"Allegorical" and "Spiritual" Hermeneutics

There appears to be great confusion about hermeneutics on the BB, especially among preterists, and amil advocates. Hopefully this thread can clear up some things about hermeneutics--but I'm not holding my breath. Caveat: I'm going to have to simplify some things. There is no way a BB thread can even begin to deal adequately with this subject. So my goal is mainly to inform about the OP.

For the record, my method is grammatical-historical, and I think much of modern linguistics helps that method. In particular, advances in semantics (the study of meaning) help Biblical exegesis. Great sources on this are Mouses Silva (Biblical Words and Their Meaning) and David Alan Black (Linguistics for Students of NT Greek).

First of all, all scholars agree that the basic method of interpretation of the early church was grammatical-historical. Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard (Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 1993, p. 30) speak of literal-contextual interpretation as an apostolic method.

The first genuine school of hermeneutics developed in Antioch of Syria. When Origen and his allegorical method came along, "The Syrian school fought Origen in particular as the inventor of the allegorical method, and maintained the primacy of the iteral and historical interpretation of the Scripture" (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical interpretation, p. 49). "The literal method of interpreting the Bible is to accept as basic the literal rendering of the sentences unless by virtue of the nature of the sentence or phrase or clause within the sentence this is not possible" (ibid, 45).

Ah, yes, Origen (185-254). There were other allegorists (Clement of Alexandria, for one), but he took the Jewish method of Philo and applied it to the NT, popularizing it in the process. Origen taught different levels of interpretation: the literal (the least important), only for laymen. He taught that the spiritual interpretation was the true interpretation, something foreign to the grammatical-historical method, and something that allows every interpreter to interpret differently.

So, for you preterists on the BB: "Spiritual" and "allegorical" are synonyms for the same method. When you interpret other than literally you are interpreting "spiritually" or "allegorically." Thus you are not interpreting according to natural, God given (cf universal grammar), normal hermeneutics. You are using a method that can mean anything--thus the very wide variety of preterist positions. Simply admit that you do not interpret prophecy literally (however you may interpret the Sermon on the Mount and other important Scripture), and go on from there.

 

Hi, Rhet. Nice to hear from you. I appreciate the endorsement of my post by a bonafide, published historian.

Concerning Japanese, when I've done secular translation work, I must translate literally (depending on the goals of the translation). Why? Because the client wants the reader to understand the original document.

Very true! As you know, many within the SBC were strongly influenced by him.

I'm still working on my book about him, and in August made a research trip to Southwestern BTS, where the John R. Rice Papers are. I was privileged to fellowship some and then have lunch with Dr. & Mrs. Paige Patterson. He told me that everywhere he went back in the day, The Sword of the Lord was on the desks of pastors, so he gave credit to JRR for planting the seeds of the conservative resurgence.

Certainly no offense taken, friend.

We came back to the US in 2014 after 33 years in Japan, and now I teach at a small Baptist college in Wisconsin with my son, who got his PhD under David Alan Black at Southeastern. Having a great time!

 

Thanks for your interest. I have the rough draft of 11 chapters done, with at least four to go. My next task is to go through the documents I scanned and photographed at Southeastern. I found a lot of good material.

I do thank you for the offer to have a part in it, and I will certainly remember that. You would certainly be a help as a reader, being an historian, and maybe as an editor, depending on the publisher.

 

Not sure where to find that. Maybe on my brother's website? Help me out with the URL. I know he had my Mom's recollections there at one time.

 

Ah, yes, typology. That is using an OT historical event or person to prefigure something in the NT. The Greek word is tupos, which has a variety of meanings such as "form" (Rom. 6:27) or "figure" (Acts 7:43), but most often means "example." So, an OT event can be an example of a NT truth, as in Gal. 4.

1 Cor. 10:11--"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples (Greek tupos): and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

Christ himself used types, such as in Matt. 12: "39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

So, a type is not allegorical interpretation as taught by Origen and used by preterists, but might be described as a sermon illustration.

 

This is the technical term for what you might call literal; "literal" doesn't truly describe it, though. It is interpreting according to the grammar and semantics of the original languages, taking into account the historical circumstances, location, and society in which the NT document is written. It is taking the normal linguistic meaning as the correct meaning.

 

Thank you! Haven't seen my aunts for awhile.

 

Thank you!

 

The family is at our favorite coffee shop right now, just chilling and surfing and doing email. My son just read that Daniel Wallace on his blog says that it was Bruce Metzger who said, "As literal as possible, as free as necessary." The story is that they were working on the RSV at the time.

Now, as a Bible translator, that's pretty much what I do. So, if we translate that way, why do people then interpret the translation--wait for it--allegorically and not literally!? You see, language is designed by God to communicate literally. Any communication theory in linguistics is going to acknowledge this: code theory, relevance theory, whatever. Therefore God Himself communicated literally with us when He gave us the Bible.

When your wife asks you to take out the garbage, do you interpret allegorically? "Honey, I perceive that you wish me to stop my bad habit of leaving my dishes on the table and making you always clear the table. This is an allegory for my sin, is it not?"