Chapter Seven
THE GOLDEN RULE OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
There
is not doubt about it. The basic issue
in settling problems pertaining to the Bible is to determine the method of interpretation
to be used. Without a clear and
consistent guiding principle, the student of divine revelation will drift
helplessly as a rudderless vessel upon a vast ocean, and will lose his way as
an explorer who ventures too deep into an unknown labyrinth without a light or
a compass. He will seek to unlock the
mysteries of God, but shall not enter therein if he has no key.
The
fact that God has given an extensive revelation of Himself and of His dealings
with men, has caused such revelation to be recorded accurately in a Book, and
has emplanted within His own a thirst for God and a Holy Spirit to minister to
that need, argues indisputedly that the Bible is meant to be understood by
every Christian.
The
idea that God’s children should find their spiritual sustenance by feeing upon
the Word of God is not new. This truth
antedates the prophets. It is older
than Moses. No doubt its earliest written
expression is found in the testimony of Job, who said, “I have esteemed the
words of his mouth more than my necessary food” (Job 23:12). It is repeated in the command of Christ to
search the Scriptures (John 5:39) and in the exhortation of Paul to
Timothy: “Study to show thyself approved
unto God” (II Tim. 2:15). Even so
difficult a book as the Revelation gives the promise of special blessing to
those who keep its sayings (Rev. 22:7), and leaves the reader with the distinct
impression that all of the Word of God is to be read with benefit by all of the
people of God.
Yet,
in spite of the express injunction to study the Word and the natural craving of
the human heart for fellowship with God, the Bible is a highly neglected
Book. Food there is in abundance, but
the people do not eat. Even those who
are members of the household of God through faith in Christ are, for the most
part, spiritually impoverished. Why,
then, these jaded appetites for the things of God? Why this sweeping indifference toward the one Book which can
purify hearts, sweeten testimonies, and bring one the unsurpassed joy of the
knowledge of the Lord?
Is
not much of the answer in the realm of understanding? Inquire of the average church member, or press the man on the
street for his answer, and he will invariably explain his ignorance of
spiritual things on the basis that the Bible is so difficult he cannot understand
it. Or similarly, there are so very
many different interpretations of the Bible that he is confused. How is he to know which interpretation is
true or what he is to believe? Now
these are not good excuses, to be sure.
They will in no wise satisfy God or explain a willful neglect of His precious
Word, but do they not suggest the root difficulty of all Bible study? The very basic problem in understanding the
Word of God is the matter of interpretation.
Even
the most casual observer must be aware of the fact that Catholics, liberal or
orthodox Jews, and Protestants of every theological stripe and denomination
claim equally to find the basis for their convictions within the Bible. The following account of a conversation
between a Christian minister and a Jew may serve to illustrate this situation,
and point out that the key to the whole problem concerns the literal
versus the figurative interpretation of that which has been written:
Taking a New Testament and opening it at Luke
1:32, the Jew asked: “Do you believe
that what is here written shall be literally accomplished, – The Lord God shall
give unto Him the throne of His father, David; and He shall reign over the
house of Jacob forever?” “I do not,”
answered the clergyman, “but rather take it to be figurative language, descriptive
of Christ’s spiritual reign over the Church.”
“Then,” replied the Jew, “neither do I believe literally the
words preceding, which say that this Son of David should be born of a virgin;
but take them to be merely a figurative manner of describing the remarkable
character for purity of him who is the subject of the prophecy.” “But why,” continued the Jew, “do you refuse
to believe literally verses 32 and 33, while you believe implicitly the far
more incredible statement of verse 31?”
“I believe it,” replied the clergyman, “because it is a fact.” “Ah!” exclaimed the Jew, with an inexpressible
air of scorn and triumph. “You
believe the Scripture because it is a fact; I believe it because it is the Word
of God.”
I. Literal
Interpretation and Its Significance
The
science and art of interpreting the Scriptures of God is called hermeneutics. Its various laws have been designed to prevent
the spread of false doctrine and to determine accurately the meaning of divine
revelation. Correct hermeneutical
procedures are of prime importance, for it is “little good for us if God has
spoken, and we do not know what He has said.” However, since God has spoken and has placed
His Word within the hands of men, they are duty bound to interpret it
properly. This is for their own good,
that they might be rightly related to God and know how to live acceptably
before their fellow men.
It
is not the purpose of this chapter to attempt a survey of the entire field of
hermeneutics or to give even a brief digest of its laws. The purpose, rather, is to examine the one
central, most basic issue of that science, namely: Is the Bible to interpreted literally? Or, to state the problem from the opposing
viewpoint: “To what extent is the spiritualizing
of Scripture permissible, and what is the relationship between the literal
method and the interpretation of prophecy?”
With the Bible abounding in figures of speech and with prophecy full of
symbolism, can the rule of literal interpretation be held consistently? For the serious Bible student, the
importance of questions such as these would be hard to exaggerate. It will be demonstrated that the sine qua
non, the one thing indispensable to the premillennial viewpoint – indeed,
to orthodoxy itself – is that the Scriptures of God be understood in a normal,
grammatical, literal fashion. It will
then be demonstrated that both midtribulationalists and posttribulationalists
violate this principle whenever their systems demand it, thus throwing open the
door to a spiritualizing or allegorizing method which has fostered modernism
and which violates a consistent premillennial theology. However, since even the most ardent literalist
must recognize the presence of figures of speech in the Bible, and symbolic
language in the prophetical sections, something of the application of the
literal method to these areas will find a place in the discussion also. As a whole, the chapter purposes to forward
the argument for pretribulationalism in two ways: by demonstrating the solid interpretive ground upon which it
rests, and by illustrating the insecure footing of other schools of thought
which would take the Church of Jesus Christ into or through the coming hour of
trial.
