In a former article on bible interpretation titled "A Short Study on Interpretation" (See here) I quoted the above text and wrote the following. (The other previous article "Thoughts On How To Interpret Prophecy" can be read here).
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (II Peter 1: 20)
The Greek word for "interpretation" in this passage is "epilysis," and means 1) a loosening, unloosing, 2) metaph. interpretation. The truth is "tied up," as it were, in the forms of words.
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." (Prov. 3: 5)
1. Catholic misuse (false interpretation) of this passage (or word interpretation)
2. The proper interpretation of the passage and the word
a) Scripture is in harmony with scripture
i) No prophet or apostle said anything contrary to Christ or another inspired writer.
ii) No Christian should interpret scripture in a unique or solitary way.
"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation ("hermēneia"). Let all things be done unto edifying." (I Cor. 14: 26)"
This prohibition of the apostle Peter certainly is a destructive blow against all the fanciful interpretations given by those who will not interpret prophecy literally. We gave an example of this in the previous chapter from the writings of C.H. Cayce (Hardshell Baptist pastor, editor, debater, and leader). His interpretation had no grounds for it, violating sound principles of biblical exegeses and interpretation. His interpretation was unique to himself, was of his own making. He did not interpret the text by comparing scripture with scripture and he violated the rule that says "if the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense."
With these introductory remarks, we will now continue with important citations from professor J. Dwight Pentecost and from his famous book "Things To Come." In that book he writes (first chapter; emphasis mine):
"II. The Literal Method - In direct opposition to the allegorical method of interpretation stands the literal or grammatical-historical method."
"A. The definition of the literal method. The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.— It is called the grammatical-historical method to emphasize the fact that the meaning is to be determined by both grammatical and historical considerations.— Ramm defines the method thus:
The customary, socially-acknowledged designation of a word is the literal meaning of that word."
"The "literal" meaning of a word is the basic, customary, social designation of that word. The spiritual, or mystical meaning of a word or expression is one that arises after the literal designation and is dependent upon it for its existence."
"To interpret literally means nothing more or less than to interpret in terms of normal, usual, designation. When the manuscript alters its designation the interpreter immediately shifts his method of interpreting."
When we say that we interpret the bible literally, this is what we mean. However, the spiritualizer of scripture gives to words and phrases meanings which have no foundation for doing so.
Pentecost writes further:
"B. The evidence for the literal method. Strong evidence can be presented to support the literal method of interpretation. Ramm gives a comprehensive summary. He says:
In defence of the literal approach it may be argued:
(a) That the literal meaning of sentences is the normal approach in all languages...
(b) That all secondary meanings of documents, parables, types, allegories, and symbols, depend for their very existence on the previous literal meaning of the terms...
(c) That the greater part of the Bible makes adequate sense when interpreted literally.
(d) That the literalistic approach does not blindly rule out figures of speech, symbols, allegories, and types; but if the nature of the sentence so demands, it readily yields to the second sense.
(e) That this method is the only sane and safe check on the imaginations of man.
(f) That this method is the only one consonant with the nature of inspiration. The plenary inspiration of the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit guided men into truth and away from error. In this process the Spirit of God used language, and the units of language (as meaning, not as sound) are words and thoughts. The thought is the thread that strings the words together. Therefore, our very exegesis must commence with a study of words and grammar, the two fundamentals of all meaningful speech."
These are excellent points for all bible students to keep in mind. They are a great defense for the literal meaning of texts as a rule. Further, that is exactly how we speak to each other in every day language. Yes, we do use metaphors and similes, and of these there is often little misunderstanding. But still, the general rule is to take what someone says literally unless context or common sense dictates otherwise.
Pentecost writes further:
"Inasmuch as God gave the Word of God as a revelation to men, it would be expected that His revelation would be given in such exact and specific terms that His thoughts would be accurately conveyed and understood when interpreted according to the laws of grammar and speech. Such presumptive evidence favors the literal interpretation, for an allegorical method of interpretation would cloud the meaning of the message delivered by God to men. The fact that the Scriptures continually point to literal interpretations of what was formerly written adds evidence as to the method to be employed in interpreting the Word. Perhaps one of the strongest evidences for the literal method is the use the New Testament makes of the Old Testament. When the Old Testament is used in the New it is used only in a literal sense. One need only study the prophecies which were fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, in His life, His ministry, and His death, to establish that fact. No prophecy which has been completely fulfilled has been fulfilled any way but literally.— Though a prophecy may be cited in the New Testament to show that a certain event is a partial fulfillment of that prophecy (as was done in Matthew 2:17-18), or to show that an event is in harmony with God's established program (as was done in Acts 15), it does not necessitate a non-literal fulfillment or deny a future complete fulfillment, for such applications of prophecy do not exhaust the fulfillment of it. Therefore such references to prophecy do not argue for a non-literal method."
