from:
http://www.according2prophecy.org/literal.html
THE FIRST FOUNDATION:
CONSISTENT LITERAL INTERPRETATION
by Thomas Ice
Consistent literal interpretation is essential to properly understanding what God is saying in the Bible. Yet some believe that consistent literal interpretation is either impossible or impractical. One critic believes it to be a "presumption" that "is unreasonable" and "an impossible ideal."1 In spite of false characterization, what do we mean by consistent literal interpretation?
A DEFINITION OF LITERAL INTERPRETATION
The dictionary defines literal as "belonging to letters." Further, it says literal interpretation involves an approach "based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning, . . . not going beyond the facts."2 "Literal interpretation of the Bible simply means to explain the original sense of the Bible according to the normal and customary usages of its language."3 How is this done? It can only be accomplished through an interpretation of the written text which includes consideration of the grammatical (according to the rules of grammar), historical (consistent with the historical setting of the passage), contextual (in accord with its context) method of interpretation. This is what literalists mean by consistently literal interpretation.
GRAMMATICAL, HISTORICAL,
CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION
Grammatical
The grammatical aspect of literal interpretation considers the impact that grammar plays on a passage. This means that a student of the text should correctly analyze the grammatical relationships of words, phrases, and sentences to one another. Literal interpreter Dr. Roy Zuck writes,
When we speak of interpreting the Bible grammatically, we are referring to the process of seeking to determine its meaning by ascertaining four things: (a) the meaning of words (lexicology), (b) the form of words (morphology), (c) the function of words (parts of speech), and (d) the relationships of words (syntax).4
Dr. Zuck has been teaching biblical interpretation for many years at Dallas Seminary and I believe his recent book Basic Bible Interpretation is the best place to start for anyone interested in learning how to interpret the Bible. Dr. Zuck gives further amplification of the four areas he noted above:
In the meaning of words (lexicology), we are concerned with (a) etymology-how words are derived and developed, (b) usage-how words are used by the same and other authors, (c) synonyms and antonyms-how similar and opposite words are used, and (d) context-how words are used in various contexts.
In discussing the form of words (morphology) we are looking at how words are structured and how that affects their meaning. For example the word eat means something different from ate, though the same letters are used. The word part changes meaning when the letter s is added to it to make the word parts. The function of words (parts of speech) considers what the various forms do. These include attention to subjects, verbs, objects, nouns, and others, as will be discussed later. The relationships of words (syntax) are the way words are related or put together to form phrases, clauses, and sentences.5
The grammatical aspect of literal interpretation lets us know that any interpretation conflicting with grammar is invalid.
Historical
Proper interpretation of the Bible means that the historical context must be taken into account. This aspect means that one must consider the historical setting and circumstances in which the books of the Bible were written. Dr. Paul Tan explains:
The proper concept of the historical in Bible interpretation is to view the Scriptures as written during given ages and cultures. Applications may then be drawn which are relevant to our times. For instance, the subject of meat offered to idols can only be interpreted from the historical and cultural setting of New Testament times. Principles to be drawn are relevant to us today.6
Contextual
"A passage taken out of context is a pretext." This slogan is certainly true! Yet, one of the most common mistakes made by those who are found to have misinterpreted a passage in the Bible is that of taking a verse out of its Divinely ordered context. Even though a sentence may be taken from the Bible, it is not the Word of God if it is placed into a context which changes the meaning from that which God intended in its original context. Dr. Zuck says:
The context in which a given Scripture passage is written influences how that passage is to be understood. Context includes several things:
the verse(s) immediately before and after a passage
the paragraph and book in which the verses occur
the dispensation in which it was written
the message of the entire Bible
the historical-cultural environment of that time when it was
written.7
A widely used example of a verse taken out of context is 2 Chronicles 7:14: "and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray . . . " Usually this is quoted as an explanation for why America is in decline. Because "My people" are addressed, it is said that the success of a nation is dependent upon the obedience of Christians to the Lord. Thus God blesses or curses a nation in accordance with Christian obedience. Then 2 Chronicles 7:14 is cited as a formula for national restoration because the passage says to "humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
I believe that this is an illustration of a passage taken out of context because of the following contextual factors:
"My people" are said in 2 Chronicles 6:24 to be "Israel" as is also indicated by the flow of the historical context.
Solomon is preparing to dedicate the just completed Temple and 7:14 is God's renewal of the Mosaic Covenant under which Israel and only Israel operates.
Since this passage involves Israel and not the church it is improper to speculatively relate it to present day American Christianity. Proper contextual interpretation would allow for the general observation that God delights in a humble and obedient people, but obedience and pray should be offered according to His plan for the church.