A. Definition of Terms
When
one speaks of the literal interpretation of the Bible, it is not to be assumed
that every word and every line is to be taken at its “dead level” meaning. As indicated, some parts of the Bible are
highly figurative; the Hebrew of the Old Testament in particular abounds with
figures of speech and poetic descriptions of every kind. But when advocates of the literal method
freely recognize this element in the composition of the Bible, it must be
remembered that “this is no concession to those who deny the inspiration of the
Word, since a figure or parable may be just as much inspired as a rigid
syllogism.” Now it is true that one’s understanding of
the Bible is rendered more difficult because of the presence of figurative
language, but this does not militate against the fact that the basic rule of
Bible interpretation is literal interpretation. Special rules governing the use of figures of speech enable these
to be interpreted in full harmony with the basic rule without any violation
being involved.
To
interpret the Scriptures literally means to interpret them grammatically,
that is, according to the normal use of the words and the accepted rules of
grammar. The terms literal and grammatical
are essentially the same, and are generally used interchangeably. The same is true, on the other hand, of figurative
and tropical. The first pair is
derived from the Latin litera and from the Greek γράμμα,
both denoting that the sense of the word is “according to the letter,” the
meaning it bears in its ordinary, primary usage.
“But
when a word, originally appropriated to one thing, comes to be applied in
another, which bears some real or fancied resemblance to it, as there is then a
τρόπος or
turning of it to a new use, so the meaning is called tropical, or, if we
prefer the Latin form of expression, figurative. ...” When the figurative meaning of a passage of
Scripture is taken in preference to the ordinary “literal” meaning, the passage
is often said to be spiritualized, the implication being that a deeper,
more spiritual understanding of the passage has been reached by the recognition
of the hidden figurative interpretation.
While these terms, literal and spiritual, are not the best
which could be used to designate the two methods of interpretation under
investigation, they have
been utilized so widely that a change of terminology seems unwarranted at this
point.
It
is necessary to understand, however, that the advocate of literal
interpretation does not exclude from his method the proper use of Biblical
figures. Nor are the results of his
exegesis to be considered in ay respect less “spiritual” than those of men who
are heavily inclined to follow a more figurative interpretation. Excessive spiritualization of the Sacred
Text is likewise often called allegorizing, and whereas some have denied
that the two are the same, others (like Allis)
freely admit their identity. The significance
of this terminology will become more apparent in the discussion that follows.
B. The Importance of the Literal Method
The
extent to which a man spiritualizes the Scriptures will largely determine his
doctrinal position. The basic
difference between a liberal and a conservative interpreter may be traced directly
to the fact that the liberal spiritualizes away the obvious meaning of cardinal
doctrines. Liberal, or reformed, Jews
spiritualize the Messianic portions of the Old Testament and so have ceased to
look for any literal Messiah. Indeed,
some have held the absurd doctrine that the “nineteenth century is the Messiah.”
By
the same failure to accept the literal sense of the plain testimony of
Scripture, some interpreters have stolen away the foundations of every cardinal
Christian doctrine and left the Church to drift into liberalism and infidelity. The difference, then, between the liberal
and the conservative evangelical lies squarely in the system of hermeneutics
employed. Conservatives find that the
literal interpretation of the Bible is a natural corollary to the truth of
verbal inspiration, and the denial of the one constitutes a definite step toward
the denial of the other. Most liberals
are emphatic about their denial of both.
Moreover,
the basic difference between the amillennial and the premillennial viewpoints
is essentially whether one is to interpret the kingdom prophecies figuratively
or literally. That this is the main issue
has been clearly pointed out by Albertus Pieters:
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 in 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.
Amillennialist Rutgers also
sees that this is the main issue, when he observes: “I regard their interpretation of Scripture as the fundamental
error.” Likewise, Adolf Harnack admits that the
premillennial system is rooted in the literal method of interpretation, when he
notes that in recent times a “mild type of ‘academic’ chiliasm has been
developed from a belief in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.” From these citations, it is evident that
one’s millennial position is determined directly by the interpretative method
he employs.
In
like manner, this issue is raised even within the ranks of premillennial men in
the familiar controversy between covenant and dispensational theology. That the dispensationalists are more
consistent in adhering to those principles of interpretation which have
sheltered them from liberalism’s errors and amillennial vagaries can be seen
from the following terse analysis of the covenant position:
The major objections to the covenant view can
only be stated. Covenant theology is
built upon a spiritualizing method of interpreting the Scriptures. In order to make the various covenants of
the Old Testament conform to the pattern of the covenant of grace it is necessary
to interpret them in other than their literal sense. ...
The covenant theory allows no place for
literal fulfillment of Israel’s national and racial promises and either cancels
them on the ground that Israel failed to meet the necessary conditions, or transfer
them to the saints in general. From the
dispensational and literal standpoint, this is misappropriation of Scriptural
promises. ...
The dispensational view of Scripture taken as
a whole is far more satisfactory as it allows for the literal and natural interpretation
of the great covenants of Scripture, in particular those with Abraham, Moses,
David, and with Israel as a whole, and explains them in the light of their own
historical and prophetical context without attempting to confirm them to a
theological concept to which they are mostly unsuited.
Further comment is hardly necessary to underline the importance
of determining which method shall be the basic rule for the interpretation of
Scripture. Nor is there any issue more
pertinent to this analysis of the time of the rapture in relation to the Tribulation. There are very few problems raised in
connection with the study of prophetic subjects where one can avoid asking
himself the question: “Is this passage
to be taken literally?” It remains to
be demonstrated that one of the fundamental weaknesses of both the
midtribulational and posttribulational systems is their marked propensity to
spiritualize the purpose and severity of the Tribulation period.
