Featured Who Gave the Right to Interpret "Spiritually"?

It's spring break in the education biz, so I thought I'd cause some mischief.

Every single prophecy of the first coming of Christ, His incarnation, was fulfilled literally. I have a list of over 60 such fulfillments. Think of His being born in Bethlehem, His family fleeing to Egypt, etc.

In the light of that fact, who gave the right to anyone to interpret prophecy about His second coming allegorically or "spiritually"? (These two methods are essentially the same.) Let me be more specific. What has changed between the two comings, or Scripturally, that gives anyone the right to interpret Acts 1:11 any way but literally? And if it is a literal prophecy, then it has not yet been fulfilled. Jesus physcically ascended into Heaven with His resurrection body, so He will physically descend from Heaven with His resurrection body.

There are, of course, many other Scriptures, but this one will do to start.

 

I laughed out loud, Doc.

 

Well, causing mayhem is the first choice. But having a preterist or amil try to explain where they get this right would be fun, too.

 

The genre of the book of Revelation is apocalyptic, according to 1:1. This is a sub genre of prophecy. The main example of the genre in the OT is Daniel (there are others), and the two books are very related. My son the hermeneutics prof describes apocalypse as "prophecy on steroids.

Now, your question doesn't really fit the OP, since the interpretation you are asking for is from metaphorical (symbolic language) language, and does not require "spiritual interpretation." Often metaphors are explained in the text in this genre, as with the four kingdoms in Daniel. When the metaphor is not explained in the text the keys are in the immediate context or the wider context of the book.

In the case of the beast here, the book of Rev. is chock full of other references to the beast. From the context of the book, it is clear that the beast is the Antichrist, not some kind of apocalyptic dinosaur. And just to be clear, this is not spiritualization or allegorical interpretation. It is grammatical historical interpretation when it comes upon a clear metaphor.

 

Um, not really. There are plenty of other preterists on the BB. If you don't want to answer that's fine with me. I just thought it would give you a chance to share your views on interpreting prophecy spiritually, and to clarify your statement that interpreting literally is an oxymoron, something I really don't comprehend. If you have no desire to do so, go your way and God bless.

And by the way, just so we're clear, as I said on another thread, your position is not covenant theology. You disagreed with the sine qua non statement of CT as I gave it to you in a Berkhof quote. You are much closer to New Covenant Theology (not at all the same as CT).

 

Why are you referring to John 3:4 (a metaphor) and 6:52 (another metaphor) to disprove literal interpretation? Surely you know that when we interpret literally we know what a metaphor is, don't you? These verses don't prove your point in the slightest. I teach my Eng. 101 class every fall what a metaphor is. That's just basic.

 

Wow! Not only misunderstanding, but anachronizing.