Knowing Scripture

By R.C. Sproul

… Many of us have become sensuous Christians, living by our feelings rather than through our understanding of the Word of God. Sensuous Christians cannot be moved to service, prayer-study unless they “feel like it.” Their Christian life is only as effective as the intensity of present feelings. When they experience spiritual euphoria, they are a whirlwind of godly activity; when they are depressed, they are spiritual incompetent. They constantly seek new and fresh spiritual experiences, and use them to determine the Word of God. Their “inner feelings” become the ultimate test of truth.

Sensuous Christians don’t need to study the Word of God because they already know the will of God by their feelings. They don’t want to know God; they want to experience him. Sensuous Christians equate “childlike faith” with ignorance. They think that when the Bible calls us to childlike faith, it means a faith without content, a faith without understanding. They don’t know that the Bible says,”In evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature” (1 Cor 14:20). They don’t realize that Paul tells us again and again, “My beloved brethren, I would not have you ignorant” (see, for example, Rom 11:25).

(Sproul 2016, 31)

The Bible may be a very special book, being uniquely inspired by the Holy Spirit, but that inspiration does not transform the letters of the words or the sentences of the passages into magical phrases. Under inspiration a noun remains a noun and a verb remains a verb. Questions do not become exclamations, and historical narratives do not become allegories. Luther’s principle was anything but magical or simplistic. The principle of literal interpretation calls for the closest kind of literary scrutiny of the text. To be accurate interpreters of the Bible we need to know the rules of grammar, and above all we must be carefully involved in what is called genre analysis.

(Sproul 2016, 54)

The term genre means simply “kind,” “sort” or “species.” Genre analysis involves the study of such things as literary forms, figures of speech and style. We do this with all kinds of literature. We distinguish between lyric poetry and legal briefs, between newspaper accounts of current events and epic poems. We distinguish between the style of historical narratives and sermons, between realistic graphic description and hyperbole. Failure to make these distinctions when dealing with the Bible can lead to a host of problems with interpretation. Literary analysis is crucial to accurate interpretation.

(Sproul 2016, 54-55)

When I am annoyed at someone, it is often difficult for me to hear what the person is saying or to understand what he or she is doing. When I am angry, I tend to interpret the person who is the object of my wrath in the worst possible light. Note how often we do that with Scripture. Every time I lecture on divine election, invariably someone will say, “Do you mean that God arbitrarily treats us like puppets?” I am offended that anyone would jump to the conclusion that I had such a notion of God. I had not said it, nor did my words intend to imply it, yet the notion of divine sovereignty seems so repugnant that people put it in the worst possible light.

We are faced with a commonplace human tendency and we are all guilty of it: we tend to view the actions and words of those we dislike in the worst possible light and to view our own shortcomings in the best possible light. When a person sins against me, respond as if it were purely malicious; when I sin against another, I “make a mistake of judgment.” Because we are by our fallen nature at enmity with God, we have to guard against this inclination when we approach his Word.

(Sproul 2016, 74-75)

… So often when a Christian is faced with a problematic situation, he is told to ask himself, “What would Jesus do in this situation?” This, of course, was popularized by the wristbands and T-shirts that many Christian youth wore sporting “What Would Jesus Do?” or WWJD. That is not always a wise question to ask. A better question would be, “What would Jesus have me do in this situation?”

Why is this dangerous? If we try to model our lives precisely according to Jesus’ example, we may get into trouble on several counts. First, our tasks as obedient children to God are not exactly the same as Jesus’ mission. I was not sent into this world to save humans from their sins. I can never speak with absolute authority about anything like Jesus did. I cannot go into the church with a whip and drive corrupt pastors out. I am not the Lord of the church.

Second, and perhaps not so obviously, Jesus lived under a different period of redemptive history than I do. He was required to fulfill all the laws of the Old Covenant, including dietary and ceremonial laws. Jesus was being perfectly obedient to the Father when he was circumcised as a religious rite. If I become circumcised, not for reasons of health or hygiene but as a formal religious rite, I am, by that rite, repudiating the finished work of Christ and bringing myself back under the curse of the Old Testament law (Gal 5:1-3). In other words, we could be guilty of serious sin if we tried to imitate Jesus exactly. Here is where the Epistles are so very important. They do call us to imitate Christ at many points. But they help us to delineate what those points are and are not.

