Who Gave the Right to Interpret "Spiritually"?

[Martin Marprelate]

If you don't mind my asking y'all a question, does anyone here believe that the scriptures say what they mean, and mean what they say? Please, just take a moment however before you answer the question. Just curious...

Absolutely! The Scriptures are not in any sort of code, but they do employ imagery, metaphor and various figures of speech.
This is what the Baptist 1689 Confession says (1:7, 9):

All things in Scripture are not equally plain in themselves, nor equally clear to everyone (2 Peter 3:16), yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and revealed in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the educated but also the uneducated may attain a sufficient understanding of them by the due use of ordinary means (Psalm 19:7; Psalm 119:130).

The infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore whenever there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other passages which speak more fully (2 Peter 1:20-21; Acts 15:15-16).

N.B. The phrase, 'which is not manifold but one' means that the Scripture is not merely a library of books, or a collection of important writings or 'insights.' As God's word, it is one harmonious message without contradiction or confusion. Therefore the practice of interpreting one passage by reference to another is bound to be a trustworthy method of interpretation.

To understand the Bible properly takes earnest and humble study. 'Be diligent to present yourself approved by God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth' (2 Timothy 2:15).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

How in the world is "I am the bread of life," a metaphor, somehow more spiritual than "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature"?? And what gives us the right to interpret passages that are not figures of speech with non-literal meanings?

I'm going out to a meeting in a few minutes, but I would have thought that the difference between the two texts is obvious:
one of them has been interpreted literally by about half the people in the world who claim the name of Christ to mean that the bread at communion literally becomes His body. If you asked a Roman Catholic about this, he would answer, "What gives you the right to decide what is a metaphor and what isn't?" In the other text, not even the Church of Rome is so foolish as to suppose that we are to preach the Gospel to pigs, horses and flies.

 

[TCassidy]

I'd love to be there. In the meantime, my son and I are hoping to be at the Bible Faculty Summit again this year: Bible Faculty Summit at Appalachian Bible College August 1–3, 2017

You and Dr. Bob would enjoy it. The guys from Maranatha and Central usually go too.

I'll see if I could make it. Sounds great. I thought it was going to be at Detroit this year. They have a spat?

We had a great time at ETS this year and it was only a 3.5 hour drive to San Antonio from our home in Weslaco.

While there I ran into Larry Pettagrew, formerly at Central, Ed Glenny, formerly at Pillsbury, and several others we knew from Calvary and Lancaster Bible College. Old home week.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm going out to a meeting in a few minutes, but I would have thought that the difference between the two texts is obvious:

I think the difference is obvious, too, but if I'm allowed to spiritualize prophetic texts, why can I not spiritualize the Great Commission and say if I prayed for someone I obeyed Mark 16:15?

one of them has been interpreted literally by about half the people in the world who claim the name of Christ to mean that the bread at communion literally becomes His body. If you asked a Roman Catholic about this, he would answer, "What gives you the right to decide what is a metaphor and what isn't?" In the other text, not even the Church of Rome is so foolish as to suppose that we are to preach the Gospel to pigs, horses and flies.

I thought we were Baptists here. I really don't think the Catholic errors in simple interpretations have anything to do with this discussion. They are as bad as the disciples were in failing to recognize simple figures of speech. I'm a dispensationalist. We know what a metaphor is.

 

[John of Japan]

I'll see if I could make it. Sounds great. I thought it was going to be at Detroit this year. They have a spat?

I don't know what happened with the Detroit venue, but I don't think there was a spat. I was looking forward to seeing their plant. A Detroit prof was there last year and presented a paper, but I don't remember who it was. Everyone had good fellowship with him. Detroit hadn't been in a few years, I've heard.

We had a great time at ETS this year and it was only a 3.5 hour drive to San Antonio from our home in Weslaco.

While there I ran into Larry Pettagrew, formerly at Central, Ed Glenny, formerly at Pillsbury, and several others we knew from Calvary and Lancaster Bible College. Old home week.

I've heard of those men, but don't think I ever met them since I was in Japan for so long. My son has met Glenny and knows Pettagrew by reputation.

 

[Covenanter]

So, wait a minute, the belief that I have that allegorical/spiritual interpretation is wrong is now an "accusation"? I beg to differ. It is a heart-felt, Scripture lead, deep conviction of the soul.
I don't understand "interpretation" as "systematic study of Scripture." I see it as simply determining what God actually did say in His Word. That may take seconds, or it may take much study.
True, literal interpretation develops dispensationalism, but it also develops the historic premil position. My grandfather sharply criticized dispensationalism, but was premil, pretrib from his own study, since he believed in literal interpretation.

