Interpreting Scripture

[StephenMartyr]

I'm sure this is not an old topic but it's something that has bothered me a bit today coming back from church.

I'm slowly going through Sproul's Knowing Scripture cd series and the talk I listened to was the "Literal Interpretation" session. To make a long story short, he didn't seem to like the idea of a "Spiritual Interpretation" of the Word. He favoured the Grammatico-Historical method -- the Literal interpretation.

I get his point and know that lots of scripture can be and should be interpreted literally. But didn't Paul talk about the OT some times in the Spiritual sense?

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Even Israel coming out of Egypt. Isn't that showing / picturing us coming out of the world / being delivered?

If we take all of scripture literally, then there is no room for anything spiritual. Israel coming out of Egypt only means just that: Israel, by God's grace and Mighty Hand, was brought out of Egypt.

I understand one can go too far and Spiritualize everything (like Sproul brought up in that session) but the Grammatico-Historial method like he explained it...it didn't feel right. What are people's thoughts on this?

 

[py3ak]

Louis Berkhof is quite right (Principles of Biblical Interpretation, 133) that to the grammatical and historical must be added the theological. The Bible is God's book, and God built types and shadows into the history and institutions of the OT.

 

[StephenMartyr]

Louis Berkhof is quite right (Principles of Biblical Interpretation, 133) that to the grammatical and historical must be added the theological. The Bible is God's book, and God built types and shadows into the history and institutions of the OT.

A good book to read?

 

[py3ak]

Yes, it's a very clear and sober book that addresses the basics of interpretation.

 

[StephenMartyr]

Yes, it's a very clear and sober book that addresses the basics of interpretation.

Thanks, I'll take a look!

 

[Ed Walsh]

I'm slowly going through Sproul's Knowing Scripture cd series and the talk I listened to was the "Literal Interpretation" session. To make a long story short, he didn't seem to like the idea of a "Spiritual Interpretation" of the Word. He favoured the Grammatico-Historical method -- the Literal interpretation

Try a purely "Grammatico-Historical method" with the Song of Solomon or the last eight chapters of Ezekiel. Some moderns have tried, and I think failed. The Song probably has a real historical setting, but to conclude that it is solely about marriage between a man and women would present a really weird relationship.

Romans 15:4 KJV
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

1 Corinthians 10:1‭-‬11 KJV
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.​

 

[Dachaser]

I'm sure this is not an old topic but it's something that has bothered me a bit today coming back from church.

I'm slowly going through Sproul's Knowing Scripture cd series and the talk I listened to was the "Literal Interpretation" session. To make a long story short, he didn't seem to like the idea of a "Spiritual Interpretation" of the Word. He favoured the Grammatico-Historical method -- the Literal interpretation.

I get his point and know that lots of scripture can be and should be interpreted literally. But didn't Paul talk about the OT some times in the Spiritual sense?

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Even Israel coming out of Egypt. Isn't that showing / picturing us coming out of the world / being delivered?

If we take all of scripture literally, then there is no room for anything spiritual. Israel coming out of Egypt only means just that: Israel, by God's grace and Mighty Hand, was brought out of Egypt.

I understand one can go too far and Spiritualize everything (like Sproul brought up in that session) but the Grammatico-Historial method like he explained it...it didn't feel right. What are people's thoughts on this?

We also must take into account the genre of the scripture also, as rules to understand prophecy different from Jesus use of His parable sayings when He compared things.

 

[Scott Bushey]

that to the grammatical and historical must be added the theological

Amen.

 

[StephenMartyr]

Louis Berkhof is quite right (Principles of Biblical Interpretation, 133) that to the grammatical and historical must be added the theological. The Bible is God's book, and God built types and shadows into the history and institutions of the OT.

Good point. Maybe theological is a better word than spiritual?

 

[greenbaggins]

I think you may not quite be understanding Sproul. Sproul does not advocate the "literal-at-all-costs" method of interpretation. Sproul would mean "literary" by the term "literal." Furthermore, the definition of "spiritual" is a very important point here. Sproul rejects, in normal practice, the allegorical method of interpretation, which appends the actual meaning of the text to something rooted in mid-air, as it were, with no basis for determining which allegorical interpretation is correct. Sproul rejects this, which is NOT to say that he rejects a typological, or sensus plenior interpretation. He doesn't.

As for sound hermeneutical method, the nature of the passage will determine the reading strategy we should use. Is the passage historical in nature? That is, does it describe events that happened? Then a literal interpretation will be appropriate, as long as such an approach also takes into account the developing organic, unfolding nature of the history of Scripture.

Is the passage poetical? Symbols and suggestiveness rule the day in poetry (not to mention an even more terse form of expression than narrative). Is the passage apocalyptic? Then expect something similar to political cartoons. This is where people get into most trouble. They want to interpret Revelation as if it had the same rules of interpretation as historical narrative. It doesn't. Revelation 1:1, for instance, uses the word "semaino" to describe what God is giving John. This word means, according to G.K. Beale, to show by means of signs and symbols. Beale then argues, correctly in my opinion, that Revelation should therefore be interpreted in a non-literal fashion as the default, not a literal. The symbols and imagery all come from the Old Testament. Once that is realized, it will be easy to control the interpretation from going off the rails into pure fancy.

