Bible Hermeneutics

There is a rule in bible interpretation, or hermeneutics, which says "If the Literal Sense Makes Sense Seek No Other Sense." This is the rule I believe the bible writers themselves seemed clearly to adhere to. Does that mean that everything in the bible is literal? That there are no figures, types, parables, metaphors, similes, and such like? No; The literal interpretation of the bible accepts all these. So, how do bible students determine what is literal and what is non-literal (or what is figurative or symbolic)? 

We get our word "hermeneutics" from the Greek word that is translated into English bibles as "interpret," "interpreted," or "interpretation." The verb form of the Greek word is "hermēneuō" and may mean either to translate or to interpret. 

I believe that the bible is to be interpreted literally. I also believe that this is true in regard to bible prophecies. That is my thesis for this short series. 

I have previously written on this in my posting "Thoughts On How To Interpret Prophecy" (here) and I would encourage all to read it in conjunction with what I now write. In that previous posting I wrote, citing Bernard Ramm:

"To treat figurative language as if it were literal, and to treat literal language as if it were figurative, constitute two of the greatest hindrances to understanding the meaning of the Bible."

One example to consider in regard to this issue has to do with the Communion Supper, often called the Eucharist, and whether the words of Christ are to be interpreted literally or figuratively, the words "take eat for this is my body (or flesh)" and "drink, for this is my blood." Though I take the bible literally, that does not mean that there are no figures or figurative language in the bible, for the bible is full of figures, types, likenesses, similes, metaphors, etc. 

We should take the bible literally unless there are reasons in the context or in reason to not do so. It is possible that the words of Jesus about the bread and wine being his body and blood are literally true, context however and common sense leads us not to do so. If I hand a photograph of my daughter to a friend and say "this is my daughter" it is well understood that the photograph is not my literal daughter, but is rather a figure of her. This is how the words of Christ are to be interpreted. They all understood that Jesus meant "this is a symbol or figure of my body and blood." The same thing may be said about the washing, or salvation, that is connected with the rite of Christian baptism (Acts 22: 16; I Peter 3: 21). This ritual, like the rite of the Eucharist, is a picture, a figure, a type, a symbol. In Romans 6: 5 it is called a "likeness" which is from the Greek word "homoiōma" and means likeness, figure, or symbol. Peter says that baptism in water is a "like figure" of salvation. So, when the bible tells us something is a figure, we ought not to take it literally. 

Another example are seen in these words of the apostle Paul:

"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (I Cor. 10: 1-4 nkjv)

It is generally conceded by bible teachers that the words "that Rock was Christ" are not to be taken literally but figuratively. In other words, "that Rock" was a picture or type of Christ. Many scriptures refer to God as "the Rock." Wrote the Psalmist for instance:

"The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold." (Psa. 18: 2 niv)

However, figurative language is used to convey literal truth. God is literally all the things we attribute to being rock. A rock is solid strength, hardness, and endurance. God is literally these things. In the above Psalm God is literally a fortress and deliverer, a refuge, a shield, a stronghold, and all this is connected with rock. 

Next I want to cite from J. Dwight Pentecost and his famous book "Things To Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology." This classic book can be read online (here). In Chapter One - "Methods of Interpretation" Pentecost writes (emphasis mine):

"No question facing the student of Eschatology is more important than the question of the method to be employed in the interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures. The adoption of different methods of interpretation has produced the variant eschatological positions and accounts for the divergent views within a system that confront the student of prophecy. The basic differences between the premillennial and amillennial schools and between the pretribulation and posttribulation rapturists are hermeneutical, arising from the adoption of divergent and irreconcilable methods of interpretation."

I believe it is true that those who take the prophetic scriptures literally become Premillennial and that the chief tenets of Premillennialism are a result of taking the prophecies literally. Most scholars acknowledge that this is the case. If so, then we should be very concerned on the question of the mode of interpreting both scripture and the prophecies thereof. However, I disagree with Pentecost when he affirms that the pretribulation and/or posttribulation views are a result of one side not taking the prophecies literally. I am a classical Premillennialist, and as such believe the rapture and resurrection of saints follows the time of "the great tribulation" and yet I take the prophecies literally. 

