Who Gave the Right to Interpret "Spiritually"?

[TCassidy]

We also know that His kingdom is "not of this world", that it wasn't to "come with observation", and we've come to "Mt. Zion that can't be touched".

Do we now have a kingdom without a king?

King's gonna come later?

"I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"

And this supports your understanding of Act 1:11 how?

 

[Jope]

We also know that His kingdom is "not of this world", that it wasn't to "come with observation", and we've come to "Mt. Zion that can't be touched".

Do we now have a kingdom without a king?

King's gonna come later?

"I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"

Even opponents of premillennialism have taught that the Messianic, Davidic Kingdom is to be distinguished from the general and universal Sovereignty of God. And we have an "abundant array of proof" of this:

"It is but justice to say that many of our opponents (as e.g. Thompson, etc.) and others (as e.g. Van Oosterzee, etc.) justly discriminate between this Kingdom and God’s Sovereignty, telling us that we must not make this [Messianic, Davidic] Kingdom denote the Supremacy of God as manifested in Creation and Providence, in His 'Universal Government over this and other worlds.' They correctly inform us that the promised Kingdom is a special divine organization with Christ as its Head, and with believing subjects, etc., while the other is the sustaining, guiding, controlling, directing disposition, mediate and immediate, of the Universe under the Divine Headship. They teach us that the one is given by covenant promise, and that the other ever existed, even before this special Kingdom was promised to man. They properly direct us to the language of Christ and of His disciples in preaching that the Kingdom 'is at hand,' as justly implying that something which did not then exist was to be set up in the future. And they happily direct us to two passages, given by the same writer, as illustrative of the two, viz.: Daniel 6:26; Daniel 7:13-14.
Indeed, if we were to gather the fragmentary evidences thus presented to us by various writers, we should have an abundant array of proof, much of it derived from those who have no sympathy with us. Those who constitute the Church a Kingdom are forced by simple consistency into this attitude. Hence Kurtz (His. Old Cov., vol.2, p. 97) remarks: 'It is essentially necessary to make a twofold distinction in the process of divine revelation; that is to say, it is necessary to distinguish the preservation and government of the world in general, from the more special operations connected with the introduction and working out of the plan of salvation,' etc. The sovereignty of 'the Absolute,' which figures so largely in many religious books, etc., and upon which so much stress is laid as 'the Kingdom,' is simply a decided removal from covenant and promise. The reader will compare Dr. Storrs’ excellent remark, see Prop. 37, Obs. 7, as well as Kurtz’s, Prop. 26, Obs. 3. Dr. McCosh presents the Universal Sovereignty ably in his 'Methods of the Divine Government, Physical and Moral,' so also Butler, Paley, Chalmers, the Duke of Argyll, and others; but this is only the source or foundation of this special manifestation of government. Dr. Craven (Lange’s Com., Rev., p. 97), in his 'Excursus on the Basileia,' properly distinguishes between the two; and this is characteristic of numerous able Chiliasts" (George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, Prop. 79, Obs. 1).
​

Revelation 3:21 also clearly makes a distinction between the Father's throne, that Christ is now on, and the Messianic, Davidic throne.

 

[kyredneck]

And this supports your understanding of Act 1:11 how?

Duh (you like that don't you, you say it often), there's a myriad of other scripture that we've been through a kazillion times that supports a 'coming' that's other than a visible physical one.

Dare to think outside of your box and expand your horizons:

Acts 1:11:

"Clearly the point of comparison in this passage is between the manner of His going and the manner of His coming again, and not between His being seen going and His being seen coming again: “This same Jesus . . . shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven,” Hence this passage treats of the manner of our Lord’s Return. And from the manner in which He went we can learn certain things respecting the manner of His Return: (1) He went secretly so far as the world was concerned, none but His disciples knowing of it at the time; so He comes again secretly (“as a thief in the night”) so far as the world is concerned, none but His faithful followers knowing of it in its first stages. (2) He went away quietly and unostentatiously, without startling the world with a literal trumpet, riding on a literal cloud, shining with a natural dazzling light and blasting the universe into atoms; hence He returns quietly and unostentatiously, without startling the world with a literal trumpet, riding on a literal cloud, shining with a natural dazzling light and blasting the universe into atoms. (3) He went away blessing those whom He left; hence He returns, blessing first His waiting Church and later the world of mankind. (4) As respects His Divine body He was invisible to the physical eyes of human beings in His going away, though manifest to His disciples as going by suitable accompanying works; hence on returning His is invisible to the physical eyes of mankind, though He is manifested as present by suitable accompanying works—His works of gathering His elect in the Gospel-Age Harvest, gradually overthrowing Satan’s empire in the great Time of Trouble, returning favor to natural Israel, etc. ’70-31"...."

