Ralph Venning's Rules for Understanding the Scriptures

VirginiaHuguenot · #1 (**permalink**) 08-10-2008, 04:17 PM

Ralph Venning, "The New Commandment Renewed," in The Puritans on Loving One Another (Soli Deo Gloria, 1997), pp. 31-36:

Quote:

Rules for Understanding the Scriptures

RULE 1. The Father, Son, and Spirit, as they are one, so they agree in one (1 John 5:7-8). They have but one design. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not like the gods of the heathen (which, indeed, are not gods), always quarrelling one with another, clashing against and contradicting one another. Though they will many things, their will is but one.

Therefore, if you find in Scripture that the Son's design in redemption seems to be of larger extent than the Father's in election and the Spirit's by sanctification, reconcile it by this rule, for there is but one and the same object in the Father's election, the Son's redemption, and the Spirit's sanctification to eternal life.

RULE 2. Every particular is to be interpreted by the scope of the whole, and that will free the Scriptures from all seeming contradictions.

Paul said in Romans 3:28 that a man is justified by faith without, or apart from, the deeds of the law. But James 2:24 says, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only" (or alone).

Now here seems to be a contradiction, but the scope of the Scriptures will untie this knot. By faith alone we are justified, but the faith by which we are justified is not alone. It is not, as I conceive, the work of faith, nor the works of faith, but a working faith whereby we are justified.

By faith the person is justified, and by works the faith is justified. And thus, beloved, you see clearly that there is not a disagreeing agreement, but an agreeing disagreement between these two Scriptures.

One said that to hang on to any word or phrase in a text and neglect the scope savors of a heretical disposition. And Luther had a sweet saying to this purpose, "In the grammar of theology, it is proper to proceed according to the meaning of the words, not the matter of the words themselves: we bring in the sense of them, the voice and letter of the Spirit." The sense in short is this: words must give place to the matter and sense. His reason is that the matter is not for the words, but the words are for the matter. And again, that way of understanding or interpreting Scriptures which gathers diverse things from diverse places is most deceitful. The whole Scripture therefore is to be had before our eyes, and contraries are to be compared with contraries.

Friends, I hope it will not be an offense to any to quote an author, for I believe it is as lawful to consult with the experience of dead saints as of living saints.

RULE 3. The place is not truly interpreted, nor consequence well inferred, the consequence whereof is an absurdity, and speaks anything to the disparagement of the God of grace, or the grace of God. Said Luther, "All Scripture is to be interpreted for Christ, as 'keep the commandments' in Christ. For without Him you can do nothing."

Again, fully excellent and excellently full. If our adversaries urge Scripture against Christ, let us urge Christ against Scripture.

If the interpretation of any text draws such inferences after it as these: that God is unjust, that God is mutable, that God cannot do all things, that Christ is not able of and by Himself to save to the utmost, that the saints shall not be kept through faith by the power of God to salvation -- if such inferences follow the interpretation of any Scripture, it is not truly interpreted; for they cannot speak against the truth, but for the truth.

RULE 4. Take heed of distinctions. Though there may be use of them, yet, for the most part, most distinctions arise from darkness and ignorance, or from willfulness. Therefore, take heed of them and admit none that are not well-grounded on the Scripture. If we spoke more punctually and distinctly to all points, there would be fewer distinctions.

It is common with many who cannot or will not (oh, that there were not such as will not) understand the truth to raise distinctions and evade that way. When men cry "Distinguish, we must distinguish!" Then "material" and "formal," "strict" and "late" (poor threadbare terms) are tossed up and down like tennis balls.

RULE 5. Parables and similitudes do not hold in the particulars, but in the whole; not in every sentence, but in the scope.

They do not run on all fours, as we say; they are more used for illustration than demonstration. And I believe there is not a truth held out in a parable but it is held forth also in some other place of Scripture, which will be better ground on, being usually more clear.

RULE 6. Seeing God in Scripture speaks much in a little, interpret Scripture in the largest sense. Scripture is like laws of favor which are to be extended as far as may be. We wrong many a text of Scripture by confining, bounding, and limiting it in a narrow compass.

The Evangelists look upon several texts as fulfilled in their days, which were fulfilled long before, such as Matthew 2:17: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah saying..." Now this was fulfilled literally in Jeremiah 31:15, when Ephraim, who came from Rachel, was in captivity, and fulfilled here by allusion. It is as if he had said, "We may now take up the words of the prophet," as if that place was not fulfilled till now. And so you shall often find several texts upon several occasions applied to several uses, which shows that the sense should not be confined. For instance, that text in Habakkuk 2:4, "the just shall live by faith," is applied in several senses, as appears by comparing it with Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, and Hebrews 10:38, in all of which places it is quoted.

RULE 7. No place must be interpreted so as to make the two commandments "love God" and "love your neighbor" prejudice each other. As the proverb says, we must not rob Peter to clothe Paul. We may not take from God to give to our neighbor, nor take from our neighbor to give to God.

Take "honor thy father and thy mother." Now we must not, under pretense of honoring our parents, dishonor God. No, it is obedience to disobey them, wherein we cannot obey them unless we disobey God. Neither may we, under pretense of a gift, refuse to do something for our father and mother as God commanded (Mark 7:12-13), lest we make the Word of God of no effect.