II. Historical
Background
It
is hardly necessary here to trace the long history of Biblical interpretation
from early Old Testament days until this present hour. Such a study, although not without interest
and value, would be lengthy and extraneous to the present purpose. However, a brief historical survey of the
backgrounds of the two hermeneutical methods being discussed may well clarify
some of the issues involved in the modern conflict, and grant the necessary perspective
for a wise treatment of the eschatological problem under consideration.
A. The Allegorical School of
Interpretation
The
allegorizing method of interpretation had its origin with the Alexandrian Jews
of about two centuries before Christ, although it is claimed that the Greeks
applied the method to their own religious poets at a still earlier date. At least, the Alexandrian Jews were the
first to apply the principle to the Old Testament Scriptures as a whole. Farrar notes that “by a singular concurrence
of circumstances, the Homeric studies of Pagan philosophers suggested first to
Jews and then, through them, to Christians, a method of Scriptural
interpretation before unheard of which remained unshaken for more than fifteen
hundred years.”
It
is generally conceded that Aristobulus (160 b.c.)
was the first of the Alexandrian school.
It was his conviction that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the Old
Testament, and that, by reading between the lines, all the tenets of the Greek
philosophers (especially Aristotle) are to be found in Moses and prophets.
In answer to a question of Ptolemy,
Aristobulus told him that Scripture was not to be literally understood. The “hand” of God means His might; the
"speech" of God means the organization and immovable stability of the
world. The “coming down” of God has
nothing to do with time or space. The
“fire” and the “trumpet” of Sinai are pure metaphors corresponding to nothing
external. The six days’ creation merely
implied continuous development. The
seventh day indicates the cycle of hebdomands which prevails among all living
things – whatever that piece of Pythagorean mysticism may chance to mean.
Philo,
next contended that every passage of Scripture has two meanings: a literal and an allegorical. The literal was for the weakminded, while
the allegorical was the advanced. “To him the Bible furnished not so much a
text for criticism as a pretext for theory.
Instead of elucidating the literal sense he transforms it into a
philosophical symbol.” In these early Jews is clearly indicated
that heart of the allegorical method: the literal sense of the text of
Scripture is regarded merely as the vehicle which carries, to those who look
for it, the more spiritual and profound sense.
Philo held to the most rigid views of the inspiration of Scripture, but
when he came to their explanation and application, he became vague and
contradictory, much like allegorizers of this present day.
With
conservative interpretation, an allegory is a legitimate figure of speech,
found occasionally in the Bible as in the famous allegory of Paul recorded in
Galatians 4:21-31. But here, the literal
is in no wise set aside, for Abraham and Sarah are real people, and Jerusalem
and Sinai are literal geographical locations.
Far different is the method of the allegorizers, who give an entirely
new and different meaning to accounts which were never intended to be allegorical. Farrar comments:
St. Paul borrows an incidental illustration
from the methods of the Rabbis, without for a moment disturbing the literal
sense; Origen borrows from heathen Platonists and from Jewish philosophers a
method which converts the whole of Scripture, alike the New and Old Testament,
into a series of clumsy, varying, and incredible enigmas. Allegory helped him to get rid of Chiliasm
and superstitious literalism and the “antitheses” of the Gnostics, but it
opened the door for deadlier evils.
Among
Christians, the allegorical method was unknown through the first century and
well until the end of the second. Pantaenus
(180 a.d.) was the first to adopt
the system, followed by Clement, who said that the literal sense of Scripture
was milk, and the allegorical, meat. It
remained for Origen to fashion the teachings of the New Testament as a whole
into the allegorical mold, and it is to him that this form of interpretation,
among Christians, is generally traced.
Origen was the first to lay down, in
connection with the allegorical method of the Jewish Platonist, Philo, a formal
theory of interpretation, which he carried out in a long series of exegetical
works remarkable for industry and ingenuity, but meagre in solid results. He considered the Bible a living organism,
consisting of three elements which answer to the body, soul, and spirit of man,
after the Platonic psychology.
Accordingly, he attributed to the scriptures a threefold sense: (1) a
somatic, literal, or historical sense, furnished immediately by the meaning of
the words, but only serving as a veil for a higher idea; (2) a psychic or moral
sense, animating the first, and serving for general edification; 93) a
pneumatic or mystic and ideal sense, for those who stand on the high ground of
philosophical knowledge. In the
application of this theory he shows the same tendency as Philo, to spiritualize
away the letter of scripture ... ; and instead of simply bringing out the sense
of the Bible, he puts into it all sorts of foreign ideas and irrelevant
fancies. But this allegorizing suited
the taste of the age, and, with his fertile mind and imposing learning, Origen
was the exegetical oracle of the early Church, till his orthodoxy fell into
disrepute.
In
the hands of Origen the entire body of Christian doctrine suffered, and because
of his method of interpretation the fundamentals of the faith were weakened to
the point that Origen’s views were branded as heretical. It hardly needs to be said, therefore, that
most of the Reformers rejected the validity of the allegorical method. Among these, and in no uncertain terms,
spoke Luther. Said he:
An interpreter ... must as much as possible
avoid allegory, that he may not wander in idle dreams.... Origen’s allegories are not worth so much
dirt.... Allegories are empty
speculations, and as it were the scum of Holy Scripture.... To allegorize is to juggle with Scripture.... Allegories are awkward, absurd, invented,
obsolete, loose rags ... mere spangles and pretty ornament, but nothing more.