 

[TCassidy]

So you are saying that Jesus didn't ascend visibly in sight of the disciples?

And how does that have anything to do with the second coming? Unless you are denying that the bible says "will come back in the same way as you saw him going into the sky.”

So do you believe the Angel was wrong to say "you saw Him going up and you will see Him coming back?"

 

[TCassidy]

Dare to think outside of your box and expand your horizons:

I did. I used to be an amillennialist but then I learned the truth.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Duh (you like that don't you, you say it often), there's a myriad of other scripture that we've been through a kazillion times that supports a 'coming' that's other than a visible physical one.

Dare to think outside of your box and expand your horizons:

Acts 1:11:

"Clearly the point of comparison in this passage is between the manner of His going and the manner of His coming again, and not between His being seen going and His being seen coming again: “This same Jesus . . . shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven,” Hence this passage treats of the manner of our Lord’s Return. And from the manner in which He went we can learn certain things respecting the manner of His Return: (1) He went secretly so far as the world was concerned, none but His disciples knowing of it at the time; so He comes again secretly (“as a thief in the night”) so far as the world is concerned, none but His faithful followers knowing of it in its first stages. (2) He went away quietly and unostentatiously, without startling the world with a literal trumpet, riding on a literal cloud, shining with a natural dazzling light and blasting the universe into atoms; hence He returns quietly and unostentatiously, without startling the world with a literal trumpet, riding on a literal cloud, shining with a natural dazzling light and blasting the universe into atoms. (3) He went away blessing those whom He left; hence He returns, blessing first His waiting Church and later the world of mankind. (4) As respects His Divine body He was invisible to the physical eyes of human beings in His going away, though manifest to His disciples as going by suitable accompanying works; hence on returning His is invisible to the physical eyes of mankind, though He is manifested as present by suitable accompanying works—His works of gathering His elect in the Gospel-Age Harvest, gradually overthrowing Satan’s empire in the great Time of Trouble, returning favor to natural Israel, etc. ’70-31"...."

I find it hard to believe the apostles would have understood the words of the two men recorded in Ac. 1.11 in this way, especially since they use language in their own writings that describe the coming of the Lord as anything but secret and invisible.

 

[Iconoclast]

John of Japan,

Hello JOJ...

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.

Are you restricting this to the incarnation only, or all the events described by the apostles in the book of Acts?

In the light of that fact, who gave the right to anyone to interpret prophecy about His second coming allegorically or "spiritually"?

Perhaps Jesus Himself?
Jn
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

mt11;
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.


jn4;
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


jn6;
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

jn7;
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

jn14;
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.


(

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.

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.


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

 

[Covenanter]

What is spiritual interpretation? How does it contrast with carnal/literal/fleshly interpretation?
There is a whole invisible spiritual realm that natural man is only dimly aware of. This is the true eternal realm of prayer, spiritual warfare and our whole relationship with our Saviour God.
The natural sense sees the physical as the ephemeral reality. Literal takes prophecy in its physical sense. It's not interpretation. Literal interpretation is oxymoronic.
Hebrews explains all this, contrasting the carnal expectation of the Jews, centering on physical Jerusalem and the temple with a true spiritual interpretation centred on Christ.

 

[kyredneck]

Why the animosity?

Amazing how the subconscious solves mysteries during deep sleep. I 'understand', now, why you drew this out of thin air.

 

[The Parson]

Please don't take this the wrong way but, as long as men of God are more interested in the scholars interpretation, how is it that you'll be able to understand the spiritual aspect when that aspect is of less value than the scholars viewpoint? The study of God's Word should never be a science because then we're leaning to our own understanding instead of the actual intended meaning of our Lord.