 

[Dachaser]

I think you may not quite be understanding Sproul. Sproul does not advocate the "literal-at-all-costs" method of interpretation. Sproul would mean "literary" by the term "literal." Furthermore, the definition of "spiritual" is a very important point here. Sproul rejects, in normal practice, the allegorical method of interpretation, which appends the actual meaning of the text to something rooted in mid-air, as it were, with no basis for determining which allegorical interpretation is correct. Sproul rejects this, which is NOT to say that he rejects a typological, or sensus plenior interpretation. He doesn't.

As for sound hermeneutical method, the nature of the passage will determine the reading strategy we should use. Is the passage historical in nature? That is, does it describe events that happened? Then a literal interpretation will be appropriate, as long as such an approach also takes into account the developing organic, unfolding nature of the history of Scripture.

Is the passage poetical? Symbols and suggestiveness rule the day in poetry (not to mention an even more terse form of expression than narrative). Is the passage apocalyptic? Then expect something similar to political cartoons. This is where people get into most trouble. They want to interpret Revelation as if it had the same rules of interpretation as historical narrative. It doesn't. Revelation 1:1, for instance, uses the word "semaino" to describe what God is giving John. This word means, according to G.K. Beale, to show by means of signs and symbols. Beale then argues, correctly in my opinion, that Revelation should therefore be interpreted in a non-literal fashion as the default, not a literal. The symbols and imagery all come from the Old Testament. Once that is realized, it will be easy to control the interpretation from going off the rails into pure fancy.

I think Dr Sproul was rejecting taking the scriptures and trying to spiritual assign some hidden meaning to every point, like when some see a parable as meaning many different things, but usually just meant a main point.

 

[StephenMartyr]

I hear what you guys are saying and want to continue the discussion.

But this is what I'm trying to get at here: I forget who it was (it was a Puritan) who brought up a point with this passage in Genesis:

Gen 43:9 I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever:

They saw in that passage Jesus. Him being our Surety.

So now I'm thinking: "How many other places in Scripture are there with similar instances?". I'm sure lots! Now what's the definitive meaning of Genesis 43:9? Is it about Judah or Christ? If the absolute meaning is Judah that means the meaning of it being Christ's voice is secondary. But if it's primarily Christ's voice than Judah's is secondary because the Bible isn't about Judah, it's about Jesus Christ.

I hope you guys will show a little grace here. I'm not pushing a doctrine or say the above is my belief and "that's all there is to it" but trying to "air out my thoughts" so I can get corrected and see more clearly.

 

[greenbaggins]

Steven, all I'm trying to say is that Sproul would not necessarily rule out interpretations like the ones you suggest, and that Sproul's target was something else.

 

[Dachaser]

I hear what you guys are saying and want to continue the discussion.

But this is what I'm trying to get at here: I forget who it was (it was a Puritan) who brought up a point with this passage in Genesis:

Gen 43:9 I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever:

They saw in that passage Jesus. Him being our Surety.

So now I'm thinking: "How many other places in Scripture are there with similar instances?". I'm sure lots! Now what's the definitive meaning of Genesis 43:9? Is it about Judah or Christ? If the absolute meaning is Judah that means the meaning of it being Christ's voice is secondary. But if it's primarily Christ's voice than Judah's is secondary because the Bible isn't about Judah, it's about Jesus Christ.

I hope you guys will show a little grace here. I'm not pushing a doctrine or say the above is my belief and "that's all there is to it" but trying to "air out my thoughts" so I can get corrected and see more clearly.

Some passages have both a Partial fulfillment at that time and fuller fulfillment later on, correct?

 

[py3ak]

I hear what you guys are saying and want to continue the discussion.

But this is what I'm trying to get at here: I forget who it was (it was a Puritan) who brought up a point with this passage in Genesis:

Gen 43:9 I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever:

They saw in that passage Jesus. Him being our Surety.

So now I'm thinking: "How many other places in Scripture are there with similar instances?". I'm sure lots! Now what's the definitive meaning of Genesis 43:9? Is it about Judah or Christ? If the absolute meaning is Judah that means the meaning of it being Christ's voice is secondary. But if it's primarily Christ's voice than Judah's is secondary because the Bible isn't about Judah, it's about Jesus Christ.

I hope you guys will show a little grace here. I'm not pushing a doctrine or say the above is my belief and "that's all there is to it" but trying to "air out my thoughts" so I can get corrected and see more clearly.

Clearly, the text is about Judah. It really tells you what Judah really said. But because it provides a literal and historical example of the concept of being a surety, and because it occurs in a passage authored by God that contains other passages also authored by God, it legitimately illustrates and anticipates the work of Christ. In other words, you don't learn about Christ from this passage by ignoring Judah, but by paying attention to him as part of a larger story.