FIGURES OF SPEECH
Literal interpretation recognizes that a word or phrase can be used either plainly (denotative) or figuratively (connotative). As in our own conversations today, the Bible may use plain speech, such as "He died yesterday" (denotative use of language). Or the same thing may be said in a more colorful way, "He kicked the bucket yesterday" (connotative use of language). An important point to be noted is that even though we may use a figure of speech to refer to someone's death, we are using that figure to refer to an event that literally happened. Some interpreters are mistaken to think that just because a figure of speech may be used to describe an event (i.e., Jonah's experience in the belly of the great fish in Jonah 2), that the event was not literal. Such is not the case. A "Golden Rule of Interpretation" has been developed to help us discern whether or not a figure of speech was intended by an author:
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.8
Literalists understand that a figure of speech is employed by Isaiah teaching that the Adamic curse upon nature will be reversed in the millennium when he says, "And all the trees of the field will clap their hands" (Isa. 55:12d). This figure is discerned by specific factors in the context in which it was written, all dealing with the removal of the curse upon nature at this future time. Even though figurative language is employed, it will literally happen in history.
LITERAL VERSES LITERAL
Dr. Elliott Johnson of Dallas Seminary has noted that much of the confusion over literal interpretation can be removed when one properly understands the two primary ways the term has been used down through church history: "(1) the clear, plain sense of a word or phrase as over against a figurative use, and (2) a system that views the text as providing the basis of the true interpretation."9 Thus, literalists, by and large, have used the term literal to refer to their system of interpretation (the consistent use of the grammatical-historical system; Johnson's #2), and once inside that system, literal refers to whether or not a specific word or phrase is used in its context in a figurative or literal sense (Johnson's #1).
Johnson's second use of literal (i.e., systematic literalism) is simply the grammatical-historical system consistently used. The grammatical-historical system was revived by the Reformers. It was set against the spiritual (spiritualized) or deeper meaning of the text that was a common approach during the Middle Ages. The literal meaning was used simply as a springboard to a deeper ("spiritual") meaning, which was viewed as more desirable. A classic spiritualized interpretation would for example, see the four rivers of Genesis 2-the Pishon, Havilah, Tigris and Euphrates-as representing the human body, soul, spirit and mind. Coming from such a system, the Reformers saw the need to get back to the literal or textual meaning of the Bible. For instance, Martin Luther wanted to debate John Eck from the text of the Bible.
The system of literal interpretation is the grammatical-historical or textual approach to interpretation. Use of literalism in this sense could be called "macroliteralism." Within macroliteralism, the consistent use of the grammatical-historical system yields the interpretative conclusion, for example, that Israel always and only refers to national Israel. The church will not be substituted for Israel if the grammatical-historical system of interpretation is consistently used because there are no indicator in the text of Scripture that such is the case. Therefore, one must bring an idea from outside the text by saying that the passage really means something that it does not actually say. This kind of replacement approach is a mild form of spiritualized, or allegorical, interpretation. So when speaking of those who do replace Israel with the church as not taking the Bible literally and spiritualizing the text, it is true, since such a belief is contrary to a macroliteral interpretation.
Consistently literal interpreters, within the framework of the grammatical-historical system, do discuss whether or not a word, phrase, or the literary genre of a biblical book is a figure of speech (connotative) or is to be taken literally/plainly (denotative). This is Johnson's first use of literal which could be called "microliteralism." Thus, within microliteralism, there may be discussion by literalists as to whether or not a given word or phrase is being used as a figure of speech, based on the context of a given passage. Some passages are quite naturally clearer than others and a consensus among interpreters develops, whereas other passages may find literal interpreters divided as to whether or not they should be taken as a figure of speech. However, this is more a problem of application than of method.
Reconstructionist Ken Gentry, in his attack on consistent literal interpretation, argues that "consistent literalism is unreasonable."10 One of the ways he attempts to prove his point is by arguing that, since literalists take some words and phrases as figures of speech, they are not consistently literal.11 He asserts that, "the dispensational claim to 'consistent literalism' is frustrating due to its inconsistent employment."12 Gentry seeks to discredit literalism by giving examples of literalists who interpret certain passages as containing figures of speech, citing this as inconsistent with the system of literal interpretation. According to Gentry, the literalist has to abandon literal interpretation when he realizes that Jesus refers figuratively to Himself as a door in John 10:9.13 Gentry is not defining literal interpretation the way literalists do. Therefore, his conclusions about literal interpretation are misguided because he commonly mixes the two senses described by Johnson. When speaking of the macroliteralism, he uses an example from microliteralism, and vice versa, therefore appearing to have shown an inconsistency in literal interpretation. In reality, the examples cited fall within the framework of how literalists have defined what they mean by literal interpretation.