Wasn't it Origen who wrote he didn't really believe God meant what the Apostles and disciples wrote in the New Testament because they were just too ignorant? And if we're approaching the scriptures with man's understanding instead of a Spiritual, isn't this where we're coming up with the diversity of beliefs in our own faith?

So is the Bible the inspired (spiritual) Word or is it simply prose literature?

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. 3:7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.

 

[John of Japan]

Will this be a literal return or a spiritual return?

I am now literally back!

 

[Covenanter]

Amazing how the subconscious solves mysteries during deep sleep. I 'understand', now, why you drew this out of thin air.

Alan Solomon explains:
When I am asleep, there are no inputs or outputs, my subconscious mind is devoted 100% to the problem in hand.
I may have my head down on my desk, but be assured I am working harder than when awake and conscious of distractions.

 

[John of Japan]

Well we've established one thing: a strictly literal interpretation does not exist, except perhaps in the Church of Rome's understanding of Matthew 26:26. It's like the Loch Ness Monster. Some people claim to have seen it, but when you look more closely, it's not really there. There are metaphors, there are similes, there is imagery, hendiadys, anacoluthia, and all the other figures of speech, and these have to be interpreted, and you can buy books that set out principles of how you do that.

You apparently have missed my point about metaphors. Maybe this is why the technical term in hermeneutics is grammatical-historical hermeneutics (sometimes with theological added).

Interpreting figures of speech as figures of speech is not "spiritualizing" or allegorical interpretation. It is literally interpreting figures of speech. It is quite misleading to say that well, the literalist interpreted the metaphor as a metaphor, so he is now interpreting allegorically.

"Fortunately for the literal interpreter, the meaning intended behind the use of figures in Scriptures is often given in the text or context. Careful study of the text, context and parallel passages will almost always bring out the figures' meaning. The identification and interpretation of Bible figures by the Bible itself is a rule and not an exception" (Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, pp. 142-143).

With regard to 'spiritualizing,' it is true that the Scriptures are not a wax nose to be pushed into any shape one might desire, but we are told, 'But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judges all things......' (1 Corinthians 2:14-15). We must read the Bible with spiritual eyes, not to invent weird and outlandish interpretations, but to understand what the Spirit is saying to the churches (Matthew 13:9; Revelation 2:29).

You are misinterpreting what the term "spiritual" means. To read the Bible spiritually does not mean to put some other meaning there than the literal. The literal is a huge blessing when figures of speech are understood to be figures of speech. Think of the metaphors for the power of the Holy Spirit: filling, baptizing, clothing (enduing), coming upon. Each of these has a different nuance, but none of them clothes in "spirituality" the power of the Holy Spirit. They simply inform us symbolically, which is not the allegorizing done by non-literalists.

One of the things that are helpful is to find a simple, straightforward statement and to use that as a template to understand more difficult passages. One, in relation to eschatology, is Acts 1:11. That seems to me to be very simple: the Lord Jesus will return in just the way He left. Therefore I cannot accept an invisible Return, whether to destroy Jerusalem or to 'rapture' the saints. So the two interpretations I am left with are Amil and Historic Premil. For various reasons I have plumped for the former.

Good for you. But this then appears to say that the Second Coming being physical is not a spiritual event. But you cannot divorce the spiritual from the physical that way. Every time I pray or witness or sing praises, I am doing something physical yet spiritual. "Spiritual" and "physical" are not divorced in literal interpretation as they are in "spiritual" interpretation.

I was saved at the age of 38, with very little knowledge of the Bible, and when I first read Revelation, I tried to do so literally and it didn't work. The world kept coming to an end and then starting up again (6:17; 11:15-19; 14:14-20 etc.). The interpretations people gave me didn't seem to square with other portions of the Bible like 1 Thes. 5. Someone recommended William Hendricksen's More than Conquerors to me and that was the key that opened the book up to me. It's quite an old book now (1945), but I strongly recommend it to understand the structure of Revelation.

Revelation is hard to understand, I'll grant that. But the new believer is unlikely to understand it without diligent research and study. Learning the genre and understanding figures of speech will help.

One last thing. Anyone who believes in the physical return of our Lord in glory is my brother in Christ and is welcome into membership at my church, so long as they are orthodox in other respects and can put up with Amil being preached from the pulpit.

Good to know!

 

[Covenanter]

Amazing how the subconscious solves mysteries during deep sleep. I 'understand', now, why you drew this out of thin air.

