Literal Interpretation - Renewing Your Mind

Transcript

R.C. Sproul (0:00)

The Bible's the word of God, and alone the word of God. It's inspired, it's infallible, it's inerrant. But when I come to read it and to interpret it, the rules for interpreting it are no different from the rules of interpreting any other book in this regard, that the Bible is written with sentences, and the sentences have individual words. And in the Bible, a noun is a noun and a verb is a verb. And if you want to understand how these things fit together, you have to understand the rules of grammar.

Host (0:38)

How do you interpret the Bible? It's an important question because if we get the answer wrong, we'll struggle to know what God has said. Is the Bible a magical book? And our Bible study should be filled with attempts to find hidden meanings. Or perhaps we're to flip it open, point to a text to find our verse of the day, or a word from God to help us know who we should marry or what job we should take. Today on Renewing youg Mind, RC Sproul will bring clarity to what it means to interpret the Bible literally, avoiding errors made by both theological liberals and conservatives. Here's Dr. Sproul.

R.C. Sproul (1:19)

In this session of our course on understanding Scripture, we're going to consider the meaning and the function of the literal interpretation of the Bible. Sometimes people will say to me, as I think they do to you from time to time, that that's your interpretation, isn't it? Well, another one that I hear very often, and I suspect you do too, is that when I will be citing something from the Bible or giving a theological point and referring to the Scriptures for support, people will look at me and say, rc, you don't interpret the Bible literally, do you? And they look at me with kind of an expression of consternation and bewildered disbelief and notice even how the question is phrased. It's not simply a direct question. It's not simply, do you interpret the Bible literally? But it's phrased more negatively than that. It's, you don't interpret the Bible literally, do you? Well, whenever anybody puts that to me, I have just enough mischievousness, I think, in my personal personality and makeup to sometimes use shock tactics to get somebody's attention. Because whenever anybody ever says to me, you don't interpret the Bible literally, do you? My standard reply to that question is, well, of course, like, who doesn't? Who in their right mind doesn't interpret the Bible literally? Now, I know very well that the idea of literal interpretation is an idea that's associated once again with uneducated People, people who are backwoods in their mentality, who are anti intellectual and anti scholarly and anti academic and literalistic. Interpretation seems to be the chief occupation of such unlearned simpletons and certainly is not worthy of ministers of the church or teachers in seminaries by any means. And that's why I sort mischievous kick out of saying, well, of course, you know, if you want to think that I'm a country pumpkin who knows nothing about biblical science, that's all right too. I'll accept that. But yes, indeed, I do interpret the Bible literally. But it usually provokes an engaging response where people's interest is piqued at least for a minute. Like saying you do you really interpret the Bible literally? And they scratch their heads and there's sort of an interest awakened there, and they say, well, you know, why? Why do you. And as we pursue that line of reasoning and thinking, I'll respond even more simplistically by saying, what other possible way is there to interpret the Bible than to do it literally? Of course I interpret the Bible literally. But what's going on here, of course, is that when I'm speaking about interpreting the Bible literally and my interrogator is asking me if I interpret the Bible literally, we're not talking about the same kind of a thing. When I talk about interpreting the Bible literally, I have something very concrete and specific in mind. I'm talking about a method of biblical interpretation. Again, a method that was very important to the rediscovery of the Bible during the Protestant Reformation, and a method that was closely linked to what I outlined in our last session as the grammatico historical method of interpretation. Luther, of course, did not invent the idea of literal interpretation, but he did use the technical language of what he called seeking the sensuous literalis of Scripture. The sensus literalis, that's a Latin phrase. S E N S U S and littoralis L I T E R A L I S and all it means is the literal sense or the literal meaning of Scripture. And so the way in which Luther was talking is the way in which I am talking when I say the first real primary rule of biblical interpretation, of sound biblical interpretation is to interpret the Bible literally. But what did Luther mean by it? In a simpler way, he said what we should be seeking for as we come to the Scripture is the plain sense of the meaning of the text. And to elucidate further, what is meant by interpreting the Bible literally in that classical sense is simply that