This cleverly evades the OP, which says that if all prophecy of the first coming of Christ was literal, where does the right come from to "spiritualize" prophecies of the Second Coming. What is your answer? (This post by you is not an answer.)

Now, your position here seems to negate the OT prophecies concerning Israel that are yet unfulfilled. This is a case of reading the NT back into the OT, as CT and NCT do. Here are just a few yet unfulfilled prophecies of Israel from just the major prophets:

Isaiah: The rebuilding of Israel (esp. ch. 26)

Jeremiah: The rebuilding and salvation of Israel (especially ch. 31), Jews regathered from the whole world, Israel in the seven year tribulation period (esp. ch. 30), Israel’s wonderful future (esp. ch. 33)

Ezekiel: The rebuilding and salvation of Israel (ch. 20), the revived kingdom of David (esp. ch. 34), the valley of dry bones, pointing to the restoration of Israel (ch. 37), the New Jerusalem and temple during the Millennium (ch. 40-48)

Deliberate misreading - I wrote "accusations of unjustified..." and of course I NEVER use unjustified spiritual interpretation, nor do I allegorize Scripture.

Nor did I define any system of Dispensationalism or futurism. I just said literal interpretation was used to develop it.

Those OC prophecies were related to the exile and the return, but sadly the Jews continued the cycle of disobedience, repentance and reinstatement.

The priest-king promises in Jeremiah 33 were fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ, in person for the church, or they were broken for 2500 years and waiting. See Zechariah 6:9-13 1 Peter 2.

 

[Yeshua1]

Deliberate misreading - I wrote "accusations of unjustified..." and of course I NEVER use unjustified spiritual interpretation, nor do I allegorize Scripture.

Nor did I define any system of Dispensationalism or futurism. I just said literal interpretation was used to develop it.

Those OC prophecies were related to the exile and the return, but sadly the Jews continued the cycle of disobedience, repentance and reinstatement.

The priest-king promises in Jeremiah 33 were fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ, in person for the church, or they were broken for 2500 years and waiting. See Zechariah 6:9-13 1 Peter 2.

Do you see a literal second coming, asJesus coming nack in his physical form, and then we alive resurrected physically?

 

[John of Japan]

Deliberate misreading - I wrote "accusations of unjustified..." and of course I NEVER use unjustified spiritual interpretation, nor do I allegorize Scripture.

Again, I made no accusations, though you apparently still think I did. Show me what post I made any "accusations" in and I'll apologize.

Concerning the terms "spiritualize" and "allegorize," they are synonyms in hermeneutics.

Nor did I define any system of Dispensationalism or futurism. I just said literal interpretation was used to develop it.

I don't get your point here. I agree that literal interpretation was used to develop it, but was simply pointing out that dispensationalism is not the only system that interprets prophecy literally.

Those OC prophecies were related to the exile and the return, but sadly the Jews continued the cycle of disobedience, repentance and reinstatement.

If you are denying that there are any unfulfilled prophecies in the OT of Israel, you need to do much better than this at disproving my point.

The priest-king promises in Jeremiah 33 were fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ, in person for the church, or they were broken for 2500 years and waiting. See Zechariah 6:9-13 1 Peter 2.

Not "broken" by any means. No one believes that.

Concerning Jer. 33, you are wrong. Jesus does not now, nor has He ever, sat on a literal throne of David. He will do so in the Millennium. Some in CT and NCT and even Progressive Dispensationalism say that the throne in Heaven where Christ sits is David's throne, but that is "spiritualizing" and no one at the time of Jeremiah would have interpreted the passage that way.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm heading home now, and God willing, will come back literally and physically tomorrow morning--unless I die or Jesus comes back literally and physically.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think the difference is obvious, too, but if I'm allowed to spiritualize prophetic texts, why can I not spiritualize the Great Commission and say if I prayed for someone I obeyed Mark 16:15?

Because you do, quite rightly, what you keep denying you do. You see, correctly, that John 6:35 cannot be interpreted literally and you see that Mark 16:15 can and should be. In this we are of one mind. The difference between us is that I admit that I do it and you don't admit it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is a list of some figures of speech in the Bible from Paul Lee Tan's excellent book, The Interpretation of Prophecy.

These are all good. As you would expect, similar books are available in the Reformed tradition. The one I use is Principles of Biblical Interpretation by Louis Berkhof.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Interpreting figures of speech as figures of speech is not "spiritualizing" or allegorical interpretation. It is literally interpreting figures of speech.

