Literal Interpretation? Reaffirming the Reformation

Daniel S.

I’m concerned by a growing tendency of many to reject the so-called “literal interpretation of Scripture.” Statements appear regularly that tend to minimize the value of the literal interpretation and the importance of insisting on its abiding relevance. Where I think the actual problem lies is in the tendency to understand the concept of literal interpretation in dispensational terms, where the correlation of the thing said matches exactly to the immediate setting of the human author (referred to as the “proper” sense by Turretin below). This is not what the Reformers meant, per se. From the literal interpretation as the dispensationalists mean it, you end up with some striking affirmations, from their interpretation of the prophets and Revelation, not to mention their understanding of the promises of the Old Testament. What I’m concerned about is the fact that the idea of the literal interpretation was a key point of debate between the Reformed and the Roman Catholics. They believed that to concede the exclusivity of the literal interpretation was to concede the grounds for reformation. I think those who freely disparage the literal interpretation today are likewise in danger of taking us away from the principles of the Reformation. The answer is not to go to a dispensationalist literalism, which has pervaded evangelical theology and Reformed (and “reformedish”) churches; the answer is to reaffirm the literalism as understood by the early Reformed. Let them define it for us and I believe we get what we want; let dispensationals define it for us and I believe we are found wanting. So here I’d like to outline Turretin’s definition of the literal interpretation. You can read it in full here (Institutes 1.2.19).

One Sense

  • There’s only one sense to Scripture, or a particular text
    • The sense is either simple or complex (what he calls “compound”)
      • Simple (or historical)= What is meant immediately without any other signification (precepts, doctrines, histories); this is twofold
        • Proper/Grammatical= Proper words
        • Figurative/Tropical= Figurative words
      • Compound/Composite/Complex= Prophecies as types
        • Part of the sense is in the type
        • Part of the sense is in the antitype
          • “This does not establish two senses, but two parts of one and the same sense intended by the Holy Spirit”

Literal Sense

  • Clarifying the Literal Sense
    • The literal sense is not to be confined to the simple, or proper, but is “that which is intended by the Holy Spirit and is expressed in words either proper or figurative”
    • Three reasons to affirm the literal sense exclusively
      1. Truth is one and admitting multiple senses makes everything “uncertain and ambiguous”
      2. Every thing must have one form, and the sense is the form of the Scriptures
      3. Perspicuity demands a single sense
    • This does not deny that there are multiple conceptions (*I believe he means concepts*) in the sense, but that these are subordinate and compatible to one another (this is especially the case with type–antitype)

Explanations

  • The sense is one, while its application (e.g. instruction, reproof, correction) may be diverse
  • Allegory appears from two sources
    1. The mind of man, which must not be confused with the meaning, i.e. sense, of Scripture; it must be understood as “drawn by the study of man by manner of application.”
    2. The mind of God, where the Spirit intends it, such as the two covenants (Gal. 4) and rest (Heb. 4)
      • “So when we proceed from the sign to the thing signified, we do not introduce a new sense, but educe what was implied in the sign so as to have the full and complete sense intended by the Spirit.”
  • The fact that God’s mind is infinite should not lead us to conclude that he has multiple meanings in Scripture; he intends to say some definite thing for us to understand
    • “When God understands, he understands himself as he is infinite and so he understands himself infinitely. But when he speaks, he speaks not to himself, but to us (i.e., in accommodation to our capacity which is finite and cannot take in many senses)”
  • The texts of Ezek. 2:10 and Rev. 5:1 should not be interpreted as indicating multiple senses
  • The fact that we differ in what we think certain passages mean should not lead us to assume multiple senses but that our intellects are weak. Though words may mean many things, they only mean one thing in a particular context, and that is determined by the context and the analogy of faith
  • Sometimes “literal” means everything encompassed, including type and antitype; sometimes it is applied more strictly to the things spoken of in the immediate context
  • Our embrace of a composite sense does not equate to the multiple senses the Protestants charged the Papists with. The single truth embraces promises and fulfillment (he gives a few examples in the following subsection, such as the seed of Abraham, the unbroken Pachal bones, etc., 1.2.19.13)
  • The examples used by papists in argument for multiple senses show the composite sense but not multiple senses
  • The mystical sense may come from two sources
    1. The Spirit
      • The Serpent in the Wilderness (Jn 3), Baptism and spiritual food and drink (1 Cor. 10), etc.
    2. The Church
      • Origen is one example; these may be helpful for illustration but they do not prove anything.
  • Not every part of Scripture contains the mystical interpretation; we must be careful and on guard to claim it where the Holy Spirit has given warrant for doing so
  • (Repeat: Every text has a single sense but may have multiple theoretical and practical applications)
  • Interpretation must take place, and it requires many skills to perform well (prayer, examination of sources, languages, distinction between proper and figurative words, scope and circumstances, collation of passages, connection of what precedes and follows, removal of prejudices, conformity of interpretation to analogy of faith). These may fall under three heads
    1. Analysis
      1. Grammatical: Proper expressions
      2. Rhetorical: Attention to the Figurative
      3. Logical: Scope and circumstances, and attends to connection of words
    2. Comparison
      • Compare difficult Scriptures to simpler, the more opaque with the clearer, parallels
    3. Analogy
      • Harmony with the heads of doctrine exhibited in clearer expressions of Scripture (*Note, the analogy is not the Apostles’ Creed, per se, as many assume, but the clear doctrines put forward in Scripture, which key creeds do in fact articulate)
  • The proper sense must not be departed from unless it clearly clashes with other truths and is clearly meant to be figurative
    1. When it makes no sense, such as when Christ is called the sheep gate or vine
    2. The sense assumed clashes with another truth we have from the Spirit, since we know that the Spirit does not contradict himself, such as the words of institution at the Eucharist
  • Papists introduce all sorts of other things to the boundaries of interpretation that serve only to confuse and rest us on uncertainties

I believe Turretin’s argument for the literal sense provides the most careful explanation that avoids both the errors of dispensational literalism and the dangers of multiple-senses that many Reformed people seemed to be heading toward right now. Turretin’s understanding of the full, literal sense fits comfortably alongside the field of biblical theology as developed by Geerhardus Vos and further promoted by many today. Take these principles presented by Turretin and compare them to the way Vos develops his Biblical Theology, and certainly we are left with neither the pitfalls of literalism nor extreme allegorization. I don’t think the answer is to decry literal interpretation or deny the sensus plenior. I gladly interpret the Bible literally. What I mean by “literally” is what Turretin and the other Reformed have meant by literally, not what often appears today. What I mean by gladly is that I feel no compulsion to revert to baseless or undefined allegorizing. Allegories are fine, mystical is fine, complexity is fine, but all of these must be either demonstrated from the text or confined to theoretical and practical application or illustration. Praise God that we are not left with a weak literalism but that we can truly take his Word literally.

Leave a comment