Bible Interpretation

Home

The method that is used to interpret the Scriptures determines the results of one's theology. It is the difference in the hermeneutical (the method one uses in interpretation) approach that spawns the divisions in the realm of theology. While it is never wise to generalize, this is consistently true: Those who interpret the Bible literally have broad agreement on every major Bible theme. Those who believe that, because the Bible is a spiritual Book, it must be allegorized, or that it means something other than what the plain words say, these find themselves in disagreement in many places, on many doctrines, and especially as concerns the field of predictive prophecy. That alone ought to be sufficient to establish the literal method as the correct method of interpretation, but there are other reasons as well to believe that the Bible means just what it says.

In the first place, a normal or plain interpretation of the Scriptures presents a harmony of doctine that is consistent with itself. It reveals the glory of God, not of man, and from beginning to end it makes perfect sense. Any interpretation that dismisses the normal meaning of the words and applies some symbolical meaning to them winds up presenting a contradictory body of doctrine. If it makes sense with a literal interpretation, why make nonsense of it with vain imaginings. Almost without exception, an allegorized interpretation will tend toward the glorification of man through moral improvement.

Invariably, under every other system of theology besides a literal interpretation there is a diminishing of the hope of the Christian. Either we must go through the tribulation, or Christ will not return to reign, but mankind will so improve his sinful nature that he will himself usher in a utopian era of peace and prosperity; either we are saved by our good deeds, or we must immediately reform ourselves after we are saved, standing constantly in danger of losing that precious assurance. Perhaps the greatest failure of every spiritualized method of interpretation is the loss of expectancy on the part of the Christian whereby he hopes to see the rapture occur in his own day. Every other method places the translation of the saints well into the future, with most putting it at least a thousand and seven years away. The emphasis is usually more upon the goodness of man than the goodness of God. The emphasis is usually more on the judgment of God than upon His mercy, love and goodness.

The word gospel means good news. Under a literal method of interpretation, the news is always sublime for the believer, with no trace of dread. Under every other method, the hearer is always left with a web of fear stretched across the pit of the stomach. Where our own goodness is demanded, we feel the weight of a thousand sins pressing our shoulders into a perpetual slump. Where there is no literal interpretation, there is the anticipation of lying in the grave for generations upon generations. A literal interpretation makes the step light, and the heart hopeful, for sin is not an issue any more, and the grave may not hold us very long, if indeed it holds us at all. For there is hope in a literal interpretation for a rapture that can happen at any moment.

Another strong argument for a literal interpretation is God's use of the medium of language as a vehicle of revelation. Language has but one purpose, and that is the orderly transfer of thought from one mind to another. Through words we communicate to others the thoughts of our hearts and minds.

If one man were to say to another, "The sky is blue," he would not take him to really mean that the soil is brown. he would understand that, for whatever reason, the other person was informing him of the color of the sky. Suppose that the man who said, "The sky is blue," really meant that his head ached -- the sky meaning the top of his body, and blue really signifying how he felt about the hurting that was going on there. Well, it would be a valid symbol, but it would not impart to the other the thing that he was trying to say. His listener would be left either to assume that he meant that the color of the sky was blue, or he would have to try to determine, on the basis of the words alone, what the speaker really meant. He could have meant that it is raining, the sky being blue and all. Or perhaps he meant that he was in truth a happy man, what with the blue skies, implying sunshine. Or he may have meant whatever the poor listener's imagination might come up with. What a cruel irony if such wonderful news as the Bible did not mean exactly what it said, but that some sinister danger might be lurking there to ensnare the unwary. What a mean prankster our God would be then. For we would have no way of ascertaining the real meaning. We would have to simply hope that our guess was the right one. Or we might trust in the words of men rather than in the Word of God. What did Paul say to the church at Corinth?

The allegorizers believe that the Holy Spirit reveals to the serious student the things of the Spirit, so that he may understand the mysterious secrets that are hidden beneath the surface of the words. If that be so, why does He reveal one thing to one man and something altogether contradictory to another? Does He reveal truth to one and a lie to another? There is a verse, taken out of context, which is used in support of this error, but it is speaking of a time on the earth when the true Church will have already been removed. It makes no reference to this age of grace.

Perhaps the greatest reason to reject an allegorical approach to the Scriptures is that such a method of interpretation leaves one with no authority by which to judge a man's interpretation. That is, if the Bible does not mean what it says, then what do we use to determine if a man's interpretation is correct? Under this method, the only limit in interpreting the Bible is the scope of one's imagination. On the other hand, if the Bible is our authority, then we may judge an interpretation immediately by comparing it with what the Scriptures have to say. This really ought not even be an issue, but it has spawned more division than anything else in theology.

Yet another reason to accept a literal interpretation of the Scriptures lies in the very nature of those Scriptures most often allegorized, the prophetic Scriptures. Most allegorizers tend to accept literally most of the Bible, but when it comes to prophecy, all of a sudden it makes better sense to make all of that symbolic. Consider, however, that virtually every prophecy which has already been fulfilled -- perhaps 80--90% -- were fulfilled literally. That is, when Daniel predicted the rise and fall of empires, history attests that those prophecies were literally fulfilled in the empires that arose and fell. When the Old Testament made predictions concerning the first advent of the Jewish Messiah, every one of those prophecies were fulfilled literally. Why then does it make sense to take the few remaining prophecies and make them symbols and allegories and anything but what they truly represent?

There is a reason. And it is sinister indeed. The devil has not forgotten how to deceive.

The reason that people allegorize the prophetic Scriptures is because if the Bible is interpreted literally, it will not fit into the interpretations that the allegorizers are predisposed towards. For example, those who believe that the promises that God made to Israel now apply to the Church, cannot find that rationale in a plain or literal interpretation of the Bible. They must twist the Scriptures to make them fit into their scheme of things. Those who teach that the Church must endure all or part of the tribulation also cannot find literal passages to support their view, so they must assign meanings other than what the words actually say. Those who teach that Christ will not return bodily to the earth before the beginning of the millennial kingdom also change the plain meaning of the words so that they fit their outline of prophecy. The reason that men allegorize the Bible is because, if the literal method be correct, it makes them false teachers. It cannot mean what it says, else their doctrine would be proven wrong. Philosophically, they are left with no alternative but to twist the Scriptures.

As stated earlier, the allegorizers have countless differences in their theology. Their unity is in their agreement that what the Bible actually says has nothing to do with what it really means.

The first question mark in the Bible is found at the end of a sentence wherein Satan is tempting Eve in the Garden of EdenThis is because there is no authority upon which to base any of them. Every man's interpretation has as much chance of being right as the next, so who's to say? On the other hand, among conservatives, there is broad agreement on most points of doctrine, even in prophecy. This, because conservatives all agree that a literal approach to the Bible is the correct approach. We, therefore, have an authority, the Word of God.

If a literal method of interpretation did not make sense, then it would be acceptable to assign some other meaning to the Bible. However, since it does make sense, and since a literal method of interpretation is confirmed daily by world events, then it seems outrageous to reject a literal interpretation in favor of flights of fancy, not matter how reasonably argued or how educated the proponent. Remember, in the gospels, where it says, "...they reasoned among themselves..." they were always wrong.

Let us end this discussion where we began. The allegorizers believe that because the Bible is a spiritual book, it must be spiritualized, or allegorized, in order to be properly understood. However, since it is a spiritual book, conservatives agree that it needs no further spiritualization by man. God made it a spiritual work, and man's mind cannot improve upon it.