we are to interpret the Bible according to Its litera, which is according to its literature, according to the way it is written. Now, if that's all we mean by literal interpretation, then we should interpret the newspaper literally. We should interpret poetry literally, we should interpret music literally. Anything that's written as literature should be interpreted as literature, meaning that we follow the normal patterns and the normal rules of literary interpretation. Now, sometimes that throws conservative people for a loop. Evangelical Christians sometimes get very agitated with me when I say that a practical rule for literal interpretation is that we should interpret the Bible like we would interpret any other book, that we should read the Bible in a certain sense like we read any other book. And this people here, with horror, they say, what do you mean? The Bible's not like any other book. The Bible's the book of books. It's the norm of norms. And without norm, the Bible's the word of God. And alone the word of God, it's inspired, it's infallible, it's inerrant. And I hear all of that, I believe all of that. But when I come to read it and to interpret it, the rules for interpreting it are no different from the rules of interpreting any other book in this regard. That the Bible is written with sentences and the sentences have individual words, and all of the inspiration of God, the Holy Spirit on the text of Scripture does not make it a magical book. In the Bible, a noun is a noun and a verb is a verb. And if you want to understand how these things fit together, you have to understand the rules of grammar if you want to take the trouble to learn the ancient languages of Hebrew and Greek. Even though I believe that God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek writings and the original New Testament documents, there's no such thing as what we call Holy Ghost, Greek, the Holy Ghost. And inspiration doesn't change nouns to verbs and verbs to nouns. And so I am still, as a human interpreter called to recognize the difference between adjectives and adverbs, questions and answers, indicatives and imperatives, and all of that. And so all Luther was getting at when he says, come to the Bible and look for its literal sense is look for its plain meaning. Now, he did that for a reason. Because there grew up in the Middle Ages a very strange approach to Scripture, a kind of mystical approach to Scripture. We're saying, if you really want to know what the Bible says, you can't just look at the plain meaning. But there is a hidden, esoteric, mysterious, mystical, spiritual meaning hidden behind every text. So that if, for example, the Bible says, and Paul went down to Jerusalem or Paul went up to Jerusalem. Hidden behind that text is some mysterious allusion to people going up to heaven. And we just had to be able to crack the mystical code and underline and get beneath the layers of the text to discover that hidden, secret, mysterious, mystical meaning. That kind of stuff really turned the Bible into a wax nose because everybody was free to discover all kinds of mysterious insights into the Bible that the text of the Scripture never said at all. And Luther said, let's return to soberness. Let's go to the text and read this text for what it said. There's to be no spiritualistic interpretation of the Scripture. That is, literal interpretation is opposed to spiritualistic interpretation. Does that mean that we're supposed to be unspiritual when we come to the Bible? We're not supposed to pray or that? Oh, no, no, no. Spiritualistic interpretation is that kind of interpretation which turns the Bible into a book of magic. There are different forms of it. And in our own day, I've seen on countless occasions, earnest Christian people, evangelical people caught up in one form of spiritualistic interpretation that I call lucky dipping. You have a problem, a personal problem, and you pray about that problem. It's a spiritual problem, perhaps, and you want the mind of God. You want guidance from God. And so the game of lucky dipping is played this way. You make your prayer to God. You say, God, I don't know whether I should go and take this job in Alabama or stay in Boston. Now I have to make a decision. And I want to please you, God. Now I'm going to ask you to guide me and to lead me, and I'm going to ask you, please, to do it through your sacred scripture. And so what I do is, after I make my prayer, I piously take my Bible and I shut my eyes and I just take the covers and turn them upright and let the Bible dangle open. Then flip the book over. And then without looking, I take and put my finger down on the text. And then I open up my eyes, and wherever my finger falls, I get my message from God. And lo and behold, I might read there as I look at the text. And David went down to the Negev and I say, aha. The Negev is the south of Palestine. David went down to the Negev. That's my answer. God is telling me of the two options. I'm supposed to take the southern one. And so that means I should take the job in Alabama rather than the job in Boston. I'm not kidding. This