Pentecost continued:

"The basic issue between premillennialists and amillennialists is clearly drawn by Allis, who writes: One of the most marked features of Premillennialism in all its forms is the emphasis which it places on the literal interpretation of Scripture. It is the insistent claim of its advocates that only when interpreted literally is the Bible interpreted truly; and they denounce as "spiritualizers" or "allegorizers" those who do not interpret the Bible with the same degree of literalness as they do. None have made this charge more pointedly than the Dispensationalists. The question of literal versus figurative interpretation is, therefore, one which has to be faced at the very outset [italics mine]."

"When Allis acknowledges that "Literal interpretation has always been a marked feature of Premillennialism" - he is in agreement with Feinberg, who writes: ...it can be shown that the reason the early Church was premillennial was traceable to its interpretation of the Word in a literal manner, whereas the cause of the departure from this view in later centuries of the history of the Church is directly attributable to a change in method of interpretation beginning with Origen in particular."

I hope to show in this short series how the new testament writers interpreted the old testament prophecies literally and that this is our guide in doing the same. One of my other theses in this series affirms that "all fulfilled prophecy has been fulfilled literally." If I can demonstrate that truth, then there is no validity for any to show that prophecy has been or will be fulfilled in a figurative sense, i.e. non literally. Whether it be true that some Dispensational Premillennialists go too far in interpreting prophecy literally, being overly literal, is a matter of opinion. We have already seen where some take things literally that were not intended to be taken literally. 

Pentecost cites Hamilton who says: 

 

"Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures. That was the kind of a Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal interpretation of the Old Testament promises. That was the kind of a kingdom that the Sadducees were talking about when they ridiculed the idea of the resurrection of the body, drawing from our Lord the clearest statement of the characteristics of the future age that we have in the New Testament, when He told them that they erred "not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matt. 22:29)...the Jews were looking for just such a kingdom as that expected by those premillennialists who speak of the Jews holding a preeminent place in an earthly Jewish kingdom to be set up by the Messiah in Jerusalem."

Again, there is no question that the Jews in the time of Christ interpreted the old testament prophecies literally. There is no question that the apostles continued to do so after the ascension of Christ. None of the new testament inspired writers interpreted old testament prophecies any other way than literally. 

Wrote Pentecost:

"Therefore, the antecedent to any discussion of the prophetic Scriptures and the doctrines of Eschatology is the establishment of the basic method of interpretation to be employed throughout. This is well observed by Pieters, who writes:

The question whether the Old Testament prophecies concerning the people of God must be interpreted in their ordinary sense, as other Scriptures are interpreted, or can properly be applied to the Christian Church, is called the question of the spiritualization of prophecy. This is one of the major problems of biblical interpretation, and confronts everyone who makes a serious study of the Word of God. It is one of the chief keys to the difference of opinion between Premillenarians and the mass of Christian scholars. The former reject such spiritualization, the latter employ it; and as long as there is no agreement on this point the debate is interminable and fruitless [italics mine]."

When I was with the Hardshell (or "Primitive") Baptists I saw them spiritualize most prophecies in the old testament. Being Amillennial, they would apply nearly all old testament prophecies to the present age, to life in the church, rather than to the age to come, or to the future millennium. The prophecy of the lion lying down with the lamb (Isa. 11: 6) was figurative language to describe the peace within the church family. The prophecy of the desert blossoming as a rose (Isa. 35: 1) was also figurative of the prosperity of the church. I always had a reluctance to follow them in this kind of hermeneutics. 

Wrote Pentecost:

"Since the interpreter is not handling a book of human origin, but the Word of God, he must be equipped with an accurate method of interpretation or error will be the necessary result of his study. The fact that the Word of God cannot be correctly interpreted apart from a correct method of and sound rules for interpretation gives the study its supreme importance."

This is so true. Just ask people the simple question "do you take the bible literally" and see the answers you will get. Again, to take the bible literally does not mean that everything said in the word of God is to be taken literally. There are figures and similes and metaphors galore in scripture. I expect people to take what I say literally as a rule, but there are exceptions to the rule, and yet people do not generally take me literally when I speak in a metaphor or simile. Jesus told some to go to Herod with these words - "go and tell that fox" (Luke 12: 32). Clearly Herod was not a literal fox. Common sense tells us that. We take words literally unless context or common sense dictate otherwise.  

Sarcasm in the bible is another problem with interpreters of the bible. As all know, when we speak sarcastically, we don't want to be understood literally or as stating a truth, for it is understood that what we are saying is not literally true, the truth being the opposite of the literal. I could say sarcastically to a fool - "you are such a genius" when I really mean that you are not a genius at all. 