Certainly,
the unsavory history of the allegorical method will cause thoughtful Bible
students to look with suspicion upon all theological schemes that display
allegorizing tendencies. In the words
of Farrar, “allegory by no means sprang from spontaneous piety, but was the
child of Rationalism which owed its birth to the heathen theories of
Plato. It deserved its name, for it
made Scripture say something else ... than it really meant.” Ramm sums up the weakness of this school of
interpretation when he says:
The true great curse of the allegorical method
is that it obscures the true meaning of the Word of God. There are no controls on the imagination of
the interpreter, so the Bible becomes putty in the hands of each
interpreter. As a result different doctrinal
systems could well arise within the sanction of the allegorical method, yet no
way exists for breaking the deadlock within the allegorical system. The only retreat is to the literal meaning
of the Bible. ...
With
the Reformation, all but the most liberal theologians rejected the allegorizing
method for most areas of Christian doctrine.
It remained for Augustine to modify the spiritualizing principle by
applying it to the interpretation of prophecy only, while hold that the
historical and doctrinal sections should be interpreted by normal “historical-grammatical”
literal methods.
This was a decided improvement as far as
theology as a whole was concerned, even if it left the millennial issue unsolved
and at the mercy of the allegorical school.
Because of the weight of Augustine in other major issues of theology
where he was in the main correct, Augustine became the model for the Protestant
Reformers who accepted his Amillennialism along with his other teachings.
This should be sufficient,
at this point, to introduce the fact that many modern interpreters, while
basically conservative because of their adherence to the literal method,
nevertheless cling to the allegorizing principle in the area of
eschatology. It is not difficult to
demonstrate that such a concession to the interpretive methods of liberalism is
entirely unwarranted.
B. The School of Literal Interpretation
It
was one of the distinct advantages of the Jewish people “that unto them were
committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2).
To them pertained the covenants and the promises, the giving of the law,
and the service of God (Rom. 9:4), but for generations the law was slighted and
broken, and for many years of captivity and exile the Scriptures which they
possessed lay hidden and ignored in the dust of a broken temple. But while yet in the land of exile, a young
priest by the name of Ezra, a direct descendant of Aaron, “prepared his heart
to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and
judgments” (Ezra 7:10). In person, he
led a group of Jews from the land of their captivity back to Jerusalem and
rejoiced that the Lord God had permitted a remnant to escape, giving “a little
reviving in our bondage” (Ezra 9:8).
Later, after the rebuilding of the city walls, directed by Nehemiah and
the register of the remnant returned from captivity, the people “spake unto
Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses.... So they read in the book of God distinctly,
and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” (Neh. 8:1,
8). Here, then, was Bible exposition,
the purpose of which was to seek the reformation of Israel by calling the
people to the obedience of the words and commandments of God. “We may, accordingly, date the beginning of
formal exposition of the Scriptures in the time of Ezra.”
Ezra is generally considered the first of the
Jewish interpreters, and the ultimate source of the
Jewish-Palestinian-Hyperliteralist school.
The Jews, in the Babylonian Capitivity, soon replaced their native
tongue with the Aramaic. This created a
gap between their minds and the language of the Scriptures. It was the task of Ezra to give the meaning
of the Scriptures from the Hebrew to the Aramaic, and this is generally
considered the first case of Biblical hermeneutics in history.
Under
the scribes of the period following Ezra and Nehemiah, much of the value of
this noble beginning was lost, for they set about to make a hedge around the
Sacred Writings by setting a value to the very letters of the law, counting
their letters and guarding the manuscripts with a zeal which bordered on fanaticism.
The net result of a good movement started by
Ezra was a degenerative-literalistic interpretation that was current among the
Jews in the days of Jesus and Paul. The
Jewish literalistic school is literalism at its worst. It is the exaltation of the letter to the
point that all true sense is lost. It
grossly exaggerates the incidental and accidental and ignores and misses the
essential.
Farrar
gives a digest of Rabbinic tradition, and sums up the period by saying: “The age of the Rabbis lost itself in
worthless trivialities, and suffocated the warmth and light of Scripture under
the white ashes of ceremonial discussion, yet in preserving the text of the Old
Testament it rendered services of inestimable value.”
Literal
interpretation, although employed by devout students of the Scripture down
through the intervening years (Matt. 2:4, 5; Luke 2:29-32, etc.), is next seen
as a school in the Syrian School of Antioch.
It is said to be the first Protestant school of hermeneutics, and was
founded by Lucian and established by Diodorus of Tarsus (393 a.d.).
It was “a school of literalists with little or no patience for
allegorism, and it produced the most competent Bible expositors for a thousand
years.... In many of their interpretations
they anticipated modern expositors by more than a millennium. It was tragic that such good sense was lost
to the Church.”
The
literal interpretation of the Scriptures next came to the front with the
Protestant Reformation, which was in a real sense a hermeneutical revolt before
it was either theological or ecclesiastical. With this revolt, the mind of Germany and
other European countries tore itself away from the bonds of ignorance and superstition
imposed by the Roman church. Priestly
absolution of sin was exchanged for the Biblical doctrine of justification of
faith, and carnal tradition was exposed by appealing to the Holy Scriptures as
the only infallible revelation of God.
The great commanding voice which directed this remarkable revolution was
that of Martin Luther, who, in October of the year 1517, nailed his famous
theses to the door of the Schlosskirche of Wittenberg, and give years later
performed one of the most valuable services of his life when he gave his
translation of the New Testament to the German people “in the simple,
idiomatic, and racy language of common life, and enabled them to read for themselves
the teachings of Christ and the apostles.” Although Protestants may not fully agree
with all that Luther said and did, it must be admitted that his teachings and
his stand against carnal ecclesiasticism formed the charter of Christian
liberty for all Protestant people and for all who exalt the Word of God above
the word of man. It is therefore highly
significant to examine that system of interpretation which taught Luther his doctrines
and fired him for his task.