goes on daily in the Christian World in the name of spirituality, in the name of obedience. And there's no difference between that and using a Ouija board. We take the Bible and turn it into a superstitious tool of magic. And some people might say, well, wait a minute. Aren't there innumerable incidents in history where God has in fact used a verse of Scripture in a very, very strange way to turn the lives of people upside down? Yes. Think of Augustine. You remember the story of St. Augustine, who was living a life of riotousness, licentiousness, immorality. His mother was a devout Christian. Monica was praying in tears every day for the conversion of her son. And as the story goes, Augustine was walking through a garden on occasion, and children were gathered there in a grove, and they were playing a game that had a little refrain to it in Latin, tola lega. Tola lega. And he heard these words, and their literal meaning was take up and read, take up and read. And so he was fascinated by that. And there happened to be a copy of the New Testament there, and he just picked it up and he opened up the text and his eyes fell on the text of Scripture. Not on riotousness and drunkenness, not on immorality or licentiousness, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the lusts of the flesh and so on. And Augustine says that that text gripped his heart and brought to him a dramatic transformation to the Christian faith. Yes, you say spontaneous reading of Scripture, one verse. His eyes fell on one verse. But I'll tell you what, when that happened, in that holy moment, in that special occasion when Augustine picked up the text, what converted Augustine was a correct understanding and application of the biblical text. I don't doubt that the Holy Spirit used that special occasion to bring Augustine to the faith, but he used the plain sense of the meaning of Scripture to do it. Because the text that he saw and that he read and the Spirit used to convict him spoke precisely to the sin in his life, which is exactly the intention of that text. It didn't require some kind of mystical, magical, superstitious twisting and distortion of the text in order to do it. Jonathan Edwards had the same thing when he was struggling over predestination, and his eyes fell upon the text. Now, unto the immortal, invisible, only wise God, his soul was flooded by the impact of that one verse, but the soul was flooded as a result of the right interpretation of the passage. And so what we're looking for is sober interpretation so that we can grasp the real meaning of the text. Which will mean the same thing for you as it does for me. Its application may be different in your life than it is to mine. But I don't want to labor the point. The heart of literal interpretation involves a certain little bit of homework that we have to do. Literal interpretation is usually understood as a very simplistic thing. But in its actual practice in the traditional sense here, it requires really a high degree of sophistication. In some cases, some very technical knowledge. Because before I can interpret the Bible literally and accurately. I must be able to recognize the literary forms in which Scripture comes to us. For example, to interpret the Bible literally requires that we be able to distinguish between poetry and historical narrative, between didactic literature, between wisdom literature and apodictic literature. They're all different kinds of literary forms. And there are rules for interpreting poetry that are different from rules that we use to interpret narrative history. Or teaching. Portions of the epistles, for example, are different from songs that we find in the Old Testament. And we have to be able to learn to distinguish the difference. And it's not always easy. On some occasions, you pick up a piece of literature. And it's very clear that it's poetry. It rhymes, it has rhythm. It has a certain structure to it that poetry has. And we recognize it as lyrical poetry and treat it accordingly. On the other hand, there are times when the literary forms are clearly historical narrative. But there are times when it's not always so clear. Take the Book of Jonah. Let's look at Jonah, for example. Is Jonah history? Or is it some other kind of special symbolism? Is it an epic poem? Is it a fable designed to teach a moral lesson? Or is it a real historical event? Which is it? There's been all kinds of debates about that. I remember when I was a seminary student. I was at a seminary that was predominantly liberal at that time. And the Old Testament professor, a very warm and sanguine individual, very kind to his students. But he had had his Ph.D. he had studied in a liberal college. He had studied in a liberal seminary. He got his doctorate in a liberal institution. And he was a liberal professor. And one of the assignments that I had in an advanced course in Hebrew exegesis. Was to write a paper, a term paper. On the question of the literary form of the book of Jonah. And I remember I undertook that question. And I produced a paper for this professor. In which I argued that the Book of Jonah was written