Wrote Pentecost:

"While many diverse methods of interpreting the Scriptures have been propounded during the course of the history of interpretation, today there are but two methods of interpretation which have a vital effect on Eschatology: the allegorical and the grammatical-historical methods. The literal method is generally held to be synonymous with the grammatical-historical method and will be so used throughout this discussion. These two methods will be considered in detail."

The method of interpretation employed by Christ and the new testament writers was clearly the grammatical or historical method.

Wrote Pentecost:

"It would seem that the purpose of the allegorical method is not to interpret Scripture, but to pervert the true meaning of Scripture, albeit under the guise of seeking a deeper or more spiritual meaning."

This is so true. When we throw away the literal method of bible interpretation, then we leave it up to each person's whim to interpret the figurative meaning. The prophecy of the lion lying down with the lamb could be made to fit any experience or state the interpreter wishes.

Wrote Pentecost:

"The allegorical method is fraught with dangers which render it unacceptable to the interpreter of the Word."

Amen.

Wrote Pentecost:

"The first great danger of the allegorical method is that it does not interpret Scripture. Terry says: ...it will be noticed at once that its habit is to disregard the common signification of words and give wing to all manner of fanciful speculation. It does not draw out the legitimate meaning of an author's language, but foists into it whatever the whim or fancy of an interpreter may desire. As a system, therefore, it puts itself beyond all well-defined principles and laws."

Excellent counsel! In Amillennial circles we see all kinds of examples where such whims and fanciful interpretation are common.

Wrote Pentecost:

"Angus-Green express the same danger when they write:

There is...unlimited scope for fancy, if once the principle be admitted, and the only basis of the exposition is found in the mind of the expositor. The scheme can yield no interpretation, properly so called, although possibly some valuable truths may be illustrated."

Again, all I can say is "amen." 

Wrote Pentecost:

"The above quotation suggests, also, a second great danger in the allegorical method: the basic authority in interpretation ceases to be the Scriptures, but the mind of the interpreter. The interpretation may then be twisted by the interpreter's doctrinal positions, the authority of the church to which the interpreter adheres, his social or educational background, or a host of other factors."

This is so true, especially when it comes to interpreting bible prophecy and the book of Revelation. God is his own interpreter. The scriptures interpret themselves, i.e. we see how later inspired writers interpreted prophecy.

Citing Farrar Pentecost writes: 

 

"...When once the principle of allegory is admitted, when once we start with the rule that whole passages and books of Scripture say one thing when they mean another, the reader is delivered bound hand and foot to the caprice of the interpreter."

Agreed. Prophecy cannot be interpreted to mean anything that comes into the mind of the interpreter. Even the symbols used in prophetic utterances are common symbols used elsewhere in the bible and have a clear usage and meaning. 

I find it interesting that those Amillennialist commentators who read of the plagues sent by God upon the land of Egypt in the Exodus will interpret them literally but when they read of similar plagues in the book of Revelation they are often interpreted non literally. The plague of locusts in the Exodus or in the prophecies of Joel are literal locusts, but not the locusts of the Apocalypse? 

Wrote Pentecost:

"A third great danger in the allegorical method is that one is left without any means by which the conclusions of the interpreter may be tested."

Again, this is another point to remember. It is also an unanswerable objection to the allegorical method of interpretation.

Citing Ramm Pentecost adds: 

" ...to state that the principal meaning of the Bible is a second-sense meaning, and that the principal method of interpreting is "spiritualizing," is to open the door to almost uncontrolled speculation and imagination. For this reason we have insisted that the control in interpretation is the literal method."

I heard many sermons among the Hardshell Baptists that fit this description. They spiritualized many literal prophecies. For instance, Elder C.H. Cayce, one of the foremost leaders of the "Primitive Baptist" church, and who edited the paper "The Primitive Baptist" (the second one by that name) in the end of the 19th century and well into the 20th century, wrote the following in his editorial writings (see here) for March 5th, 1918 (emphasis mine):

"Brother Enoch Bledsoe, of Blackwater, Va., requests our views of (Revelation 16:13), which reads: "And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet." We do not feel an inclination, or desire to offer more than a few remarks in connection with the text.

