Literal Interpretation

[glfredrick]

From a historical theological perspective, the Roman Catholic Church took a very literal interpretation to arrive at most of their errant views.

For instance: transubstaniation comes from a literal read of Jesus saying the Lords Supper is His body and blood. Also the priesthood and apostolic succession comes from a literal read of Peter being the "rock" on which the Church is built.

All that said, sometimes a literal read can lead to theological trouble.

Indeed... It is an interesting study in church history to see when all those theological distinctions came into play, and which came first, hyper-literalism or allegory.

 

[JesusFan]

From a historical theological perspective, the Roman Catholic Church took a very literal interpretation to arrive at most of their errant views.

For instance: transubstaniation comes from a literal read of Jesus saying the Lords Supper is His body and blood. Also the priesthood and apostolic succession comes from a literal read of Peter being the "rock" on which the Church is built.

All that said, sometimes a literal read can lead to theological trouble.

That is why a plain and literally meaning should be seen in the text UNLESS valid reason not to, as by types of speech/genre being used!

 

[psalms109:31]

As we are now no longer under law, but under Grace?

Romans 13:8
[ Love Fulfills the Law ] Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

 

[kyredneck]

And right off is your mistake. You take this as a riddle when it is so clearly hyperbole.

Actually, I did use riddle intentionally just to see what sort of response it was raise, and one would think that I had just denied the deity of Christ. You say hyperbole. I say “Thy hand or thy foot or thine eye” is figurative and is used exactly as Paul used it here:

14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body.
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body.
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members each one of them in the body, even as it pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 1 Cor 12

....and that same figurative language is found in the OT:

For Jehovah hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes, the prophets; and your heads, the seers, hath he covered. Isa 29:10

And then you head off in a direction totally unsupported by the text.

Whoa! Says who? You? Bernard Ramm? Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard?

The text:

6 But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble....

It is an individual that is causing another individual to stumble here, and woe to him that does such a deed.

7 Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling....woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh!

“ I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, and Christ is not referring to 'kosmos' at large here, but means this 'arrangement': “..I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing.” Jn 18:20.

Yea, woe unto the temple and the synagogues and the Jews, because it was from them that the persecutions and trials and stumblingblocks came upon His infant church and caused so many of them to stumble as to fall away.

7 Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling.... Mt 18
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides,....
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!....
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!..... Mt 23
52 Woe unto you lawyers! for ye took away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. Lu 11

8 And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble....
9 And if thine eye causeth thee to stumble..... Mt 18

Take note that it is a part of the body that is causing the stumbling here as in:

29 I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Acts 20

1 But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of. 2 Pet 2

3 Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude

In short, I disagree with you. I say the text, both through the magnifying glass and the telescope, does support this interpretation.

 

[humblethinker]

From a historical theological perspective, the Roman Catholic Church took a very literal interpretation to arrive at most of their errant views.

For instance: transubstaniation comes from a literal read of Jesus saying the Lords Supper is His body and blood. Also the priesthood and apostolic succession comes from a literal read of Peter being the "rock" on which the Church is built.

I think a big problem here we are suffering from in this thread is an issue of semantics and grammer. I believe you are correct regarding the Catholic church's view of transubstantiation and apostolic succession. In a way, I can agree with your statement that they arrived at those mistakes from a "literal read". Yet, I could say that a literal read of those passages would result in an understanding that Jesus was speaking figuratively. The difference in these two perspectives is one of semantics.

All that said, sometimes a literal read can lead to theological trouble.

I could agree with this statement, again it's about what you are meaning to say. It seems you are trying to leverage misunderstandings.

 

[humblethinker]

To truly be "literal" one must consider the genre and respond accordingly. If poetic, then realize that poetry is not always completely prescriptive, but rather, often, descriptive. If historical narrative, then realize that an event is being detailed, but we should look for the "bigger picture" in the event, and not the details of the event to guide us, i.e., why was the event shared and what can we learn from the episode. If evangelistic tract, then we can understand that the underlying reason for the text is to share the gospel. If apocalyptic in nature, then we ought to realize that the text is speaking of some prophetic event, and may not be strictly seen in a "do it now" literalism. If allegorical, then realize that a bigger point is being made. If hyperbole, understand that some exaggeration is attempted to make a point -- we ought to figure out what is the point, not what is the exaggeration. If the literature is a parable, then we can know that it is a divine illustration of a point, but that the details are made up in order to create a teaching moment.