as historical narrative. And the professor was beside himself, not in anger. He wasn't hostile, he was delighted. He was actually implored me to have this essay published in a religious journal. And I couldn't understand why. And he said, well, it's so innovative. It's so novel. He had never heard anybody argue that Jonah was actually written as historical narrative. And he thought that my arguments were pretty good. He thought that it was a liberal interpretation. I said, if I did that, I'd be sued for plagiarism. Because all I'm giving you is the classic traditional, orthodox, conservative approach to the book of Jonah that he had never encountered in his lifetime. But the point is, even as I was doing that study, you see a book like Jonah, portions of it are written in a style that is very much like narrative history. But right smack dab in the middle of it, there's a lengthy poem that's clearly poetic. It has the stanza, the structure, the syntax, the versification of poetry. It's right there as poetry. And how does it fit together with the narrative? It's not always an easy question. And here's something we need to be very careful about. There are conservative people who believe that Jonah was not a historical person, not because they don't believe in miracles, but because they're persuaded that the literary structure, the literary form of Jonah is not a historical form, and so that it ought not to be interpreted as history. On the other hand, you have people who are liberal who say, oh, it's a historical literary form, but we know it's not history because it's supernatural. And we know that miracles don't happen. So there philosophical prejudice against miracle prejudges the interpretation of the text. And we have to be very careful of that, because the Bible can be distorted both to the left and to the right, both by liberals and to conservatives, conservatives who want to impose a crass form of literalism in the popular sense when it ought not to be imposed. And on the other hand, liberals who, because they don't like what the Bible says, try to recast it into the shape of symbols or poetry when it doesn't have a poetic structure to it at all. What we don't want to do is to violate the way the book is written. When I was in high school, I went to a course at a local church. And the minister was explaining to us the miracles of Jesus from a liberal perspective. And he talked about the feeding of the fivefold. And he said, well, we know that Jesus couldn't have miraculously fed 5,000 people from a couple of fish and a couple of loaves of bread, so we can't interpret it that way. And he said, what really happened? There was obviously some people brought their lunch, but most of them were not diligent enough to prepare for it. And so Jesus was able to persuade those who had brought something to share with those who had not. And so the real miracle is an ethical one. And we thought, oh, isn't that marvelous? What a wonderful way to reinterpret the Scripture. But that man violated the text because the text doesn't purport to teach that Jesus persuaded people. What that text is saying is that Jesus, through supernatural power, astonished everybody to you may not believe that, but say that. Say, I don't believe it, but you understand what it's saying. You see, the question of belief or unbelief is a question that comes after interpretation. First we have to understand what it says, and then we have to say, do we believe it or don't we believe it? But we can't, because we don't believe it, reinterpret it, or we've seen errors in the other direction, enforced literalism or enforced historicity when the Bible doesn't warrant it. I've read more than one attempt by conservatives and evangelicals who are trying to show how marvelously and wonderful the biblical prophecies are, that not only do you look at the prophecies of the future in Jeremiah and Isaiah and Micah and Joel and Nahum and that, but they will go back to poems in the Book of Job or in the Psalms or in the Proverbs, and you'll see a poem there where somebody's worshiping the greatness and the grandeur of God. And it says, the Word of God goes through the air to the four points of the earth. And somebody reads that, and they say, you mean Job said that the Word of God is sent through the air? How is the word of God sent through the air? This is a prophecy for the invention of radio because today the Word of God is sent through the air on radio beams or on television beams. That's not what that text was talking about. That text is talking about a poetic expression of the power of the Word of God to encompass the globe. It has nothing to do with television and radio. But in their zeal to prove that the Bible has predictive prophecy, which I think it does, they read into passages prophetic content that was never meant to be. And so the idea of distorting the Bible by mistreating its literary form is a pitfall that is shared both by the liberal and by the conservative. And if we're really going to interpret the Bible literally. We will be careful not to ignore the literary forms in which the Bible is written.

