But shouldn't we interpret the Bible spiritually instead of literally?

[Iconoclast]

In a recently closed thread several ideas were expressed. Here was one of them

I've dealt with many dozens of new believers in Japan, America, and other countries. Not a single one ever said to me, "But shouldn't we interpret the Bible spiritually instead of literally?" No, they interpret literally until some Internet dingaling tells them otherwise.

Jesus spoke to us.....

10 Jesus answered and said to him, `Thou art the teacher of Israel -- and these things thou dost not know!

11 `Verily, verily, I say to thee -- What we have known we speak, and what we have seen we testify, and our testimony ye do not receive;

12 if the earthly things I said to you, and ye do not believe, how, if I shall say to you the heavenly things, will ye believe?

13 and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man who is in the heaven.

14 `And as Moses did lift up the serpent in the wilderness, so it behoveth the Son of Man to be lifted up,



The Apostle Paul said this;
4 and my word and my preaching was not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power --

5 that your faith may not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless,

7 but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory,

8 which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;

9 but, according as it hath been written, `What eye did not see, and ear did not hear, and upon the heart of man came not up, what God did prepare for those loving Him --'

10 but to us did God reveal [them] through His Spirit, for the Spirit all things doth search, even the depths of God,

11 for who of men hath known the things of the man, except the spirit of the man that [is] in him? so also the things of God no one hath known, except the Spirit of God.

12 And we the spirit of the world did not receive, but the Spirit that [is] of God, that we may know the things conferred by God on us,

13 which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Holy Spirit, with spiritual things spiritual things comparing,

14 and the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know [them], because spiritually they are discerned;

15 and he who is spiritual, doth discern indeed all things, and he himself is by no one discerned;


Spiritual and Heavenly truth is not limited to a wooden literalism.....

 

[Iconoclast]

romans5;
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Hebrews9
8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic
23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these

 

[Iconoclast]

Do you believe?

1] Jesus is the last Adam

2]Jesus is the New Exodus

3]Jesus is the True Passover

4]Jesus is the True Manna

5]Jesus provides the Living Water

6] Jesus is the True Tabernacle

7]Jesus is the True Israel

 

[thatbrian]

In a recently closed thread several ideas were expressed. Here was one of them




Jesus spoke to us.....

10 Jesus answered and said to him, `Thou art the teacher of Israel -- and these things thou dost not know!

11 `Verily, verily, I say to thee -- What we have known we speak, and what we have seen we testify, and our testimony ye do not receive;

12 if the earthly things I said to you, and ye do not believe, how, if I shall say to you the heavenly things, will ye believe?

13 and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man who is in the heaven.

14 `And as Moses did lift up the serpent in the wilderness, so it behoveth the Son of Man to be lifted up,



The Apostle Paul said this;
4 and my word and my preaching was not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power --

5 that your faith may not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless,

7 but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory,

8 which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;

9 but, according as it hath been written, `What eye did not see, and ear did not hear, and upon the heart of man came not up, what God did prepare for those loving Him --'

10 but to us did God reveal [them] through His Spirit, for the Spirit all things doth search, even the depths of God,

11 for who of men hath known the things of the man, except the spirit of the man that [is] in him? so also the things of God no one hath known, except the Spirit of God.

12 And we the spirit of the world did not receive, but the Spirit that [is] of God, that we may know the things conferred by God on us,

13 which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Holy Spirit, with spiritual things spiritual things comparing,

14 and the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know [them], because spiritually they are discerned;

15 and he who is spiritual, doth discern indeed all things, and he himself is by no one discerned;


Spiritual and Heavenly truth is not limited to a wooden literalism.....

We must respect the genre, which "literalists" don't do, ironically. I read the Bible literally and recommend that to all, but to read the Bible literalistically is to, at times, ignore the genre. They read analogy as literal or historical narrative as didactic teaching.

The Bible uses much spiritual language and analogy - figures of speech - hyperbole, etc.

Did Jesus want us to believe that He is a door or gate? Did He instruct sinners to literaly mutalte their bodies, e.g., cut off their hands? Did Jesus really think that the Pharisees were literally snakes?

Was He literally a stone building? Are we stones which are part of that building?

I could go on for hours.

 

[thatbrian]

Do you believe?

1] Jesus is the last Adam

If literalistic folks are consistent:

Jesus is the last person who was ever named Adam, and of course, that leaves us a little confused as to His real name. Maybe Adam was his middle name.

 

[Iconoclast]

thatbrian,

We must respect the genre, which "literalists" don't do, ironically. I read the Bible literally and recommend that to all, but to read the Bible literalistically is to, at times, ignore the genre. They read analogy as literal or historical narrative as didactic teaching.

The Bible uses much spiritual language and analogy - figures of speech - hyperbole, etc.

Did Jesus want us to believe that He is a door or gate? Did He instruct sinners to mutalte their bodies, e.g., cut off their hands? Did Jesus really think that the Pharisees were literally snakes?

Was He literally a stone building? Are we stones which are part of that building?

I could go on for hours.

Yes...we believe in literal truth. Not all spiritual truth is just literal ideas...

