Intretation

The Dispensation of Law Expounded
Rev.22:17

There are eight basic approaches to Scripture:

Legalism:
(1) Adding to the Scriptures and enforcing it as Scripture
(2) Carrying out the letter of the law ignoring the spirit of it

Liberalism:
Taking away, casting doubt, or sugar-coating the Scriptures

Modernism:
Updating the Bible

Allegorism:
Secret meanings behind the literal words

Mysticism:
Experiencing the Bible

Rationalism:
Everything must be reasonable to the modern mind

Letterism:
Stresses the literal sense of Scripture including that of figurative expressions

Literalism:
Stresses the literal sense of Scripture excluding that of figurative expressions

However, in modern evangelicalism there are two main methods of interpretation; literal (fundamental) and allegorical (spiritual). These two are contrary one to the other, for one seeks to interpret the Bible, its classes of people, and its prophecies literally, while the other seeks to interpret some or all of the Bible, its classes of people, and its prophecies allegorically. One can find that the main difference between ‘dispensational theology’ and ‘covenant theology’ traces its roots to this distinction. Distinguishing between literal and allegorical interpretation is also the main difference between premillennialists and amillennialists. Premillennialists believe in a literal interpretation of the Scriptures and amillennialists believe in an allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures, at least in their view of prophetic passages.

G1. Literal
This method of interpretation is the correct mode of interpretation. One should not come to a passage expecting a non-literal interpretation.

We should interpret literally because:

A. This method is objective, and protects from presuppositions

B. This method safeguards from men’s imaginations and desires

C.    It is only in this method that one can believe that what God said is what He actually meant

D. This method also allows for the interpretation to be proved (tested) by other scriptures (comparing scripture with scripture)

E. This method also allows for the interpretation to be proved (tested) by non-scriptural means (i.e. geography, science, philosophy…)

F. Literal interpretation of words is the normal interpretation in every language

G. Literal interpretation seeks to find clarity in grammar and definition of words

H.   If we were to interpret allegorically then God would have given us a guideline by which we were to allegorize

I.    Comparatives always base themselves on literal truth and never on some unfounded idea

J. The Bible intricately fits together literally

K. When the New Testament refers to the Old Testament, it always refers to it literally

L. Every prophecy regarding Christ’s first coming was fulfilled literally

M. Every prophecy that has been completely fulfilled to date has been fulfilled literally

Literalism does not negate the idea of there being comparatives used in scripture to enhance the literal teaching. However, it must be understood that comparatives enhance the literal truth of the passage; they do not expel it. ‘Literalism’ is not to be confused with ‘letterism.’ ‘Letterism’ is the idea that there are no spiritual teachings in the Scriptures. Literalism does not understand that God has wings like a bird (Psalm 36:7), that Christ is an actual lamb (John 1:29). That’s ‘letterism.’

Any passage/text/phrase/word of scripture is to be taken as literal unless:

A. It is absolutely absurd to understand it literally

B. It would disturb the context, structure, or flow of the text

C. It would not harmonize with the culture in which it was written

D. It would conflict with the general teachings of the Bible

E. It is a figure of speech/figurative expression (like, as), sarcasm, or symbol. But all these will seek to expound or explain on a literal truth. We must understand the literal truth that figurative expressions convey. But if it is a figure of speech, write down the meaning as it will most likely tie into a Biblical principle. ex: “hate thy mother, and father…”

F. It is a (or part of a) rhetorical argument

However, the general rule of thumb is, If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.

The literal method seeks to give the same meaning to each word as it has outside of the Scriptures in contemporary and historical usage. Sometimes it is referred to as the grammatical-historical method.

G2. Allegorical / Spiritual
Allegorical interpretation seeks to find alternative meanings to clearly stated words or ideas. In other words, what is on the surface is not the real meaning, but what is hidden becomes the real meaning. Allegorical interpretation believes that beneath the letter or the obvious is the real meaning of the passage. Those who interpret Scripture allegorically, assign secondary meanings to the literal words that are not expressed or implied by the text.

Many frantically turn to 1 Corinthians 2:13 in order to substantiate their belief in allegorical interpretation. It is with great amusement that we see this verse not allegorized when it is interpreted. “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” This verse is not advocating a “spiritual” interpretation (“man’s wisdom”) as is clearly noticed with proper exegesis.

Reasons for not interpreting allegorically:

1. This method relies solely on the interpreter’s speculation, doctrinal position, church’s position or personal background

2. If the text does not say what it means, and the words do not carry their normal definitions, than anyone can say the text means anything they want it to. Believing that the text does not say what it means is heretical.

3. If the meaning can be anything we want it to be then there is no way to prove or test absolute truth in many areas of scripture using this method, for things have to always represent something beyond what is clearly stated.
The Bible says that “every way of man is right in his own eyes” (Proverbs 21:2). With this in mind, if we try to determine for ourselves what the text means then we are naturally going to curve everything to our own perceptions and understandings, such is true with the covenant theology.

4. Because it is necessary to be taught how to imagine greater truths than what the text says, leaving the greatest truths to be found by those who have the greatest imagination or mystical perception

5. If the meaning cannot be discerned through the normal understanding of language, how can it be discerned?

6. If the plain language of the text is only to be a springboard for greater truth, it is impossible to come to a unanimous conclusion with others

7. The interpreter is stuck with trying to figure out this great scheme that God has deployed to determine which passages are to be read as literal and which passages are to be read as allegorical

8. Allegorical interpretation leads to utter confusion

Some valuable truths may be taught allegorically but not at the expense of what the text actually says. However, if one refuses to see that the Scriptures should be interpreted literally, then there is no need to continue reading this book as one can/will spiritualize the meanings anyways.(h)