Renewing Your Mind: Episode Summary – "Literal Interpretation"

Release Date: March 25, 2025
Host/Author: Ligonier Ministries
Speaker: R.C. Sproul

Introduction

In the episode titled "Literal Interpretation" from the daily podcast Renewing Your Mind, hosted by Ligonier Ministries, renowned theologian R.C. Sproul delves into the crucial subject of biblical interpretation. The episode aims to clarify what it truly means to interpret the Bible literally, steering clear of common misconceptions perpetuated by both theological liberals and conservatives. Sproul emphasizes the necessity of a disciplined, scholarly approach to scripture to ensure accurate understanding and application.

Understanding Literal Interpretation

R.C. Sproul begins by affirming the Bible's divine nature: “The Bible's the word of God, and alone the word of God. It's inspired, it's infallible, it's inerrant” ([00:00]). He asserts that interpreting the Bible doesn't require a mystical or supernatural methodology but rather the same principles applied to any other literary work. Sproul emphasizes the importance of grammar and literary forms, stating, “the Bible is written with sentences, and the sentences have individual words. And in the Bible, a noun is a noun and a verb is a verb” ([00:00]).

He underscores that true literal interpretation aligns with the grammatical-historical method, a technique integral to the Protestant Reformation spearheaded by figures like Martin Luther. Sproul explains, “the first real primary rule of biblical interpretation, of sound biblical interpretation is to interpret the Bible literally” ([01:19]). This method seeks the plain sense of the text, avoiding the pitfalls of attributing hidden or mystical meanings where none exist.

Challenges and Misinterpretations

Sproul addresses common misconceptions surrounding literal interpretation. Often, critics from both ends of the theological spectrum wrongly label literalism as simplistic or anti-intellectual. In response to skepticism, he provocatively questions, “Who in their right mind doesn't interpret the Bible literally?” ([01:19]).

He differentiates literal interpretation from what he calls spiritualistic interpretation, which transforms scripture into a tool for personal magic or superstition. Sproul criticizes practices like "lucky dipping," where individuals randomly select Bible verses to answer personal dilemmas, equating it to using the Bible as an Ouija board ([01:19]).

Furthermore, Sproul warns against both conservative over-literalism and liberal symbolic interpretations. Conservatives may impose rigid interpretations that distort the scripture's intended message, while liberals might excessively abstract the text to fit secular viewpoints. He cites an example where conservative evangelicals erroneously apply modern inventions (like radio) to biblical prophecy, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the text's literary form ([24:28]).

Examples and Applications

To illustrate the power of proper literal interpretation, Sproul recounts the conversions of historical figures like St. Augustine and Jonathan Edwards. He explains Augustine’s transformation was triggered not by mystical deciphering but through a correct understanding of the biblical text, where Augustine encountered a verse that spoke directly to his life circumstances: “put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the lusts of the flesh” ([15:00]).

Sproul also shares a personal anecdote from his seminary days, where he successfully argued for the historical narrative nature of the Book of Jonah, despite his liberal professor's expectations. This example underscores the necessity of recognizing literary genres within scripture—distinguishing between poetry, historical narrative, and didactic literature is essential for accurate interpretation ([01:19]).

He further discusses the Book of Jonah's complexity, highlighting its mix of narrative and poetic forms, which challenges simplistic interpretative approaches. Sproul emphasizes that understanding these forms helps prevent both misinterpretation and the imposition of external biases onto the text.

Conclusion

In wrapping up the episode, the host reflects on Sproul’s teachings, sharing a personal transformation from mystical Bible reading to embracing a literate and disciplined approach to scripture. The episode serves as the second installment of Sproul’s 12-message series, "Knowing Scripture," designed to equip listeners with the tools necessary for accurate and meaningful Bible study.

Listeners are encouraged to access further resources through donations or by contacting Ligonier Ministries, ensuring engagement with comprehensive study guides and additional lectures. The episode reiterates the importance of literal interpretation grounded in scholarly rigor, enabling believers to understand and apply God’s Word authentically in their lives.

Notable Quotes

R.C. Sproul [00:00]:
“The Bible's the word of God, and alone the word of God. It's inspired, it's infallible, it's inerrant. But when I come to read it and to interpret it, the rules for interpreting it are no different from the rules of interpreting any other book...”
R.C. Sproul [01:19]:
“The first real primary rule of biblical interpretation, of sound biblical interpretation is to interpret the Bible literally.”
R.C. Sproul [24:28]:
“What we don't want to do is to violate the way the book is written. When I was in high school, I went to a course at a local church... [and] that man violated the text because the text doesn't purport to teach that Jesus persuaded people.”

This comprehensive exploration by R.C. Sproul in "Literal Interpretation" equips listeners with a clear framework for engaging with scripture faithfully. By advocating for a balanced and informed approach, Sproul guides believers away from trivial or distorted readings, fostering a deeper and more accurate understanding of God's Word.