Yep, it was hyperbole--a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally, but to be interpreted as a figure of speech.

So are figures of speech to be interpreted 'literally,' or not? You seem confused, and you're certainly confusing me.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Folks, I draw your attention to post 109 made at 15:39 Central/21:39 GMT:

I'm heading home now, and God willing, will come back literally and physically tomorrow morning--unless I die or Jesus comes back literally and physically.

So, don't expect John to answer until tomorrow.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I read your study, and I think it shows a good knowledge of Scripture, and a love for Christ.

Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate that.

However, your position on Revelation is the historical view, correct? Therefore, your study shows allegorical interpretation. I believe that view is mistaken, based for one thing on the fact that Revelation's OT parallel is Daniel

By no means only Daniel. John alludes to several OT books.

and Daniel's prophecies have unfailingly been fulfilled literally. For example, the numbers in Daniel's 70 weeks were literally fulfilled concerning Christ's death.

But Daniel doesn't speak of 70 'weeks,' does he? He speaks of 70 'sevens.' (cf. Matthew 18:22 ). When Jeremiah speaks of 70 years, he is clear and 'literal;' Daniel isn't. I don't think that interpreting '70 sevens' as 490 years is necessarily a literal interpretation. Moreover, in prophecy, sevens, tens and twelves figure a great deal and I think it's dangerous to take them literally. Where are the eights and elevens?

However, you do not interpret the 42 months of Rev. 13:5 literally.

No, I don't. The 42 months/1260 days/'Time, times and half a time' are
The time that the Gentiles tread the holy city underfoot (11:2- logically, that is from AD 70 or 135 until either 1917, 1948, 1967 or some date in the future).
The time that the two witnesses are prophesying (11:3).
The time that the woman is in the wilderness (12:6).
The time that she is nourished in the wilderness (12:14).
The time that the beast is given authority (13:5). Also
The time that the 'little horn' will persecute the saints (Daniel 7:25).
The time for 'the fulfilment of these wonders' (Daniel 12:6-7).

I do not believe that all these times can be taken as a literal 3.5 years..

So that brings me again to my OP: where does the right to interpret prophecy allegorically come from, since all OT prophecies of the 1st Coming of Christ were fulfilled literally?

I don't believe that all the OT prophesies concerning Christ were fulfilled literally. To give one example, Christ never reigned literally upon the throne of David (Isaiah 9:7). 'From that time forth' precludes us from putting it into the future. Christ is actually reigning upon a much greater throne in the heavenly Jerusalem (Psalm 110:1-2).

 

[TCassidy]

So are figures of speech to be interpreted 'literally,' or not? You seem confused, and you're certainly confusing me.

He is not confusing at all. I suspect the confusion may be on your part.

 

[TCassidy]

But Daniel doesn't speak of 70 'weeks,' does he? He speaks of 70 'sevens.'

Uh, he speaks of 70 שָׁבוּעַ. Pronounced shabuwa. Now go to an online translation program and translate שָׁבוּעַ from Hebrew into English.

The word will be translated "week." In fact, שָׁבוּעַ is the normal modern Hebrew word for "week.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

As concerns the parable, everything.

Please explain your reasoning.

 

[Jope]

Uh, he speaks of 70 שָׁבוּעַ. Pronounced shabuwa. Now go to an online translation program and translate שָׁבוּעַ from Hebrew into English.

The word will be translated "week." In fact, שָׁבוּעַ is the normal modern Hebrew word for "week.

That right there is probably why you do not believe in the pre trib rapture.

Do you really believe these are weeks that Daniel prophesied? Do you also believe that at the end of the 70thweek, some time in 400BCs, eternal righteousness was brought in for the Jews (Dan. 9:24)?

They are "sevens", and the Hebrew word is translated so elsewhere in the Bible. They indicate years instead of weeks. Seventy sevens, which equals 490 years, were determined for the Jews, to bring in a slew of good things, one of the most notable being everlasting righteousness (Dan 9:24). This time countdown is now on hold because Daniel didn't see the present mystery age (Ephesians 3:1-6).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyredneck]

Please explain your reasoning.

Sure. Those wicked husbandmen killed the incarnate Jehovah and the glorified Jehovah returned 40 years later (before that generation passed away) and miserbly destroyed those miserable men.

 

[TCassidy]

That right there is probably why you do not believe in the pre trib rapture.

Do you really believe these are weeks that Daniel prophesied? Do you also believe that at the end of the 70thweek, some time in 500BCs, eternal righteousness was brought in for the Jews (Dan. 9:24)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seem to have missed the point.