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

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.

 

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.

 

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, are you saying thatbrian constructs strawmen?

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

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.​

 

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.

 

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!

 

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!

 

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!

 

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]