After discussing the shortage of good baptism hymns, I woke up at 5 am with the words of -
A new baptism hymn, "Repent and be baptized."
I had to get up and had four verses outlined before going back to bed at 6.
Q.V.

I usually wake up with music, never dreams or night mares.

 

[John of Japan]

What is spiritual interpretation? How does it contrast with carnal/literal/fleshly interpretation?
There is a whole invisible spiritual realm that natural man is only dimly aware of. This is the true eternal realm of prayer, spiritual warfare and our whole relationship with our Saviour God.
The natural sense sees the physical as the ephemeral reality. Literal takes prophecy in its physical sense. It's not interpretation. Literal interpretation is oxymoronic.
Hebrews explains all this, contrasting the carnal expectation of the Jews, centering on physical Jerusalem and the temple with a true spiritual interpretation centred on Christ.

Brother, I believe you are making a huge mistake here by classifying literal interpretation with "carnal" and "fleshly." You are making the assumption that the literal and the spiritual are two different worlds. They are not. We do physical actions all the time that are spiritual: praying, witnessing, worshiping, praising, etc. I am 99% sure that you are not a Gnostic, but remember that the error of Gnosticism was to call the physical evil and the "spiritual" good.

Now, again I'll ask, what in the world do you mean by "Literal interpretation is oxymoronic"?

 

[John of Japan]

After 17 years on this Board, I find JoJ to be one of the most gentlemanly posters. So, I would put his wording down to hyperbole, not animosity.

Thank you for the kind words. I have kyredneck on ignore, but I got curious and peeked. Contrary to his opinion, I do hope to learn on this thread. I hope to specifically learn why Covenanter keeps saying that literal interpretation is oxymoronic. I also hope to learn more about how people interpret allegorically, since I am preparing to teach eschatology. This thread is a help for those purposes.

 

[John of Japan]

After 17 years on this Board, I find JoJ to be one of the most gentlemanly posters. So, I would put his wording down to hyperbole, not animosity.

Yep, it was hyperbole--a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally, but to be interpreted as a figure of speech. Yet kyredneck the preterist interpreted it literally. Go figure!

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,

Hello JOJ...

Are you restricting this to the incarnation only, or all the events described by the apostles in the book of Acts?

Hi, yourself. Look at the OP. It is specifically about prophecy.

Perhaps Jesus Himself?
Jn
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

mt11;
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

You have the presupposition that Heaven is a "spiritual" place but not a physical. I beg to differ. heaven is a real, physical place. The New Jerusalem is going to actually come down to earth, and it can do this because it is physical.

jn4;
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Sigh. Read the thread. Jesus is using metaphors. To interpret a metaphor as a metaphor is to interpret literally. The fact that figures of speech exist in Scripture does not give anyone the right to interpret non-figurative language as something "spiritual."
jn6;

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

jn7;
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Again with the metaphors. Do you know what a metaphor is?

jn14;
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

This is a clear and literal prophecy of the coming of the Holy Spirit, as per the trinity. If the Holy Spirit is here, both the Father and Son are also.

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.


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

You've given nothing but metaphors, which all literal interpreters interpret as metaphors. This does not prove your point. What you need to prove is that when the language of Scripture is not clearly figurative it is okay to spiritualize it. You have not proven that.

Again I say, all OT prophecies about the first coming of Christ were fulfilled literally when Jesus was born, preached, was crucified and rose again. So why spiritualize prophecies about His second coming?

 

[John of Japan]

Folks, read this clear verse teaching literal interpretation:

"So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading" (Neh. 8:8).

Now, you can't "spiritualize" or "allegorize" the Law of God. I mean, "Thou shalt not steal" has no "spiritual" meaning. It means what it says. So since we have a clear example of literal interpretation in the OT, in order for us to be able to "spiritualize" we must have clear Scripture allowing "spiritual interpretation." Where is it?

Iconoclast at least gave it a try. Other than that, you folk are not answering the OP. I'll repeat. If all OT prophecies about the first coming of Christ were fulfilled literally (and they were), why shall we not interpret the prophecies of the 2nd Coming literally?

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

We all interpret the scriptures literally to some extent except Preterists who spiritualize the coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead. Would this discussion be more fruitful if we could start by finding common ground?