CONCLUSION
God's Word is to be understood through literal interpretation. It is an important foundation stone supporting the Pre-Trib Rapture, because when the Bible is consistently interpreted literally, from Genesis to Revelation, the Pre-Trib position is hard to avoid. W
Endnotes
1 Kenneth Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), pp. 148, 146.
2 Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition, p. 1055.
3 Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Winona Lake, Ind.: Assurance Publishers, 1974), p. 29.
4 Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1991), p. 100.
5 Ibid., pp. 100-01. 6 Tan, Interpretation of Prophecy, p. 103.
7 Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 77.
8 David L. Cooper, The World's Greatest Library: Graphically Illustrated, (Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1970), p. 11.
9 Elliott E. Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), p. 9.
10 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, p. 148.
11 For examples of his approach see Gentry, pp. 153-58.
12 Ibid., p. 153. 13 Ibid., p. 148.
from:
http://www.according2prophecy.org/datesett.html
Pre-Trib Perspectives Articles
PREMILLENNIALISM: THE SECOND FOUNDATION
by Thomas Ice
At least six passages (eight if parallel passages are included) specifically warn believes against date-setting. Yet down through church history there has been an amazing amount of date-setting. About every two years there is usually someone who makes headlines proclaiming that they know the date of the Second Coming or the Rapture. The most recent incident involved Family Radio's Harold Camping, who said that Christ would return sometime in September 1994. Interestingly, Camping comes from an amillennial, covenant theology framework.
Many may be surprised that there is actually less date-setting today than there was 100 to 300 years ago. This is because in previous times so many prophecy teachers held to the historicist interpretive approach as opposed to the futurist systems that dominate the scene today. However, there are still some prominent personalities who engage in the biblically forbidden practice of date-setting.
Biblical Prohibitions Against Date-Setting
It is enough for something to be stated only once in the Bible for it to be true, but when God says something many times the emphasis should make such assertions even clearer. I am listing the specific passages below so that we can readily see these important biblical admonitions:
Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Mark 13:32 is an exact parallel.
Matthew 24:42 "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.
Matthew 24:44 "For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
Matthew 25:13 "Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour. Mark 13:33-37 is a parallel passage.
Acts 1:7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
1 Thessalonians 5:1-2 Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.
These passages are absolute prohibitions against date-setting. They do not teach that it was impossible to know the date in the early church, but in the last days some would come to know it. They do not say that no one knows the day or the hour, except those who are able to figure it out through some scheme. No! The date of Christ's coming is a matter of God's revelation and He has chosen not to reveal it even to Christ in His humanity during His first advent (Mt. 24:36).
The Bible teaches that God's Word is sufficient for everything needed to live a life pleasing unto Christ (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3-4). This means that if something is not revealed for us in the Bible then it is not needed to accomplish God's plan for our lives. The date of Christ's return is not stated in the Bible, therefore, in spite of what some may say, knowing it is not important for living a godly life. The Lord told Israel "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29). The date of Christ's coming has not been revealed, thus it is a secret belonging only to God.
But What About . . . ?
Some believe that there are passages in the Bible which teach that believers will be able to know the date of Christ's return. I will examine some of these passages to show how those who advocate date-setting have misused various passages in their attempts to legitimize date-setting. The Bible does not contain internal contradictions. It is wrong to think that on the one hand Scripture says "no man can know," but then on the other hand that some will be able to figure it out.
1. Luke 21:28 "But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." Some have taught that this passage implies a license to date-set. However, important contextual indicators include the fact that it refers to Jewish believers during the future seven-year tribulation, who right before the Second Coming are told to watch, not date-set, as they endure the final period of severe persecution. This does not relate to date-setting but is a general command to watch for the unknown time of the Lord's return.
2. Hebrews 10:25b "but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near." Some teach that this implies that believers are able to see or know that "the day" (i.e., the Second Coming) is drawing near. While some do interpret "the day" as a reference to the Second Coming, I think that the immediate context and the context of the book of Hebrews is one that is a warning to Jewish believers before the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple not to return (i.e., apostatize) to Judaism, since the immediate future only contained wrath for those Jews who reject Jesus as their Messiah. Therefore, "the day" is not a reference to the Second Coming, instead it refers to Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70.