Luther
rejected allegorizing interpretations in no uncertain terms. Farrar outlines four distinct stages to
Luther’s spiritual advance, and indicates that only in the fourth stage did he
gain a clear grasp of the principles which all Reformed and Lutheran churches
have since steadily recognized in the proper interpretation of Scripture. Among these principles are:
(1)
The supreme and final authority of Scripture, apart
from all ecclesiastical authority or interference.
(2)
Not only the supreme authority, but also the sufficiency
of Scripture.
I ask for Scripture, and Eck offers me the
Fathers. I ask for the sun, and he
shows me his lanterns. I ask, “Where is
your Scripture proof?” and he adduces Ambrose and Cyril.... With all due respect to the Fathers, I
prefer the authority of Scripture.
(3)
The literal sense of the passage to be interpreted is
the true sense. “The literal sense of
Scripture alone is the whole essence of faith and Christian theology.... Each passage has one clear, definite, and
true sense of its own. All others are
but doubtful and uncertain opinions.” In taking this stand Luther was, like other
Reformers, setting aside the dreary fiction of the “fourfold sense” of the
former era, and was, in this respect, in advance of Erasmus, who thought that
the Holy Spirit meant the words of Scripture to be taken in various
senses. Said Luther:
I have observed this, that all heresies and
errors have originated, not from the simple words of Scripture, as is so
universally asserted, but from neglecting the simple words of Scripture,
and from the affectation of purely subjective tropes and inferences. In the schools of theologians it is a
well-known rule that Scripture is to be understood in four ways, literal, allegoric,
moral, anagogic. But if we wish to
handle Scripture aright, our one effort will be to obtain unum, simplicem,
germanum, et certum sensus literalem.
Other principles outlined
by Luther included the rejection of the allegorical method, faith in the
perspicuity (the sufficient clarity) of Scripture, and the right of private
judgment.
No
doubt the greatest exegete and theologian of the Reformation was John
Calvin. Farrar says that in spite of
his “hard expressions and injurious declamations,” he is one of the greatest
interpreters of Scripture who every lived. His vigorous intellect, his logical mind,
his classic training and wide knowledge, his deep religious feeling, his
careful attention to the entire scope and context of every passage, and the
fact that he has commented on almost the whole of the Bible, these and many
other traits combine to make him tower above the great majority of men who have
written on the Holy Scriptures.
Like
Luther, Calvin rejected the fourfold sense and the whole scholasticism system
of allegorical interpretation. He was a
literalist and a grammarian, and in the preface of his commentary on the book
of Romans, he laid down his golden rule, that “it is the first business of an
interpreter to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to
him what we think he ought to say.” Whether or not we agree with all of Calvin’s
conclusions, we must at least recognize that he rejected the spiritualizing
method of interpretation. His authoritative
voice speaks strongly in favor of the truth and historicity of the literal
method. “Let us know then,” said he,
“that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let
us embrace and abide by it resolutely.” Schaff, an historian, writes his own conclusion
in the matter:
Calvin is the founder of grammatico-historical
exegesis. He affirmed and carried out
the sound hermeneutical principle the Biblical authors, like all sensible
writers, wished to convey to their readers – one definite thought in words
which they could understand. A passage
may have a literal or a figurative sense; but cannot have two senses at
once. The Word of God is inexhaustible
and applicable to all times, but there is a difference between explanation and
application, and application must be consistent with explanation.
In
defense and support of the literal principle as the basic rule of Biblical
interpretation, many voices yet clamor to be heard. Scholars, both ancient and modern, rise up to add their
testimony. Before passing this
investigation of historical backgrounds, several more representative scholars
should be allowed to speak, with as little added comment as possible.
Maresius
declares:
A single sense of Scripture, viz., the
grammatical is to be allowed, and then it may be expressed in any terms whether
proper, or tropical and figurative.
Speaking
on the interpretation of the “first resurrection” of the Revelation, Dean
Alford, Greek scholar, writes:
I cannot consent to distort words from their
plain sense and chronological place in the prophecy, on account of any consideration
of difficulty, or any risk of abuses which the doctrine of the millennium may
bring with it. Those who lived next to
the apostles, and the whole Church for 300 years understood them in the plain
literal sense; and it is a strange sight in these days to see expositors who
are among the first in reverence of consensus which primitive antiquity
presents.... If the first resurrection
is spiritual, then so is the second, which I suppose none will be hardy enough
to maintain: but if the second is
literal, then so is the first, which in common with the whole primitive Church
and many of the best modern expositors, I maintain, and receive as an article
of faith and hope.
Probably
the most factual and voluminous written defense of the premillennial system is
the three volume Theocratic Kingdom, by George N. H. Peters. One of the early and fundamental propositions
of this work concerns the adherence to the literal, grammatical interpretation
of Scripture:
We unhesitatingly plant ourselves upon the
famous maxim of the able Hooker: “I
hold for a most infallible rule in expositions of the Sacred Scriptures, that
where a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the letter is
commonly the worst. There is nothing
more dangerous than this licentious and deluding art, which changes the meaning
of words, as alchemy doth, or would do, the substance of metals, making of
anything what it pleases, and bringing in the end all truth to nothing.” The primitive Church occupied this position,
and Irenaeus ... gives the general sentiment when ... “he says of the Holy
Scriptures: that what the understanding
can daily make use of, what it can easily know, is that which lies before our
eyes, unambiguously, literally, and clearly in the Holy Writ.” ... Thus Luther
remarks: “I have grounded my preaching
upon the literal word; he that pleases may follow me, he that will not may
stay.”