The unclean spirits were like frogs; they were not frogs, but they were like them. Frogs usually make more noise as spring approaches. As you travel along, and come near a low, swampy place, in spring time, you can usually hear a great noise. So, there are some spirits which make a great noise as spring approaches. As the weather turns warm, and there are signs of approaching spring, the noise of the "big meetings" begin (an allusion to Spring revival meetings by Missionary Baptists). Frogs are amphibious-they live in water or on land. Yet they are usually more often found in low, marshy places; that is, some of them are. Others (as toads) usually hide during the day and come out to feed at night. Some species of them are hatched in the water-perhaps most of them. At first they are tadpoles. They change from tadpoles to frogs when the tail disappears. As tadpoles they live in the water. As frogs they live in water or on land. Some spirits say you can't have Christians without water (an allusion to Campbellites who say you must be baptized in water to be Christian). They have to gather 'round the water to make Christians, or rather, to make children of God. That's like the frog. 

There is another kind of frog called the tree frog. It turns the same color as the article it is on. If it is on a gray bark it will turn gray. Put it on a brown leaf, and it will turn brown. Put it on a white article, and it will turn white. Put it on a black stump, and it will turn black. Put it on a green leaf, and it will turn green. There is a spirit like that. Some folks are always of your opinion when they are with you. Put them with others whose opinion is different, and their opinion will be different. They always agree with those they are with. They can shift in opinion as quickly and as conveniently as the tree frog can change in color. Some frogs will hide under bushes and leaves, and will come out readily when it rains. The sprinkle suits them all right; but they seldom get in the water. So, there are some who like sprinkling all right; they seldom get in the water. Comparisons might be made still farther. Study the nature of frogs, and compare the same with the spirits, and you will find that these are only a few that may be correctly made."

That is a perfect example of interpreting bible prophecy by a whim, of fanciful interpretation. If the literal is not true, then its anyone's guess as to what the prophecy says. 

Wrote Pentecost:

"That these dangers exist and that the method of interpretation is used to pervert Scripture is admitted by Allis, who is himself an advocate of the allegorical method in the field of Eschatology, when he says: Whether the figurative or "spiritual" interpretation of a given passage is justified or not depends solely upon whether it gives the true meaning. If it is used to empty words of their plain and obvious meaning, to read out of them what is clearly intended by them, then allegorizing or spiritualizing is a term of reproach which is well merited."

Amen. The example given by Cayce is case in point.

Wrote Pentecost:

"Thus, the great dangers inherent in this system are that it takes away the authority of Scripture, leaves us without any basis on which interpretations may be tested, reduced Scripture to what seems reasonable to the interpreter, and, as a result, makes true interpretation of Scripture impossible."

Exactly! So, how could anyone check the interpretation of Cayce? 

Wrote Pentecost:

"It must be carefully observed that in Galatians 4:21-31 Paul is not using an allegorical method of interpreting the Old Testament, but was explaining an allegory. These are two entirely different things. Scripture abounds in allegories, whether types, symbols, or parables. These are accepted and legitimate media of communication of thought. They do not call for an allegorical method of interpretation, which would deny the literal or historical antecedent and use the allegory simply as a springboard for the interpreter's imagination. They do call for a special type of hermeneutics, which will be considered later. But the use of allegories is not a justification for the allegorical method of interpretation. It would be concluded that the usage in Galatians of the Old Testament would be an example of interpretation of an allegory and would not justify the universal application of the allegorical method to all Scripture."

Again, we see this to be true in the allegorical, figurative, or spiritualized manner that many Amillennialists are seen putting into practice.

Wrote Pentecost:

"In reply to the accusation that because one interprets types he is using the allegorical method, it must be emphasized that the interpretation of types is not the same as allegorical interpretation. The efficacy of the type depends on the literal interpretation of the literal antecedent. In order to convey truth concerning the spiritual realm, with which realm we are not familiar, there must be instruction in a realm with which we are familiar, so that, by a transference of what is literally true in the one realm, we may learn what is true in the other realm. There must be a literal parallelism between the type and the antitype for the type to be of any value. The individual who allegorizes a type will never arrive at a true interpretation. The only way to discern the meaning of the type is through a transference of literal ideas from the natural to the spiritual realm." 

Amen. Brothers, these are important observations to keep in mind as we study the bible, and especially study prophetic oracles. In the next chapter we will continue to look at further things Pentecost and others had to say about the interpretation of prophecy in eschatology.