A third problem with emulating the life of Jesus is in making the subtle move from what is permissible to what is obligatory. For example, I know those who argue that it is the Christian’s duty to make visitations of mercy on the sabbath day. The argument is that Jesus did it on the sabbath day and therefore we should.

Now the subtlety is here: that Jesus did such things on the sabbath reveals that such activities do not violate the sabbath and are good. But Jesus nowhere commands us to do these works of mercy on the sabbath. His example shows that they may be done, but not necessarily that they must be done then. He does command us to visit the sick, but nowhere stipulates when that visitation must take place. That Jesus remained unmarried shows that celibacy is good, but his celibacy does not demand that marriage be repudiated, as the Epistles make clear.

(Sproul 2016, 79-80)

Whatever else the Bible is, it’s a book which communicates information verbally. This means that it is filled with words. Thoughts are expressed through the relationship of those words. Each individual word contributes something to the whole of the content expressed. The better we understand the individual words used in biblical statements, the better we will be able to understand the total message of Scripture.

(Sproul 2016, 88)

Probably the greatest advance in biblical scholarship in the twentieth century was in the area of lexicography. That is, we have greatly increased our understanding of the meaning of words found in the Bible. A valuable exegetical tool we have is the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Gerhard Kittel. This series of word studies comprises ten large volumes. … It is composed of a series of careful studies of the meanings of keywords found in the New Testament.

(Sproul 2016, 89)

Now a student of the Bible, instead of looking up a word in a normal lexicon where he or she might find a sentence or two of definition with corresponding synonyms, can go to Kit tel and find dozens of pages of detailed explanation and delineation of all the uses and subtle nuances of the word. We can find out how Plato, Euripides, Luke and Paul used a particular word. This greatly sharpens our understanding of biblical language and also facilitates the accuracy of modern translations of the Bible.

(Sproul 2016, 90)

… Etymology is the science of word derivations. We see a word like hippopotamus and wonder what it means. If we know Greek, we know that the word hippos means “horse” and the word potamos means “river.” Thus we have hippopotamus or “river horse.” Studying the roots and original meanings of words can be very helpful to gain the flavor of a term.For example, the Hebrew word for glory originally meant “heavy” or “weighty.” Thus the glory of God has to do with his “weightiness” or “significance.” We do not take him lightly. But defining words merely in terms of their original meanings can get us into all sorts of trouble.

In addition to origins and derivations, it is extremely important for us to study language in the context of its usage. This is necessary because words undergo changes in meaning depending on how they are used. For example, the word “cute” in the Elizabethan period meant bowlegged. When we call someone “cute” today, we hope the person is not a Shakespearian actor! The word “scan” was defined in English dictionaries within a lifetime as meaning “to read carefully, in close detail.” More recent editions of dictionaries define scan as “to skim over lightly.” Thus the term has changed its meaning completely over the space of a few years. What happened is that so many people misused the word that its misuse became the “customary meaning.”

(Sproul 2016, 90-91)

Words with multiple meanings. There are scores of words in the Bible that have multiple meanings. Only the context can determine the particular meaning of a word. For example, the Bible speaks frequently of the will of God. There are at least six different words used. Sometimes the word will refer to the precepts God has revealed to his people. That is, his will is his “prescribed order of duty for his people.” The term will is also used to describe “God’s sovereign action by which God brings to pass whatsoever he wills to happen.” We call this God’s efficacious will because it affects what he wants. Then there is the sense of will being “that which is pleasing to God, that which he delights in.”

Let’s see how a passage of Scripture could be interpreted in light of these three different meanings of will: God is “not willing that any should perish” (2 Pet 3:9 KJV). This could mean (1) God has legislated a precept that no one is allowed to perish—it is against the law of God for us to perish, (2) God has sovereignly decreed and effects most certainly that no one will ever perish, or (3) God is not pleased or delighted when people perish. Which of these three would you think is correct? Why? If we examine the context in which this appears and follow the analogy of faith taking into account the larger context of the whole of Scripture, only one of these meanings makes sense, namely, the third.

