Who Gave the Right to Interpret "Spiritually"?

[John of Japan]

It's spring break in the education biz, so I thought I'd cause some mischief.

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.

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

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

 

[TCassidy]

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

Ooo! Ooo! I know! I know! Call on me!

NOBODY!

 

[John of Japan]

I laughed out loud, Doc.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Pix of Cassidy in high school

 

[Dr. Bob]

Historic, literal, grammatical hermeneutic was valid for all prophecies of the first coming and still are valid for the second.

Are you trolling for liberals with the thread, or just causing the prophesied "mayhem" to the BB?

 

[TCassidy]

Pix of Cassidy in high school

Wrong again. Seminary.

 

[Covenanter]

Historic, literal, grammatical hermeneutic was valid for all prophecies of the first coming and still are valid for the second.

Are you trolling for liberals with the thread, or just causing the prophesied "mayhem" to the BB?

He's trolling for me. He wants to understand prophecy in terms of Covenant Theology from a partial Preterism viewpoint.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

I think I asked you this before, and I don't recall you answering.
'Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns, ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion' (Revelation 13:1-2). My question is very simple: do you expect to see a beast answering to these precise characteristics coming up out of the sea any time soon? And the beast of Revelation 13:11 also?

I'm a bit reluctant to ask this question because I am by no means a preterist, but I don't believe a 'literal' interpretation of the Scriptures can be maintained (cf. John 3:4; John 6:52). The Scriptures must be viewed and interpreted with Spiritual eyes. 'The words I speak to you are spirit, and they are life' (John 6:63).

 

[John of Japan]

Historic, literal, grammatical hermeneutic was valid for all prophecies of the first coming and still are valid for the second.

Are you trolling for liberals with the thread, or just causing the prophesied "mayhem" to the BB?

Well, causing mayhem is the first choice. But having a preterist or amil try to explain where they get this right would be fun, too.

 

[TCassidy]

I don't believe a 'literal' interpretation of the Scriptures can be maintained (cf. John 3:4; John 6:52).

It is a literal metaphor.

 

[John of Japan]

I think I asked you this before, and I don't recall you answering.
'Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns, ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion' (Revelation 13:1-2). My question is very simple: do you expect to see a beast answering to these precise characteristics coming up out of the sea any time soon? And the beast of Revelation 13:11 also?

I'm a bit reluctant to ask this question because I am by no means a preterist, but I don't believe a 'literal' interpretation of the Scriptures can be maintained (cf. John 3:4; John 6:52). The Scriptures must be viewed and interpreted with Spiritual eyes.

The genre of the book of Revelation is apocalyptic, according to 1:1. This is a sub genre of prophecy. The main example of the genre in the OT is Daniel (there are others), and the two books are very related. My son the hermeneutics prof describes apocalypse as "prophecy on steroids.

Now, your question doesn't really fit the OP, since the interpretation you are asking for is from metaphorical (symbolic language) language, and does not require "spiritual interpretation." Often metaphors are explained in the text in this genre, as with the four kingdoms in Daniel. When the metaphor is not explained in the text the keys are in the immediate context or the wider context of the book.

In the case of the beast here, the book of Rev. is chock full of other references to the beast. From the context of the book, it is clear that the beast is the Antichrist, not some kind of apocalyptic dinosaur. And just to be clear, this is not spiritualization or allegorical interpretation. It is grammatical historical interpretation when it comes upon a clear metaphor.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Metaphor, allegory, similes, hyperbole are all literal figures of speech. We taught college seniors principles of Bible interpretation and many said THAT is why we learned all those things in Freshman English.

 

[John of Japan]

He's trolling for me. He wants to understand prophecy in terms of Covenant Theology from a partial Preterism viewpoint.

Um, not really. There are plenty of other preterists on the BB. If you don't want to answer that's fine with me. I just thought it would give you a chance to share your views on interpreting prophecy spiritually, and to clarify your statement that interpreting literally is an oxymoron, something I really don't comprehend. If you have no desire to do so, go your way and God bless.

And by the way, just so we're clear, as I said on another thread, your position is not covenant theology. You disagreed with the sine qua non statement of CT as I gave it to you in a Berkhof quote. You are much closer to New Covenant Theology (not at all the same as CT).

 

[John of Japan]

I'm a bit reluctant to ask this question because I am by no means a preterist, but I don't believe a 'literal' interpretation of the Scriptures can be maintained (cf. John 3:4; John 6:52). The Scriptures must be viewed and interpreted with Spiritual eyes. 'The words I speak to you are spirit, and they are life' (John 6:63).

Why are you referring to John 3:4 (a metaphor) and 6:52 (another metaphor) to disprove literal interpretation? Surely you know that when we interpret literally we know what a metaphor is, don't you? These verses don't prove your point in the slightest. I teach my Eng. 101 class every fall what a metaphor is. That's just basic.

 

[TCassidy]

Surely you know that when we interpret literally we know what a metaphor is, don't you?

This happens often when the Literal, Historic, Grammatical hermeneutic is criticized.

For some reason they just can't seem to understand we view metaphorical language as being metaphorical. Allegorical language as allegorical.

I once had a person tell me that the Literal hermeneutic was nonsense because Jesus said "I am the door." He immediately asked, "Solid core or hollow?" "Pass through or dead bolt lock?" "A little door or a tiny glass to see who is on the other side?" "Window or not?"

I just looked at him as if he were an idiot. Which he was.

 

[Jope]

I think I asked you this before, and I don't recall you answering.
'Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns, ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion' (Revelation 13:1-2). My question is very simple: do you expect to see a beast answering to these precise characteristics coming up out of the sea any time soon? And the beast of Revelation 13:11 also?

I'm a bit reluctant to ask this question because I am by no means a preterist, but I don't believe a 'literal' interpretation of the Scriptures can be maintained (cf. John 3:4; John 6:52). The Scriptures must be viewed and interpreted with Spiritual eyes. 'The words I speak to you are spirit, and they are life' (John 6:63).

It's very peculiar that the prophecies of the tribulation for the Israelites in Egypt in Moses' time were all fulfilled literally, even the ones that sounded strange (light being taken away for the whole nation, but remaining on only the Israelites, for example). And hey, there's always the fact that the Jewish covenants shouldn't be taken "spiritually": otherwise, we have no reason to believe God will fulfill our covenant(s).

 

[kyredneck]

Every single prophecy of the first coming of Christ, His incarnation, was fulfilled literally.

16 The people that sat in darkness saw a great light, And to them that sat in the region and shadow of death, To them did light spring up. Mt 4

3 The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of Jehovah; make level in the desert a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough places a plain: Isa 40

Literalize those and I'll bring more for you to do.

 

[HankD]

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Literalize those and I'll bring more for you to do.

Do you understand the word metaphor?

 

[John of Japan]

This happens often when the Literal, Historic, Grammatical hermeneutic is criticized.

For some reason they just can't seem to understand we view metaphorical language as being metaphorical. Allegorical language as allegorical.

I once had a person tell me that the Literal hermeneutic was nonsense because Jesus said "I am the door." He immediately asked, "Solid core or hollow?" "Pass through or dead bolt lock?" "A little door or a tiny glass to see who is on the other side?" "Window or not?"

I just looked at him as if he were an idiot. Which he was.

Wow! Not only misunderstanding, but anachronizing.