Again, this is so important for us as bible students to accept and see as true. The words of Pentecost are very eloquent and forceful in the defense of the literal, normal, or plain reading and interpretation of the bible. At the end of this short series we will see how it is true that "no prophecy which has been completely fulfilled has been fulfilled any way but literally." Further, that being true, the Amillennialist or others who spiritualize prophecies and give them a strange non literal interpretation are violating that self evident proposition. Let them come forward and give us an example where a fulfilled prophecy was NOT literally fulfilled. Will they meet that challenge?
Pentecost writes further:
"C. The advantages of the literal method. There are certain advantages to this method in preference to the allegorical method. Ramm summarizes some of these by saying:
(a) It grounds interpretation in fact. It seeks to establish itself in objective data —grammar, logic, etymology, history, geography, archaeology, theology...
(b) It exercises a control over interpretation that experimentation does for the scientific method...justification is the control on interpretations. All that do not measure up to the canons of the literal-cultural-critical method are to be rejected or placed under suspect. In addition to this the method offers the only reliable check on the constant threat to place double-sense interpretation upon the Scripture...
(c) It has had the greatest success in opening up the Word of God. Exegesis did not start in earnest till the church was a millennium and a half old. With the literalism of Luther and Calvin the light of Scripture literally flamed up...This method is the honored method of the highest scholastic tradition in conservative Protestantism. It is the method of Bruce, Lightfoot, Zahn, A. T. Robertson, Ellicott, Machen, Cremer, Terry, Farrar, Lange, Green, Oehler, Schaff, Sampey, Wilson, Moule, Perowne, Henderson Broadus, Stuart—to name but a few typical exegetes."
Again, this is so well stated that it needs little or no comment from me. I have, however, seen these principles neglected in those who say that much of biblical prophecy is not only given in figurative or symbolic language but is fulfilled in a non literal manner. But, I would challenge any who affirm this to give us examples where this is so in the bible's many prophecies.
I also would challenge the idea of many who say that "apocalyptic" scripture is by its nature figurative and does not denote literal fulfillment. But, apocalyptic or eschatological scripture may use figures or symbols to foretell coming literal events, but their fulfillment is literal. We will give examples of this later.
Pentecost writes further:
"D. The literal method and figurative language. It is recognized by all that the Bible abounds in figurative language. On this basis it is often argued that the use of figurative language demands a figurative interpretation. However, figures of speech are used as means of revealing literal truth. What is literally true in one realm, with which we are familiar, is brought over, literally, into another realm, with which we may not be familiar, in order to teach us truths in that unfamiliar realm. This relation between literal truth and the figurative language is well illustrated by Gigot:
It will thus be observed that the literalist does not deny the existence of figurative language. The literalist does, however, deny that such figures must be interpreted so as to destroy the literal truth intended through the employment of the figures. Literal truth is to be learned through the symbols."
Very good commentary. When the figurative interpreter shows how the bible uses figures and metaphors, etc., and then attempts to use this fact to support his interpreting scripture figuratively, he is proving what needs no proof, but he is jumping to conclusions when he says that the use of figures show that there are figurative fulfillments of prophecy, he is then way off base.
Pentecost writes further in chapter two:
"The prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly the literal method of interpretation."
This is generally conceded by all, even by the spiritualizers. Christ himself interpreted the old testament prophecies literally, as did the apostles and those in the early church.
Pentecost writes further:
"Case, an ardent advocate of amillennialism, concedes:
"Ever since Origen's day certain interpreters of Scripture have sought to refute millennial expectations by affirming that even the most striking statements about Jesus' return are to be understood figuratively. It has also been said that Daniel and Revelation are highly mystical and allegorical works not intended to refer to actual events, whether past, present, or future, but have a purely spiritual significance like that of Milton's Paradise Lost or Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress."
"This literal method was the method of the apostles."
Frankly, I do not understand the incentive for Amillennialists and others of their ilk having problems accepting the prophetic scriptures literally. Again, if the literal sense makes sense, why seek another sense? It must be because of some built in bias against prophetic studies, being like those in the early church who were warned to not despise prophesyings by the apostle. (See I Thess. 5: 20) Or, like those today who scoff at those who preach on end time events and point to things happening in the world as fulfillments of bible prophecies.