3. 1 Thessalonians 5:4 "But you, brethren , are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief." It has been taught from this passage that believers would have to know the timing of "the day" (i.e., "the day of the Lord," see 5:2) in order to not be overtaken by it. This date-setting interpretation attaches the wrong sense to Paul's teaching. Paul is saying that they will not be overtaken because they are prepared by virtue of the fact that they are believers. All believers will be taken care of by the Lord (I believe through the Pre-Trib Rapture) so that unlike the unbeliever who will be unprepared and caught off guard, the believer is prepared.
4. Israel's Feast Cycle. The Bible teaches a cycle of seven feasts which Israel was to celebrate yearly. The seven feasts are Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Feast of Weeks, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles. The first four feasts are celebrated in Spring, while the remaining three are commemorated in the Fall. A common interpretation concludes that the feasts also are prophetic of the career of the Messiah. The Spring cycle is said to have been fulfilled by Christ at His first coming, while the Fall cycle will be fulfilled in the future through events surrounding the Second Coming. Up to this point, I have no problem with this scheme. However, I do have a problem with those who teach that the fifth feast (Trumpets) is a reference to the Rapture. Since Rosh HaShannah (Hebrew for Feast of Trumpets) is yearly celebrated on Tishri 1 according to the Hebrew calendar (this day usually falls in September according to our contemporary calendar), and it is argued that trumpets are related to the Rapture (1 Cor. 15:52), therefore, the Rapture will occur on Tishri 1 as the Spring cycle begins to be fulfilled. This scheme argues that if the year of the Rapture can be determined, then we would know that it would occur in the fall of the year. It seems that many of the more recent and popular date-setting schemes have implemented Israel's feast cycle in some way.
There is one major problem with this approach that disqualifies any use of it for date-setting. Israel's feasts relate to Israel and Israel alone. True, the fulfillment of Israel's feasts relate to salvation for all mankind, but the precise fulfillment relates exclusively to national Israel. The Rapture is a new event related only to the church and thus could not have been predicted through Old Testament revelation such as Israel's feast. Thus, any use of the feasts of Israel in an attempt to date-set is invalid.
If Not Date-Setting, What?
Since the Bible prohibits date-setting, what does it teach? Many of the same passages which prohibit date-setting, at the same time instruct us what to do until the Lord returns. For example, Matthew 24:42 not only warns "for you do not know which day your Lord is coming," but also admonishes believers to "be on the alert." Matthew 24:44 tells us to "be ready" because "the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will." Also, Matthew 25:13 admonishes us to "be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour."
The alert to which believers are called is not to date-setting, but one of looking for the Savior, since we do not know when He will return. We are to be alert, in contrast to unbelievers who are pictured as sleeping in regard to the things of God. We are to be alert for the purpose of godly living until the Lord does return because we are in the dark night of this current evil age, which requires an active alertness toward evil.
If the church knew the day or the hour of the Rapture then imminence, the posture Christians have in relation to the Rapture, would be destroyed. Biblical imminence teaches that Christ can, but does not have to, come at any moment. It also means that there are no signs which have to be fulfilled in order for the Rapture to occur. Thus, Christ could literally come today, or this hour or moment. Thus, date-setting destroys imminence. How? If someone taught that the Rapture will happen on September 22, 1995, then it would mean that Christ could not come before that time. This would mean that the Rapture could not be imminent, since Christ could not come today if we knew the Rapture would occur on a specific date. Since imminence is often related to commands to holy living, date-setting would also have a negative impact upon ethics.
Signs of the Times and Date-Setting
While date-setting is prohibited in God's Word, I believe that it is valid to realize that God is setting the stage for His great end-time program. What does that mean? As we stated in a previous issue, the Rapture is a signless event, thus it is impossible to identify any signs that indicate the nearness of the Rapture. This is why all attempts to date the Rapture have had to wrongly resort to an application of passages relating to God's plan for Israel to the church. An example of this misuse would be those who say Israel's feasts (i.e., Rosh HaShannah) relate to dating the Rapture as noted above. However, since the Bible outlines a clear scenario of players, events and nations involved in the end-time tribulation, we can see God's preparation for the final seven-years of Daniel's seventy weeks for Israel.
For example, the fact that ethnic Israel has been reestablished as a nation and now controls Jerusalem is a strong indicator that we are near the end of the church age. This can only be a general indication, since no time table is specifically given for current preparation. Therefore, we cannot know for certain that we are the last generation before the Rapture since God may choose to "stage set" for another 100 years or longer. Dr. John F. Walvoord correctly says,
"There is no scriptural ground for setting dates for the Lord's return or the end of the world. . . . As students of the Bible observe proper interpretation principles, they are becoming increasingly aware of a remarkable correspondence between the obvious trend of world events and what the Bible predicted centuries ago." (Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974, 1976, 1990), 21-22.)