Understanding what we read and knowing when it is descriptive or prescriptive, plus knowing to whom the passage is spoken, for what reason, by whom, and what the main point was to the one hearing it for the first time all help us to draw inferences and prescriptions from the text that apply to our own situations, needs, and yes, God's direction for all people in all times and at all places.

:thumbsup: I agree with this.
In what way would someone disagree with this? What is the problem with this kind of understanding?

 

[thomas15]

.... I believe you are correct regarding the Catholic church's view of transubstantiation and apostolic succession. In a way, I can agree with your statement that they arrived at those mistakes from a "literal read".

I would very much like to see in print the case made that the Roman Church sat down with the Bible and motivated by a sense of literal rendering came up with transubstantiation and apostolic sucession. True, from time to time modern day Catholic apologists attempt this explanation but do you really think the historic record would support it? If a literal understanding of the scriptures were first in mind with the Catholic church fathers, would we be enjoying this allegorical vs. literal discussion we are now presently engaged in?

Did you know that at the 16th century Council of Trent there was not one (1) attendee that knew Biblical Greek or Hebrew?

 

[glfredrick]

I would very much like to see in print the case made that the Roman Church sat down with the Bible and motivated by a sense of literal rendering came up with transubstantiation and apostolic sucession. True, from time to time modern day Catholic apologists attempt this explanation but do you really think the historic record would support it? If a literal understanding of the scriptures were first in mind with the Catholic church fathers, would we be enjoying this allegorical vs. literal discussion we are now presently engaged in?

Did you know that at the 16th century Council of Trent there was not one (1) attendee that knew Biblical Greek or Hebrew?

Like I said above, it is an interesting study in church history to see how the RCC arrived at all their current dogma. :laugh:

One clue, is that much of it is done later rather than earlier, but the later work is then revised so as to present that the RCC has ALWAYS seen and done it that way. But alas, this is not a thread about RC doctrines, is it. :love2:

 

[thomas15]

Like I said above, it is an interesting study in church history to see how the RCC arrived at all their current dogma. :laugh:

One clue, is that much of it is done later rather than earlier, but the later work is then revised so as to present that the RCC has ALWAYS seen and done it that way. But alas, this is not a thread about RC doctrines, is it. :love2:

I wasn't trying to argue, just responding to the comments. You are correct, the theology of the Roman Church is an ever evolving thing. And you are also correct this isn't about roman theology but I do try to make the point, as other have that the 16th century reformers looked at and brought into revision almost everything except eschatology, which they left untouched, claiming for themselves as the roman church did the kingdom. It is my belief that covenant theology uses the same thinking to arrive at the amil position via biblical allegory. That is the tie-in into this discussion.

 

[JesusFan]

I wasn't trying to argue, just responding to the comments. You are correct, the theology of the Roman Church is an ever evolving thing. And you are also correct this isn't about roman theology but I do try to make the point, as other have that the 16th century reformers looked at and brought into revision almost everything except eschatology, which they left untouched, claiming for themselves as the roman church did the kingdom. It is my belief that covenant theology uses the same thinking to arrive at the amil position via biblical allegory. That is the tie-in into this discussion.

Is that why Calvin and other reformers did not write much on revelation than?
That they were SO wrapped up in getting "proper Sotierology" that they pretty much accepted the held views on eschatology of catholic Church?

 

[humblethinker]

Did you know that at the 16th century Council of Trent there was not one (1) attendee that knew Biblical Greek or Hebrew?

This wouldn't surprise me since, as I understand it, they were LVO (Latin Vulgate Only), correct?

 

[glfredrick]

I wasn't trying to argue, just responding to the comments. You are correct, the theology of the Roman Church is an ever evolving thing. And you are also correct this isn't about roman theology but I do try to make the point, as other have that the 16th century reformers looked at and brought into revision almost everything except eschatology, which they left untouched, claiming for themselves as the roman church did the kingdom. It is my belief that covenant theology uses the same thinking to arrive at the amil position via biblical allegory. That is the tie-in into this discussion.

Yup... Not trying to argue with you either. Just adding info for clarification. :saint:

 

[glfredrick]

Is that why Calvin and other reformers did not write much on revelation than?
That they were SO wrapped up in getting "proper Sotierology" that they pretty much accepted the held views on eschatology of catholic Church?

Actually Calvin wrote much more on other subjects that on soteriology. He was a busy man who preached thousands of sermons, sometimes more than one per day.

 

[preachinjesus]

Did you know that at the 16th century Council of Trent there was not one (1) attendee that knew Biblical Greek or Hebrew?