RULE 8. Distinguish between things spoken properly and things spoken figuratively, between things spoken literally and things meant spiritually. The prophet Malachi said (4:5) that Elijah must first come, which was spoken of John the Baptist, as Christ clarified in Matthew 17:12. So the words in Matthew 16:6, "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees," are not meant properly but figuratively.

If a man should take Matthew 5:29 literally ("if thine eye offend thee, pull it out") he might be guilty of self-murder. Therefore it is to be understood spiritually of anything that is near, dear, and tender as our eye to us. Origen, who interpreted almost all other places of Scripture mystically, understood this place literally (he said that some make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God) and therefore gelded himself. But surely Origen did not have that from the beginning; it was not instituted by God, therefore it must not be executed by man.

RULE 9. All places which speak of administrations and administrators are best understood and interpreted, the nearer the sense comes to God's design. God's design, Ephesians 4:11-13, by all administrators and administrations, is to bring about the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, and the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come to fullness.

Now all administrations and administrators intending to help in this, the places of Scripture speaking of such things are undoubtedly best understood in the sense which promotes that work.

RULE 10. If Scripture speaks about it, believe it though reason cannot find the reason for it. The Scripture says in Job 26:7 that the earth hangs on nothing. 1 John 5:7 says that one is three and three are one. How can reason think this true? Yet it is true, for God who is truth and speaks nothing but truth says it is so!

Yea, let me add that could God be comprehended by our reason, we might think it reason to think He is not God.

py3ak · #2 (**permalink**) 08-10-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

RULE 4. Take heed of distinctions. Though there may be use of them, yet, for the most part, most distinctions arise from darkness and ignorance, or from willfulness. Therefore, take heed of them and admit none that are not well-grounded on the Scripture. If we spoke more punctually and distinctly to all points, there would be fewer distinctions.

It is common with many who cannot or will not (oh, that there were not such as will not) understand the truth to raise distinctions and evade that way. When men cry "Distinguish, we must distinguish!" Then "material" and "formal," "strict" and "late" (poor threadbare terms) are tossed up and down like tennis balls.

Does anyone have an example of the sort of thing Venning had in mind here?

py3ak · #3 (**permalink**) 08-10-2008, 10:02 PM

Quote:

RULE 6. Seeing God in Scripture speaks much in a little, interpret Scripture in the largest sense. Scripture is like laws of favor which are to be extended as far as may be. We wrong many a text of Scripture by confining, bounding, and limiting it in a narrow compass.

The Evangelists look upon several texts as fulfilled in their days, which were fulfilled long before, such as Matthew 2:17: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah saying..." Now this was fulfilled literally in Jeremiah 31:15, when Ephraim, who came from Rachel, was in captivity, and fulfilled here by allusion. It is as if he had said, "We may now take up the words of the prophet," as if that place was not fulfilled till now. And so you shall often find several texts upon several occasions applied to several uses, which shows that the sense should not be confined. For instance, that text in Habakkuk 2:4, "the just shall live by faith," is applied in several senses, as appears by comparing it with Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, and Hebrews 10:38, in all of which places it is quoted.

I like that resounding smack at interpretive minimalism!

Presbyterian Deacon · #4 (**permalink**) 08-10-2008, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Quote:

RULE 4. Take heed of distinctions. Though there may be use of them, yet, for the most part, most distinctions arise from darkness and ignorance, or from willfulness. Therefore, take heed of them and admit none that are not well-grounded on the Scripture. If we spoke more punctually and distinctly to all points, there would be fewer distinctions.

It is common with many who cannot or will not (oh, that there were not such as will not) understand the truth to raise distinctions and evade that way. When men cry "Distinguish, we must distinguish!" Then "material" and "formal," "strict" and "late" (poor threadbare terms) are tossed up and down like tennis balls.

Does anyone have an example of the sort of thing Venning had in mind here?

It's interesting to me that Rule 4 Is Take Heed of Distinctions. And then He gives rule 8 which tells the reader to distinguish between things:

Quote:

RULE 8. Distinguish between things spoken properly and things spoken figuratively, between things spoken literally and things meant spiritually. The prophet Malachi said (4:5) that Elijah must first come, which was spoken of John the Baptist, as Christ clarified in Matthew 17:12. So the words in Matthew 16:6, "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees," are not meant properly but figuratively.

If a man should take Matthew 5:29 literally ("if thine eye offend thee, pull it out") he might be guilty of self-murder. Therefore it is to be understood spiritually of anything that is near, dear, and tender as our eye to us. Origen, who interpreted almost all other places of Scripture mystically, understood this place literally (he said that some make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God) and therefore gelded himself. But surely Origen did not have that from the beginning; it was not instituted by God, therefore it must not be executed by man.

I think what he says positively in Rule 8 helps us to understand his meaning in Rule 4. He is speaking in rule 4, I think, of petty, unimportant, and even questionable shades of difference in interpretation, the proverbial "distinction without a difference," or what some call "antics with semantics."

py3ak · #5 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008, 06:17 PM

Sterling, that's true. But some of the terms he mentions are terms of distinction that would have been very much in use by the Protestant scholastics.

VirginiaHuguenot · #6 (**permalink**) 08-14-2008, 07:52 AM

Reuben -- I have an idea about what Venning is getting at but I've been waiting and hoping that someone more knowledgeable about the Puritan era would weigh in before speaking up.

py3ak · #7 (**permalink**) 08-14-2008, 09:29 PM

Looks like you're on the spot! Fire away.