Pentecost writes further in Chapter 3:
"When is language literal or figurative? The first problem facing the interpreter is that of determining when the language is literal and when it is figurative. The implications of this problem are stated by Horne:
In order, then, to understand fully the figurative language of the Scriptures, it is requisite, first, to ascertain and determine what is really figurative, lest we take that to be literal which is figurative, as the disciples of our Lord and the Jews frequently did, or lest we pervert the literal meaning of words by a figurative interpretation; and, secondly, when we have ascertained what is really figurative, to interpret it correctly, and deliver its true sense."
"A simple rule to follow in determining what is literal and figurative is given by Lockhart, who says: If the literal meaning of any word or expression makes good sense in its connections, it is literal; but if the literal meaning does not make good sense, it is figurative."
I believe that this rule should be kept always in mind. Continued Pentecost, saying:
"Later the same author adds:
Since the literal is the most usual signification of a word, and therefore occurs much more frequently than the figurative, any term will be regarded as literal until there is good reason for a different understanding...The literal or most usual meaning of a word, if consistent, should be preferred to a figurative or less usual signification."
Pentecost then adds this thought:
"Thus, the interpreter will proceed on the presupposition that the word is literal unless there is a good reason for deciding otherwise."
That "good reason" would be the context, common sense, common usage and meaning in the day in which the words were spoken. If it is NOT true that we should interpret the bible's words literally, then how do the spiritualizers decide when to interpret literally and when not to do so?
Pentecost continued:
"Fairbairn goes on to give us some principles by which one may determine whether a passage is literal or figurative. He says:
"The first of these is that, when anything is said which if taken according to the letter would be at variance with the essential nature of the subject spoken of, the language must be tropical. A second principle applicable to such cases is that, if the language taken literally would involve something incongruous or morally improper, the figurative and not the literal sense must be the right one. A third direction may be added, viz., that where we have still reason to doubt whether the language is literal or figurative we should endeavor to have the doubt resolved by referring to parallel passages (if there be any such) which treat of the same subject in more explicit terms or at greater length."
As I stated in the first article in this series, the bible is its own best interpreter. If you want to know the meaning of a word used in the bible, then you should not only see what the definition of it is by scholars of the language (either Hebrew or Greek), but see how it is used in the scriptures. This is what it means to have doubt about the meaning of a word or text removed, as Pentecost says - "have the doubt resolved by referring to parallel passages."
Pentecost continued:
"This whole problem of when language is figurative and when literal has been well summarized by Terry, who comments:
It is scarcely necessary, and, indeed, quite impracticable, to lay down specific rules for determining when language is used figuratively and when literal. It is an old and oft-repeated hermeneutical principle that words should be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity. It should be observed, however, that this principle, when reduced to practice, becomes simply an appeal to every man's rational judgment. And what to one seems very absurd and improbable may be to another altogether simple and self-consistent...Reference must be had to the general character and style of the particular book, to the plan and purpose of the author, and to the context and scope of the particular passage in question. Especially should strict regard be had to the usage of the sacred writers, as determined by a thorough collation and comparison of all parallel passages. The same general principles, by which we ascertain the grammatico-historical sense, apply also to the interpretation of figurative language, and it should never be forgotten that the figurative portions of the Bible are as certain and truthful as the most prosaic chapters. Metaphors, allegories, parables, and symbols are divinely chosen forms of setting forth the oracles of God, and we must not suppose their meaning to be so vague and uncertain as to be past finding out. In the main, we believe the figurative parts of the Scriptures are not so difficult to understand as many have imagined. By a careful and judicious discrimination the interpreter should aim to determine the character and purport of each particular trope, and explain it in harmony with the common laws of language, and the author's context, scope, and plan."
Excellent words of instruction to all who are serious bible students!
Pentecost continued:
"A rule to guide us as to when to interpret literally and when figuratively has been carefully stated by Cooper. He says:
When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."
Again, this cannot be emphasized enough.
Pentecost continued:
"It should be observed at the very outset that the purpose of figurative language is to impart some literal truth, which may more clearly be conveyed by the use of figures than in any other way. The literal meaning is of greater importance than the literal words."
Again, well stated counsel to all who study the bible.
Pentecost continued:
"Horne has given an extensive set of rules in order to determine properly the sense implied in any figure: 1. The literal meaning of words must be retained, more in the historical books of Scripture than in those which are poetical."
I certainly do agree with Horne and Pentecost in their defense of the literal method. I would encourage all who are interested in this subject to read all Pentecost writes in the chapters of "Things To Come" that deal with interpretation of the bible and of prophecy.