My favorite example of words with multiple meanings is the word justify. In Romans 3:28 Paul says, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” In James 2:24 we read, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” If the word justify means the same thing in both cases, we have an irreconcilable contradiction between two biblical writers on an issue that concerns our eternal destinies. Luther called “justification by faith” the article upon which the church stands or falls.The meaning of justification and the question of how it takes place is no mere trifle. Yet Paul says it is by faith apart from works, and James says it is by works and not by faith alone. To make matters more difficult, Paul insists in Romans 4 that Abraham is justified when he believes the promise of God before he is even circumcised.He has Abraham justified in Genesis 15 (see Rom 4:9). James says, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?” (Jas 2:21). James does not have Abraham justified until Genesis 22.

This question of justification is easily resolved if we examine the possible meanings of the term justify and apply them within the contexts of the respective passages. The term justify may mean (1) to restore to a state of reconciliation with God those who stand under the judgment of his law, or (2) to demonstrate or to vindicate.

(Sproul 2016, 91-92)

Unless we conclude that all of Scripture is principle and thus binding on all people of all ages, or that all Scripture is local custom with no relevance beyond its immediate historical context, we are forced to establish some categories and guidelines for discerning the difference.

To illustrate the problem let’s see what happens when we hold that everything in Scripture is principle and nothing merely a reflection of local custom. If that is the case, then some radical changes must be made in evangelism if we are going to be obedient to Scripture. Jesus says, “Carry no money belt, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way” (Lk 10:4). If we make this text a transcultural principle, then it is time for all evangelists to start preaching in their bare feet! Obviously, the point of this text is not to set down a perennial requirement of barefooted evangelism.

Other matters, however, are not so obvious. Christians remain divided, for example, on the foot-washing rite (see Jn 13:3-17). Is this a perpetual mandate for the church of all ages or a local custom illustrating a principle of humble servanthood? Does the principle remain and the custom vanish in a shoe-wearing culture? Or does the custom remain with the principle regardless of foot apparel?

To see the complexities of the dilemma, let’s examine the fas hair-covering passage of 1 Corinthians 11. The New Revised Standard Version translates this to require a woman to cover her head with a veil when she prophesies. In applying this command to our culture we are faced with four distinct options:

1. It is entirely custom. The whole passage reflects a cultural custom that has no relevance today. The veil is a local customary head; the uncovering of the head reflects a local sign of prostitution. The sign of the woman subordinating herself to the man is a Jewish custom that is outmoded in light of the overall teaching of the New Testament. Since we live in a different culture, it is no longer necessary for a woman to cover her head with a veil; it is no longer necessary for a woman to cover her head with anything; it is no longer necessary for a woman to be subordinate to a man.

2. It is entirely a principle. In this case everything in the passage is regarded as a culturally transcending principle. That would mean by way of application that (1) Women must be submissive to men during prayer. (2) Women must always give a sign of that submission by covering their heads. (3) Women must cover their heads with a veil as the only appropriate sign.

3. It is partly principle, partly custom (Option A). In this approach, part of the passage is regarded as principle and thus binding for all generations, and part is seen as custom that is no longer binding.The principle of female submission is transcultural, but the means of expressing it (covering the head with a veil) is customary and may be changed.

4. It is partly principle (Option B). In this final option the principle of female submission and the symbolic act of covering the head are to be perpetual. The article of covering may vary from culture to culture. A veil may be replaced by a babushka or a hat.

(Sproul 2016, 120-121)

Some very subtle means of relativizing the text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought not to be there.For example, with respect to the hair-covering issue in Corinth, numerous commentators on the epistle point out that the local sign of the prostitute in Corinth was the uncovered head. Therefore, the argument runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a scandalous appearance of Christian women in the external guise of prostitutes.

What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and gave no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale that is based on an appeal to creation, not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul’s stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisegesis.