Literal Interpretation

I suspect this thread was started because I took Exodus 33:11 literally where it says the Lord spoke to Moses "face to face" as a man speaks to a friend. All sorts of folks came down on me because I interpret this as literal (and still do). Many said this could not be literal because 1 Jn 4:12 says no man hath seen God at any time. My argument was that God did not appear in all his glory to Moses. Later in the same chapter God does appear in his glory and Moses was not allowed to see his face.

 

Amen to this.

 

What's the problem with two brides? Over and over in the OT Israel is referred to symbolically as God's wife, His bride so to speak. And in the NT the church is His bride. What, God isn't allowed to use the same metaphor twice? This isn't rocket science, it's high school or college English!

 

Hey, I don't consider allegorical interpretation to be liberal. Just mistaken. :tongue3:

 

What point are you trying to make? This is full of symbolism, but you are apparently being sarcastic about the literalism.

 

Hang around the BB a little more.

My first impulse is to ask why you feel the need to stoop so low as to accuse me of this, but, the fact is I have been countering dispensationalism head on recently....; the board's been infested with them; rapture pretrib midtrib postrib antichrist rapture1000 year reign rapture yahdy dahdy dah.....

What's that position? Your one in Japan? I suppose there's no need for you to be concerned with U.S. politics and the fact that the 'Mid East wars' are breaking us financially. And yes, the Israel Lobby, which includes the Christian Zionists, are largely responsible for it. I directly blame the false theology of dispensationalism for our country being in the position it's in now.

Are you dispensationalist? If not, what? Covenant theology?

If your Grandfather was not dispensationalist, what was he? Covenant Theology?

31% of the paticipants on this poll considered themselves 'progressive'.

http://salmun.cwahi.net/histry/rel/chrch/sect/hcog/hcog.htm

If it makes you feel bigger or better or superior to point out lack of education on my part, then have at it. I am quick to catch on though.

If Bernard Ramm is not dispensational, what is he, Covenant Theology? If not, what? A brief internet search reveals that dispensationalists sure like to quote him.

A very quick, brief internet search indicates that progressive dispenationalists and CTs alike quote KB & H.

Actually, I've read some writings of only a couple of them.

 

John 6:
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

 

Symbolic usage in this passage: wall (there is no literal wall), fellow citizens, household, foundation, chief corner stone (Christ is not literally a stone), building, temple, builded.

The Bible is very rich in symbolism. Christ and Paul both used it extensively: similes, metaphors, personification, hyperbole. Anyone who ignores the symbolism of the Bible cannot interpret it correctly, whether they believe in literal interpretation or allegorical interpretation.

What? No way, I never said God has two wives. That would be a literal interpretation of a metaphor. I said God could use the same metaphor for two different things. There are places in the Bible where the same metaphor is used for opposites. For example, Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, but Satan is a roaring lion.

And I agree completely with Paul when he said that the two groups were formed into one body. That body is the church, because of the context. The term "church" occurs 9 times in Ephesians.

 

No, no. I didn't accuse you of anything. I thought I made that clear by putting "(hyperbole )" after the statement. I was simply making a point, not accusing. Sorry you didn't catch that or apparently understand my point.

I'm a nominal dispensationalist, but it's not that important to me. And I agree with some of these political points.

He was neither. His theology was an old time SBC Christocentric theology. If literal interpretation invariably led to dispensationalism, there would be far more disp. in church history. But he was premil and pretrib because that's what he found in Scripture through his own study.

Well that proves my point. Progressive dispensationalism is relatively new on the scene. The primary text for it was only written in 1993 (Blaising & Bock). So dispensationalism is changing. The excesses we see in popular culture and on the Internet are only a small phenomenon in the scholarly world.

I wasn't trying at all to feel bigger or superior, and I don't. Just making a point--and I think that point was correct. I suggest that you need to study more to understand the grammatical-historical hermeneutic.

If you really want to oppose dispensationalism, in light of what you learned on the Internet about Ramm, maybe you should order and read his book.

There you go! My point is made about this textbook.

 

I'm looking for a seven-headed sea-monster to hit the shores shortly.

The story of Sarah and Hagar is only about their domestic tiff, not a lesson about Judaism and Christianity.

And most of all . . .

. . . Christ is merely a four-footed wooly.

 

“Take the case of the cut-off hand and cut out eye in Matt. 5 and 18.” [JoJ]

I offer some alternative hermeneutics here. In lieu of applying the passage on an individual basis, consider the Prophet's riddle as [first] pertaining directly to the corporate Hebrew Church (body), which before that generation passed away was to be inundated with false [Judaizing] prophets, teachers and messiahs that would lead them astray, i.e., “it must needs be that the occasions [of stumbling] come”. Christ is telling them that no matter how much it hurts they must 'put away the evil from their midst lest the many be defiled'. If you've ever had to exclude a church member then you know that it can be a very painful experience for all, especially if it's also family that is involved.

I submit a few of many such passages that I consider to be in correlation with [at least] Mt 18:

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.
9 As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. Gal 1

10 For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision,
11 whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre`s sake.
13 This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
14 not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. Titus 1

9 but shun foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse; Titus 3

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent. Ro 16

15 looking carefully lest there be any man that falleth short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby the many be defiled; Heb 12

8 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.
29 I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
31 Wherefore watch ye, remembering that by the space of three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day with tears. Acts 20

2 I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst find them false;
6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Rev 2

And, just a couple from their law:

then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father`s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father`s house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. Dt 22:21

The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee. Dt 17:7

 

Matthew 18:
Dealing With Sin in the Church
15 “If your brother or sister[The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a fellow disciple, whether man or woman; also in verses 21 and 35.] sins,[Some manuscripts sins against you] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[Deut. 19:15] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[Or will have been] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[Or will have been] loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

2 Thessalonians 3:
11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13 And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.

14 Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

The biggest problem isn't those around us, but ourselves.

Matthew 7
Judging Others
1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

 

And right off is your mistake. You take this as a riddle when it is so clearly hyperbole. And then you head off in a direction totally unsupported by the text. I find this to be as big a mistake as the ultra-dispensationalist who says that the Sermon on the Mount was strictly for the profferred kingdom, and not for us today.

This is precisely the danger of allegorical interpretation. Since your allegory is not based directly on the text, the next allegorical interpreter will have his own allegory. And then you yourself might go back to the text and find a different allegory next time. "And every man did what was right in his own eyes."

The literalist will look at the hyperbole, recoginize it as a figure of speech, and will interpret it as such. He will not go off on any direction unsupported by the text.

 

I don't either. But I cannot see how a person can embrace allegorical methods without without taking liberties common to liberalism.

Someone will no doubt offer up a massive internet link to counter but I see theological liberalism as being a cousin to an allegorical view not a literal view. My personal experience with liberal protestantism is in agreement with what I'm saying. Could it not be said that from a historical perspective that modern liberalism owes it's existence to the rise of popular allegorical thinking?

If the dispies are responsible, as some here claim, for the turmoil in the middle east with their futuristic claims for the nation of Israel, could not the same logic be placed upon the shoulders of the allegorist with respect to the turmoil within modern evangelicalism due to liberalism within the assembly? Have you ever met a liberal pre-mill?

 

Twisting Scripture in allegorical directions was the error that led the Catholic Church into all sorts of wrong doctrine. It was the practice of many of the middle-age church fathers, and the results of their efforts are plainly written in history for all to see.

While we might draw an allegorical implication from the text for the purpose of illustrating the plain text in a sermon context, doing so as a means of primary interpretation is wrong and contra sola scriptura.

 

Did the new Covenant Totally Supercede/Replace Old Covenant?

As we are now no longer under law, but under Grace?

 

From a historical theological perspective, the Roman Catholic Church took a very literal interpretation to arrive at most of their errant views.

For instance: transubstaniation comes from a literal read of Jesus saying the Lords Supper is His body and blood. Also the priesthood and apostolic succession comes from a literal read of Peter being the "rock" on which the Church is built.

All that said, sometimes a literal read can lead to theological trouble.