When employing the word “literal,” we are to
be comprehended as also fully acknowledging the figurative sense, the beautiful
ornaments of language; we cordially accept all that is natural to language
itself, its naked strength and its charming adornments, but object to additionally
forcing on it a foreign element, and enclosing it in a garb that hides
its just proportions.
Silver
remarks that there is safety in literal interpretation, in the faith of that
childlike simplicity which takes the Scriptures to mean what they say. He quotes the statement of Seiss:
Christ knew what He wished to say, and how to
say what He meant, and I find myself bound to understand Him to mean just what
He says.
Feinberg
mentions two more scholars who have a right to be heard before brining this
section to a close:
Sir Isaac Newton with great insight and
foresight foretold that about the time of the end certain men would arise who
would devote their energies to prophetic studies and “insist upon their literal
interpretation in the midst of much clamor and opposition.” Probably as valuable a testimony as any that
could be offered was given by Dr. Horatius Bonar. When speaking of the results of fifty years of the study of prophecy,
he concluded with the statement that first of all, he had gain assurance as to
the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures. Secondly, he felt more certain than ever that the literal interpretation
of the Word is the best. Said he: “Literal, if possible, is, I believe the
only maxim that will carry you right through the Word of God from Genesis to
Revelation.”
In
this study, the allegorical method of interpretation has been traced from its
origin among pagan philosophers, through the vague interpretations of Philo and
the Alexandrian Jews, to Origen, who first applied the principle to the entire
body of Christian doctrine, and whose writings were publically condemned and
burned because of the heresy into which he fell.
The
school of literal interpretation has been traced from the interpretative
methods of Ezra, through the excessive literalism of the Rabbinic period,
through the school of Lucian, unto the clear commitment of leading Christian
scholars since that day. It is self
evident which school of interpretation has best served God and honored the Word
which He has committed unto men.
III. The
Right Use of the Literal Method
An
old Scotch minister said that in visiting his congregation he found three great
evils: a misunderstanding of Scripture,
a misapplication of Scripture, and a dislocation of Scripture. It is hardly necessary to note that these
three hermeneutical evils are still present, and if one is to judge by what he
hears from modern pulpits and reads from the religious press, the clergy is
even more sadly afflicted than those to whom they minister. The idea is abroad that the Bible is no
longer the final word in matters pertaining to redemption and Christian
ethics. Under constant attack is the
principle of literal interpretation, and widespread is the philosophy that the
Bible need not mean exactly what it appears to say. The Gospel must be “released from literal bondage to old categories
and set free to do its work in modern terms of thought.” So says modernist Harry Emerson Fosdick. “Christian liberty,” says M. G. G. Sherer,
“knows how to distinguish between Scripture and Scripture, between the chaff
and the wheat.” “The hue and cry is: ‘The enslaving legalism of the letter!’ We will not have this ‘fetter,’ this
‘handicap,’ these ‘clamps and chains.’ This ‘straight jacket’ of literalism put
on us.”
The
fact is entirely ignored that Bible believing Christians do not hold themselves
slaves to the letter of the law, nor do they require that every single passage
be interpreted literally in the strictest sense of the term. Most certainly do they recognize types and
figures of many kinds in the structure of the Word of God. That they do not allow their imagination and
interpretation to run wild is not due to a literalistic “straight jacket,” but
to a simple recognition and an obedience to certain basic hermeneutic
principles. They believe that correct
processes alone bring correct results, and that loose and erroneous
interpretations stem from wrong processes and dishonor the God who gave the
Scriptures.
The
proof that adherents to the literal method do not, as they are so often
accused, slavishly follow the method to the point of disparaging the present of
figurative language in the Bible is clearly seen in the way they have
formulated orderly rules for the interpretation of Biblical figures and
symbols. The literalist rightfully
contends that the presence of figurative language does not injure the literal
method. Figures are a normal ingredient
of any language, and particularly do they abound in the Hebrew of the Old
Testament, while prophetic portions are noted for their profusion of types and
symbols. The literalist contends, rather,
that even a figure of speech must be framed out of basic literal elements such
as persons, places, and events, and that within the figure is a literal concept
the author intended to make more graphic by the use of that figure. In this way, figurative language has a
rightful place in the literal method of interpretation, and the presence of
figures of speech in the Bible in no wise justifies a departure from that
method.
The
two outstanding arguments against the consistent use of the literal method are
those of the liberals, who contend that the presence of Biblical types and
figures make literal interpretation an impossible theory, and of the
amillennialists, who argue that the literal method cannot apply to the prophetic
areas of the Bible, even though the principle can be valid for the historical
and didactic portions. On the supposed
strength of these objections, the amillenarian allegorizes those Scriptures
which teach a glorious, visible reign of Christ upon the earth for one thousand
years, while the liberal carries the allegorizing principle into the more
cardinal areas of the Christian faith to such an extent that no doctrine is
entirely safe from attack or outright denial.
This
twofold assault upon the literal method demands a response and an answers. It is, however, hardly within the scope of
this present discussion to pursue these issues further, as vital as they are to
the defense of the evangelical, premillennial heritage. It is not the purpose of this chapter to
give a complete argument for literal interpretation, but to introduce this
vital principle to the reader with enough by way of historical backgrounds and
contemporary significance to indicate the danger involved when men unwittingly
turn to the spiritualizing method in order to sustain some favored theological
theory. We are about to see that both
midtribulationalists and posttribulationalists are guilty of most flagrant
departures from the literal method, particularly in respect to the severity of
the coming Tribulation, and that only upon the demands of their systems. If such a departure can be demonstrated, the
very weakness of the opposing systems will strengthen the argument for
pretribulationalism. Those who believe
the coming of Christ will precede the time of His wrath stand alone in their
literal interpretation of the true nature of the Tribulation period. In this respect, pretribulationalists alone
are consistent premillennialists.