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

 

[thatbrian]

thatbrian,



Yes...we believe in literal truth. Not all spiritual truth is just literal ideas...

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

The point is, we are after the intended meaning of the author, so we must treat the text with at least respect as we do our friend who is so hungry, he could eat a horse, or who spent all day at the DMV.

With the Bible, things are a little trickier to understand, at times, than the above examples, and, on top of that, it's written in other languages, to people who lived long ago, in vastly different cultural contexts than ours.

 

[TCassidy]

We must respect the genre, which "literalists" don't do, ironically.

Name one person in this discussion who does not understand and respect the genre. And give a thread and post # of that person supporting your claim.

They read analogy as literal or historical narrative as didactic teaching.

Name one person in this discussion who reads analogy as literal or historical narrative as didactic teaching. And give a thread and post # of that person supporting your claim.

The Bible uses much spiritual language and analogy - figures of speech - hyperbole, etc.

Yes, we all know that.

Did Jesus want us to believe that He is a door or gate?

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

Did He instruct sinners to literaly mutalte their bodies, e.g., cut off their hands?

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

Did Jesus really think that the Pharisees were literally snakes?

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

Was He literally a stone building?

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

Are we stones which are part of that building?

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

I could go on for hours.

And just make yourself look even more ridiculous.

If literalistic folks are consistent:

Jesus is the last person who was ever named Adam, and of course, that leaves us a little confused as to His real name. Maybe Adam was his middle name.

And there it is. You just make yourself look even more ridiculous than before.

The point is, we are after the intended meaning of the author, so we must treat the text with at least respect as we do our friend who is so hungry, he could eat a horse, or who spent all day at the DMV.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

 

[Iconoclast]

"thatbrian,

The point is, we are after the intended meaning of the author, so we must treat the text with at least respect as we do our friend who is so hungry, he could eat a horse, or who spent all day at the DMV.

With the Bible, things are a little trickier to understand, at times, than the above examples, and, on top of that, it's written in other languages, to people who lived long ago, in vastly different cultural contexts than ours.

gal4
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Paul speaks of a historical event...mentions literal places, and people.

Then he jumps forward to Isa 54 to demonstrate as a result of the cross gentiles will flood into the heavenly Zion in mass.
Literal truths are literally fulfilled in the Spiritual realm...

 

[InTheLight]

Name one person in this discussion who does not understand and respect the genre. And give a thread and post # of that person supporting your claim.

Name one person in this discussion who reads analogy as literal or historical narrative as didactic teaching. And give a thread and post # of that person supporting your claim.

Yes, we all know that.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.


Yes, we all understand metaphors.
Yes, we all understand metaphors.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

And just make yourself look even more ridiculous.

And there it is. You just make yourself look even more ridiculous than before.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

TCassidy, are you saying thatbrian constructs strawmen?

I wonder if anyone else has pointed that out...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[thatbrian]

Name one person in this discussion who does not understand and respect the genre. And give a thread and post # of that person supporting your claim.

Name one person in this discussion who reads analogy as literal or historical narrative as didactic teaching. And give a thread and post # of that person supporting your claim.

Yes, we all know that.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.


Yes, we all understand metaphors.
Yes, we all understand metaphors.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

And just make yourself look even more ridiculous.

And there it is. You just make yourself look even more ridiculous than before.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

I was not active in the original thread. I was not referring to anyone specifically, just thinking about people I've come in contact with through the years. I will say, for starters, pretrib, "Left Behind" types tend to show little respect for genre or rhetorical devices.

 

[thatbrian]

"thatbrian,


gal4
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Paul speaks of a historical event...mentions literal places, and people.

Then he jumps forward to Isa 54 to demonstrate as a result of the cross gentiles will flood into the heavenly Zion in mass.
Literal truths are literally fulfilled in the Spiritual realm...

Yes, and Jesus was the Rock that Moses struck. I understand that, and it's obviously not "spiritualizing" the text, as it is the text that gives us that teaching.

As in all of life, maintaining balance is the difficulty.

1) There is not allegory under every stone. However. . .
2) The Apostles gave some examples of interpretation that would make our literalistic friend's heads spin, like Galatians 4.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, and Jesus was the Rock that Moses struck. I understand that, and it's obviously not "spiritualizing" the text, as it is the text that gives us that teaching.

As in all of life, maintaining balance is the difficulty.

1) There is not allegory under every stone. However. . .
2) The Apostles gave some examples of interpretation that would make our literalistic friend's heads spin, like Galatians 4.

That would be a correct caution. Some would go overboard and try to turn every word or phrase into some kind of allegorical idea.
A few years ago Harold Camping on family radio showed what happened when you totally abandon any rational understanding,for example he would suggest complete novelties....if some grain fell out of a basket to the ground this would represent a false gospel in his mind.....even A.W.Pink in his gleanings in Genesis book, suggests the ark had 3 levels suggesting that was because of the trinity?
That is why some back away totally from even looking or considering any such ideas.

