Methods of Interpretation - Steve Gregg | When Shall These Things Be? (Eschatology) Lecture 2

#Hermenuetics (science of #interpretation )
• Note: All #bible scholars and students take some scripture literally and some non-literally.
a) Two opposing sides:
i) Dispensationalists claim to have a consistent literal interpretation of scripture and therefore
believe they have the best hermenuetic system.
(1) As often as theologically possible, things are taken literally.
(a) Example: Israel is always nation of Israel. (never could be church)
(b) 1000 years is a literal 1000 years
ii) Amillennialists take many things symbolically or spiritually.
(1) Could include all 3 millennial camps
(2) Believes that author often intended things to be taken spiritually.
(3) Often referred to as “spiritualizing”
(4) Sometimes referred to as “allegorizing” (mostly by dispensationalists). This is a
misrepresentation
(5) Bible not written by western thinkers, who tend to take everything literally
(6) Eastern thinkers do not always express themselves in literal language
(a) Use of parables, allegories, and hyperbole.
iii) Thoughts from both sides:
(1) Dispensational
(a) Charles Ryrie says we should figure out our methodology and rules of interpretation
before trying to interpret scripture at all. (sounds reasonable enough)
(b) Ryrie also says that dispensationalists use a method that interprets a word the same
way everytime it is found. Referred to as the Grammatical-Historical method of
interpretation. (“Dispensationalism Today”)
(i) Gives impression that this is consistently applied by dispensationalists. This is
not always the case.
(ii) Every conservative Christian uses grammatical-historical method:
1. Does not always mean a literal interpretation
2. Looks at how the historical (or intended) reader would have interpreted the
text. How the grammar would have been understood.
(c) Walvoord says Pre-millenarians use gram-hist method, while Amillenarians use
some type of spiritualizing method. (typical claim by dispensationalists)
(2) Amillennial
(a) Willliam E Cox. (“Amillenialism today”). Says that all groups claim to use the
grammatical-historical method of interpretation.
(i) Most things taken literally
(b) Floyd Hamilton (“The basis of Millennial faith”). Says that all passages should be
taken literally unless
(i) Passage contains obvious figurative language.
(ii) NT gives authority for interpreting them in an other than literal sense.
(iii) Literal interpretation would produce a contradiction in truths, principles, or
actual statements found in other non-symbolic books of the NT.
(iv) Walvoord (a disp.) affirms these 3 rules in his own book.
(c) Hamilton also says that another obvious rule is clearest NT passages in nonsymbolical
books are to be the norm for interpretion of prophecy rather than obscure
or partial revelations contained in OT passages.
(i) We’re to accept the clear and plain passages of scripture as basis for getting the
meaning of the more difficult parts of scripture.
(d) Hamilton not departing from Gram-Hist method, but defining logical, common sense
rules to apply for exceptions.
(3) There seems to be a false dichotomy drawn between the two sides. Both aim at a literal
interpretation wherever possible, but there’s differences on what is possible to be taken
literally.
(a) Most conservatives take passages literally, but everyone takes some figuratively
Disclaimer: These notes were not created nor are they endorsed by Steve Gregg or The Narrow Path. Any errors or misquotes are
strictly the responsibility of the transcriber. - 9 -
(i) disagreement is on which things are taken literally.
(ii) Ryrie claims that the difference is that dispensationalists extend the principle to
prophecy where Amillenialists are inconsistent in this area of interpretation.
(Oversimplification)
1. Walvoord agrees that Amillenialists have two methods (spiritualize
prophecy).
(iii) Example: Ezek. 38-39 Gog and Magog
1. Horseback, bows, arrows, spears, etc.
2. Many apply this to a future invasion by Russia
a. Not likely going to use swords and spears
b. Most Disps say this represents modern weapons
c. Ryrie criticizes those who don’t take this literally, even the bows and
arrow part. If it says bows and arrows, it means bows and arrows.
3. Ryrie says if bible says “like” x, than there’s latitude for symbolism.
4. He says there’s no end to possible meanings if rules are not applied. (unfair
use of hyperbole)
iv) Why should we take passages literally all the time?
(1) Dispensationalists give 3 reasons (Given by Ryrie in his book)
(a) Philosophically, language itself requires literal interpretation
(i) Wrong, we use figures of speech (idioms) all the time to convey meanings
1. Frog in my throat, etc.
(b) Prophecies of OT concerning 1st coming are all fulfilled literally, there is no nonliteral
ful

[mynonameyt]

One of the best lessons on Bible interpretation I've heard.

[Manmodor]

Listened to part 1 and part 2... Thus far you covered a vast knowledge how others are wrong. When do I hear what is right?

[robinq]

Yet the methods of hermeneutical interpretation are only a manmade theory. It is not like math...when applied to scripture, and particularly not for prophecy.

The scripture will interpret itself. It sets forth types and antitypes, uses signs in the earth to tell us heavenly things and does use idioms, symbolism etc. Our job is therefore to discover these things by comparing scripture with scripture. I don't know of a better hermeneutic to follow than that!

[jaysonfederick]

There's only two (2) ways to interpret language, both verbal and written. That is literally or figuratively.
There is only one rule to follow to know when a figurative interpretation is to be followed: that is when the normal/natural/cultural meaning is stretched. This is obvious to all native speakers of any language. In fact this is a phenomenon built into all cultures. In fact strictest of rules are followed so that meanings are not easily misconstrued. The more a culture interacts with other cultures the stricter and even more pronounced these rules become. It is a fact with almost scientific accuracy that the weaker a culture becomes there is a marked deterioration in its vehicle of expression-it's language. Words become ambiguous, there is a deluge of slangs and the coinage of terms by all segments of the population which breeds disharmony and incongruity. And the people who are truest to the legacy of that culture would always be the ones waging a linguistic war in an effort to keep things as prestine as possible to reflect to 'purity', for to lose your language is to lose your history and ultimately your identity.

Having said the latter it is clear that the controversy about biblical interpretation is cleary a war. And it is impossible for much of this confusion to exist if it were not intentional.
Lastly, what value is there to hold on to a completely literal interpretation in what is considered a spiritual book? It makes absolutely no sense.
And how possible would it be to understand anything in a spiritual book if everything said cannot be understood literally....there would be no value in the book.
So it is natural to assume that the book must be interpreted just as language is understood . That is literally at times with deeper and higher versions of meaning...or deeper and higher meanings with possible literal applications at times.

Enough said: The wise would understand.