No
doubt there will be readers sufficiently interested in this foundation stone of
premillennial interpretation to want to probe more deeply into its methods and
problems. May such readers be referred
to Section Two, “Literal Interpretation, Figurative Language and Prophecy,”
which shows how our interpretive method applies to the whole range of Bible
prophecy. There are three major parts
to that discussion:
(1)
The problem of interpreting figurative
language. In this
section, the figures of speech of the Bible are classified and illustrated,
with rules given for their interpretation in accord with the literal method.
(2)
Special rules for the interpretation of
prophecy. The spiritualizing
principle, once admitted into the area of prophetic interpretation, may readily
spread to other areas of doctrine and endanger the faith. The peculiar problems raised in the interpretation
of prophecy call for specialized rules within the literal method, but do not
warrant a complete departure from that method after the fashion of the
amillennialists.
(3)
The symbolism of the book of Revelation. It is demonstrated that the symbols of the
book do not hides its meaning but illustrate it, and even in this much disputed
portion of the Word of God, symbolism, with its attendant problems, presents no
adequate cause for any departure from the basic method of literal interpretation. The study of prophecy offers few more interesting
and significant issues than these. It
is believed that the discussion [in appendix] will bring to the attention of
the reader sufficient evidence to vindicate the literal method at those very
points where it is confronted with the harshest criticism. Important literature bearing on the subject
will be indicated, while some original material will be set forth with the hope
that it may make some small contribution to premillennial doctrine. This present chapter, however, must now
return to deal more directly with the issue of the rapture and the Tribulation.
IV. Literal
Interpretation
and the Time of the Rapture
Having
seen that the spiritualizing, allegorical method of interpretation stands
historically and doctrinal condemned, it now is necessary to see that there is
a very definite application of these issues to the problem of the time of the
rapture.
The
basic philosophy of Amillennialism is that there will be no literal earthly
Millennium; all the Scriptures which promise such are spiritualized and made to
apply to the program of God in the present age. The Scriptures which pertain to the Tribulation suffer the same
treatment.
Reformed theologians who follow the
amillennial interpretation usually minimize and spiritualize the time of
tribulation preceding the second advent, particularly in such passages as
Revelation 6-19. Amillennialists often
find the tribulation being fulfilled in contemporary events, and interpret
Revelation 6-19 as history. While interpreting
the second advent literally, they spiritualize the tribulation.
Although
posttribulationalists do not completely spiritualize the Tribulation, it is not
difficult to detect a strong inclination in that direction, as the following
citations will indicate. They minimize
its severity and try to tone down its judgments to the point that the
Tribulation is no longer a unique period of unprecedented wrath, but merely
another period of persecution upon the people of God and that no more severe
than previous times of suffering. McPherson
writes:
Surely the Church has been permitted to pass
through many other periods of suffering and anguish so acute that if those who
went through them should have to go through the Tribulation, they would not
feel they had missed anything during their first period of trial.
Posttribulationalists
labor to prove that a carnal church needs the purging and purifying fires of
the great Tribulation, and then must labor to protect her from the worst of its
wrath. Reese avers:
It is possible to reject the pleasing delusion
of a rapture some years before the Day of wrath, without accepting the error
that the Church will partake of the wrath.
It never seems to occur to these writers that, immediately before the
wrath of the Day of the Lord falls, God can call His saints to Himself, without
the necessity of an additional advent a generation earlier.
Likewise,
it never seems to occur to posttribulationalists the inconsistency of having
the Church both purged and protected at the same time, or that wrath starts at
Revelation 6:16 and not at 19:15, or that if God did not want His Church to go
through this time of wrath He would have taken them out of the way before its
commencement. In Fraser’s opinion:
Much of the scene in Revelation has to do only
with God’s judgments against rebellious man and there is no Scriptural reason
to believe that God’s people will be directly involved in that suffering. The Great Tribulation is not judgment,
but persecution.
Without going into the fact that Fraser fails to say
what the Church is doing in the midst of God’s judgments at all, let it be noticed
that here is a clear example of posttribulational attempts to water down the
severity of the Tribulation, if not to change its nature altogether. “The great Tribulation is not judgment, but
persecution”! Let the reader give
thoughtful attention to the Old Testament prophecy of the Day of the Lord in
the light of that statement, then read slowly and thoughtfully Revelation 6-19,
and he will be forced to conclude that either posttribulationalists are guilty
of flagrant spiritualization in these sections, or else that they wrest the
Scriptures and ignore large portions of it in the interest of their theory.
John
Scruby goes so far as to say that the Tribulation may be a “punishment for the
sinner,” but that it will be a “privilege for the saint”:
Yet when it comes to the Great Tribulation ...
to be found in it will be ... an opportunity for greater achievements in “the
good fight of faith,” and therefore for the attaining of still greater rewards
... Yet I dare to say that if the belief that the Church will go into the
Tribulation is an error, it is a beneficial error.
To Scruby, there are various “small rivers of trial”
that flow across the path of the Christian, and the Great Tribulation is merely
“the swelling of the Jordan.” He says that “it is an honor to be in the
great tribulation,”
although most Christians would be disposed to decline such an honor. Again, it is affirmed that the Great Tribulation
will have nothing to offer in excess of the sufferings of this present age:
If one may believe that one-half of the
stories which have come out of Soviet Russia, then many of the saints there
have already had to face as “great tribulation” as any saint will be called
upon to face during the Great Tribulation itself.
