its words, its setting, and the other relevant passages? If it fails, revise it. If Scripture leaves the question open, leave it open.

This requires a sincere heart, prayer, and a willingness to be corrected. PEN cannot supply those for us. It can help expose when we have stopped listening to Scripture and started defending our conclusion.

Before saying, “Therefore it means this,” ask: What has Scripture eliminated, what remains, and what am I actually entitled to conclude?

But one question remains. When does a conclusion that survives this process become a necessary inference carrying biblical authority? That is where CENI—Command, Example, and Necessary Inference—fits. PEN does not replace it; PEN helps us determine whether an inference we call necessary actually is.

That final movement—from an interpretation Scripture permits to a conclusion Scripture requires—is the subject of Part 3: From PEN to Necessary Inference: Where CENI Fits.