If possible could we get a citation on this. While it's possible, it isn't awfully convincing. Do you have a complete list of attendees? Do you know all their backgrounds? A good historian wouldn't, generally, leap to such a conclusion without good evidence.

So I'm interested in hearing the grounds for this. Thanks in advance!:thumbsup:

 

[John of Japan]

Actually, I did use riddle intentionally just to see what sort of response it was raise, and one would think that I had just denied the deity of Christ.

Playing games with the precious Word of God? Why am I not surprised.

“ I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, and Christ is not referring to 'kosmos' at large here, but means this 'arrangement': “..I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing.” Jn 18:20.

Yea, woe unto the temple and the synagogues and the Jews, because it was from them that the persecutions and trials and stumblingblocks came upon His infant church and caused so many of them to stumble as to fall away.

7 Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling.... Mt 18
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides,....
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!....
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!..... Mt 23
52 Woe unto you lawyers! for ye took away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. Lu 11

8 And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble....
9 And if thine eye causeth thee to stumble..... Mt 18

Take note that it is a part of the body that is causing the stumbling here as in:

29 I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Acts 20

1 But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of. 2 Pet 2

3 Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude

In short, I disagree with you. I say the text, both through the magnifying glass and the telescope, does support this interpretation.

Wow. Talk about exegesis out of whole cloth. Nowhere in Matthew 18 does any term about Israel occur: Jew, Jews, Israel. In fact, nowhere from 15:31 to 19:28 does such a term occur. Yet somehow you think Jesus was talking about the Jews because of a vaguely similar passage in the OT.

You desperately need to actually study hermeneutics--even from a book by one you admire, a non-dispy. Please, get help.

 

[kyredneck]

Playing games with the precious Word of God? Why am I not surprised.

Neither does your sanctimonious sarcasm surprise me.

Wow. Talk about exegesis out of whole cloth. Nowhere in Matthew 18.....

Sigh; the passages that have become the topic here are Mt 18:8 & 9 specifically. Everyone agrees, whether literalist or allegorist, Christ was not telling them to literally cut off their hands or feet or to literally pluck out their eyes in order to keep from stumbling.

I used sound scriptural hermeneutics (as in other scripture passages only, under the magnifying glass and the telescope) to come to my interpretation.

...does any term about Israel occur: Jew, Jews, Israel. In fact, nowhere from 15:31 to 19:28 does such a term occur.

Totally irrelevant. His entire life and ministry was immersed in the kosmos of Judaism. I reiterate from my previous post:

““ I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, and Christ is not referring to 'kosmos' at large here, but means this 'arrangement': “..I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing.” Jn 18:20.”

Hodge's first rule of scripture interpretation:

“The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.”

Yet somehow you think Jesus was talking about the Jews because of a vaguely similar passage in the OT.

Yet somehow you grossly misrepresent the facts here, I submitted several passages from scripture.

You desperately need to actually study hermeneutics--even from a book by one you admire, a non-dispy. Please, get help.

You desperately need to do something with your superiority complex; you reek with conceit.

You insist that it's hyperbole in vv. 8 & 9, OK, hyperbole for what? Paraphrase the passage in your own words what Christ is saying. You've yet to say what you believe He means.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't either. But I cannot see how a person can embrace allegorical methods without without taking liberties common to liberalism.

Someone will no doubt offer up a massive internet link to counter but I see theological liberalism as being a cousin to an allegorical view not a literal view. My personal experience with liberal protestantism is in agreement with what I'm saying. Could it not be said that from a historical perspective that modern liberalism owes it's existence to the rise of popular allegorical thinking?

If the dispies are responsible, as some here claim, for the turmoil in the middle east with their futuristic claims for the nation of Israel, could not the same logic be placed upon the shoulders of the allegorist with respect to the turmoil within modern evangelicalism due to liberalism within the assembly? Have you ever met a liberal pre-mill?

I see your point, especially about having never met a liberal premil.

 

[John of Japan]

Neither does your sanctimonious sarcasm surprise me.

...

You desperately need to do something with your superiority complex; you reek with conceit.

Since you've decided to attack my character simply because I gave sincere advice that you need to study more, I'm out of here. I have disagreed with you, given advice to you, but I have not attacked your character.

 

[convicted1]

my wife and I appreciate this, Calculus puts a different spin on things
(we are a science geek and math geek)

That sounds "geek" to me!! :smilewinkgrin::thumbs::wavey:

 

[Aaron]

Since you've decided to attack my character simply because I gave sincere advice that you need to study more, I'm out of here. I have disagreed with you, given advice to you, but I have not attacked your character.

Yes, you did.