All of this is nothing more
or less than the flagrant spiritualization of Scripture and is in direct
contradiction to passages such as Matthew 24:21, 22: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the
beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened,
there should no flesh be saved. ...”
Posttribulationalists
accept the literal interpretation of the Bible for the fundamentals of the
faith, and the literal interpretation of prophecy for the necessary basis of
their premillennial hope, which most commendable. But when it comes to the Tribulation, all has gone to pieces, all
has changed, spiritualization has become other order of the day, and this only
in the interest of saving a theory which cannot be made to harmonize with the
literal interpretation of Tribulation passages.
Nor
can midtribulationalists escape the same indictment. When they place the time of the rapture in
the eleventh chapter of the book of Revelation, largely on the basis of a
surface similarity between the trumpet of that chapter and another found in I
Corinthians 15, and then coolly proceed to spiritualize five and one half
chapters filled with the direct judgments of God, they are equally guilty. A quick review will illustrate in graphic
form the nature of the judgments which must precede the sounding of the seventh
trump: peace taken from the earth –
famine – Death and Hell, with power to kill the fourth part of the earth –
heavens darkened and earth quaking – men hiding in the caves of the earth and
crying for the mountains to fall upon them to hide them from the awful wrath of
God – a multitude of martyred saints – hail and fire mingled with blood – trees
and grass burnt up – the third of the creatures in the sea destroyed – many
dying because of the waters which are made bitter – sun, moon, and stars
smitten – hellish locusts who torment men with their stings for five months –
men seeking death, and not able to find it – a godless host which kills the
third part of those who yet live – murders, fornication, and theft – seven
thunders, with judgment too terrible to utter – two witnesses who devour their
enemies with fire and who smite the earth with drought and plagues – waters
turned into blood – seven thousand men slain in one earthquake. Could any judgments be more devastating? Could any torments be more fearful? Could any fact be more obvious, that here is
the awful heart of the Great Tribulation, so designated at Revelation
7:14? Consider now the doctrine of
midtribulationalism, as set forth by one of its leading advocates (italics are
added):
We will find that the Trumpets, at least the
last three, reach only to the Great Tribulation.... Moreover, at the sounding of the seventh the
Church is caught away to escape that wrath.
Nothing, therefore, in these six trumpets can rightfully and
Scripturally be considered “wrath” or “judgment,” however closely they may
resemble it.
If, as we have been constrained to believe for
many years, in Matt. 24:7 our Lord Jesus envisioned the World War of 1914-18
with its accompaniments and the forces that lead on irresistibly into the Great
Tribulation, then we are confirmed beyond question in our position, namely,
that the Seals series does its work while the Church is still here; and the
Seals are not part of the Tribulation, but that they lead on into it; that
the seals are not judgments, but man’s folly brought to its fearful finality.
These experiences, though so very severe, are not
judgments. Commentators invariably
call them Trumpet Judgments. God never
does, and He ought to know.
The first half of the week, or period of seven
years, was a “sweet” anticipation to John, as it is to them; under
treaty protection, they will be “sitting pretty,” as we say.... We know of no justification for thinking of
the first half of Israel’s future “week” as being anything but “sweet”
to them.
This
is most certainly spiritualization!
This business of making sweet what is bitter – ordinary what is unique –
mere persecution what is judgment – a privilege what is a curse – beneficial,
enjoyable, and desirable what is clearly the wrath of Almighty God –– this
twisting and wrenching of Scripture in the vain attempt of making it say something
other than what it does say – this a return to the methods of Plato and Origen
and constitutes a dangerous departure from conservative Biblical interpretation,
which is literal interpretation. It is
a departure which endangers all for
which fundamental, premillennial men stand.
Liberalism spiritualizes cardinal doctrines; amillennialism spiritualizes the Millennium;
midtribulationalism and posttribulationalism spiritualize the Tribulation – but
the root error throughout is the same.
Nor is it impossible for a premillennial conservative, having once given
up his basic defense of literal interpretation, to retreat to
posttribulationalism, then to amillennialism, then on to liberalism in other
areas. There are men who have trodden
this pathway, although fortunately, most are arrested in their course and do
not reach the apostasy which is the natural outgrowth of the principle of
interpretation they have adopted.
It
is the most probable that some of the brethren who minimize the severity of the
Tribulation judgments do so in the enthusiasm of their argument without being
consciously aware of having fallen into the snare of the spiritualizing
method. Nevertheless, when a doctrinal
point which involves the blessed hope of the Church is under consideration, and
when men are forced to turn in defense of their theory to the interpretive methods
of the enemies of the faith, it is time to call a halt and issue a word of
warning. When fail to see that the
Church of Jesus Christ differs in its essential nature, as well as its
eschatology, from ancient Israel – when they miss the obvious fact that the
Tribulation is primarily a time of God’s wrath upon the enemies of His Son –
and when they explain away every divine promise to save the Church from wrath
to come – these are errors of important magnitude.
But,
when they fail to let the Scriptures speak and reverse the meaning of what God
has been pleased to reveal concerning the coming time of trouble – when, in a
word, they resort to the process of spiritualizing the Bible whenever and
wherever their systems demand it – then they are involved in a clear and dangerous
departure from that very method of interpretation upon which their
conservative, premillennial faith is founded.
Whether historically or in the laboratory of
twentieth century exegesis, pretribulationalism alone is consistent fundamentalism
and consistent Premillennialism, for it alone is based on a clear commitment to
the vital keynote doctrine – the golden rule of Biblical interpretation – which
is literal interpretation.