 

[Covenanter]

I've dealt with many dozens of new believers in Japan, America, and other countries. Not a single one ever said to me, "But shouldn't we interpret the Bible spiritually instead of literally?" No, they interpret literally until some Internet dingaling tells them otherwise.

Name one person in this discussion who does not understand and respect the genre. And give a thread and post # of that person supporting your claim.

Name one person in this discussion who reads analogy as literal or historical narrative as didactic teaching. And give a thread and post # of that person supporting your claim.

Yes, we all know that.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.


Yes, we all understand metaphors.
Yes, we all understand metaphors.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

And just make yourself look even more ridiculous.

And there it is. You just make yourself look even more ridiculous than before.

Yes, we all understand metaphors.

Two basic hermeneutics - with two results for the interpretation of prophecy:

"Literal" results in a focus on the nation of Israel in a future, millennial dispensation, centred on a physical earthly reign of the Lord Jesus Christ from David's throne in Jerusalem. Jesus' return will be pre- mid- or post-trib. The present Gospel dispensation is often considered to be a mystery which was not prophesied;

whereas "Spiritual" results in a focus on Christ & the Church in the present dispensation, with Christ reigning in the spiritual realm from David's spiritual throne in heaven. The only future dispensation is the NH&NE. The Church includes redeemed sinners of all families on earth. Israel as a nation has no special place in the Church.

IMO the discussion is not really about hermeneutics but about doctrine, with the "literalizers" claiming precedence over the "spiritualizers."

The literalizers get into heresy when they try to justify a millennial temple, complete with animal sacrifices. Also when they separate the hour of resurrection of good & evil by 1,000 years, so expecting Jesus to live again among wicked men on earth.

John 5:26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.​

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A woodenly literal interpretation of the Bible has been the cause of error right from the start. One sees that especially in John's Gospel.

John 2:20 John 3:4; John 4:15; John 4:33; John 6:52; John 7:35; John 10:6.
And how much terrible error and idolatry has been caused by a literal understanding of "This is My Body"?

This is not an apologetic for crazy interpretation like some of Origen's work, but if the words of Christ are Spirit and truth, they must be spiritually understood.

 

[Yeshua1]

We must respect the genre, which "literalists" don't do, ironically. I read the Bible literally and recommend that to all, but to read the Bible literalistically is to, at times, ignore the genre. They read analogy as literal or historical narrative as didactic teaching.

The Bible uses much spiritual language and analogy - figures of speech - hyperbole, etc.

Did Jesus want us to believe that He is a door or gate? Did He instruct sinners to literaly mutalte their bodies, e.g., cut off their hands? Did Jesus really think that the Pharisees were literally snakes?

Was He literally a stone building? Are we stones which are part of that building?

I could go on for hours.

Those of us here though whoa re considered to hold to a literal meaning of the Bible do take into account the Genres and figures of speech, its just for example, we do not see where in the bible God said Israel now meant Church!

 

[thatbrian]

Two basic hermeneutics - with two results for the interpretation of prophecy:

"Literal" results in a focus on the nation of Israel in a future, millennial dispensation, centred on a physical earthly reign of the Lord Jesus Christ from David's throne in Jerusalem. Jesus' return will be pre- mid- or post-trib. The present Gospel dispensation is often considered to be a mystery which was not prophesied;

whereas "Spiritual" results in a focus on Christ & the Church in the present dispensation, with Christ reigning in the spiritual realm from David's spiritual throne in heaven. The only future dispensation is the NH&NE. The Church includes redeemed sinners of all families on earth. Israel as a nation has no special place in the Church.

IMO the discussion is not really about hermeneutics but about doctrine, with the "literalizers" claiming precedence over the "spiritualizers."

The literalizers get into heresy when they try to justify a millennial temple, complete with animal sacrifices. Also when they separate the hour of resurrection of good & evil by 1,000 years, so expecting Jesus to live again among wicked men on earth.

John 5:26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.​

Had you not used the term, "dispensation", I would have liked your post a lot more.

Also, I would again argue that I do take the Bible literally. I literally believe that Jesus is literally reigning, right now!

 

[thatbrian]

Those of us here though whoa re considered to hold to a literal meaning of the Bible do take into account the Genres and figures of speech, its just for example, we do not see where in the bible God said Israel now meant Church!

It's the other way around. The church always was. Israel is the parenthesis.

 

[Yeshua1]

It's the other way around. The church always was. Israel is the parenthesis.

israel is the nation of the jews, and the Church are both Jews and Gentiles!

 

[Covenanter]

I think, judging from a number of threads, the discussion is not -
literal versus spiritual,
but
physical, [Edited: Name calling].

We speak of heaven & earth, but Paul speaks of 3 heavens!
He also speaks of spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
while John speaks of war in heaven.
Solomon prays to God dwelling in the heaven of heavens - 27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!

I suggest that the 3 heavens are -
1. the highest heaven, the eternal dwelling place of God where also elect angels & glorified saints dwell;
2. the spiritual realm, where all sorts of spiritual interaction occur - prayer, worship, temptation, sin, Satanic activity, etc
3. the created physical heavens.

[Edit: Name Calling - false accusation]