Parables. Parables are stories with a punch-line. Parables are not so much illustrative, but rather, provocative. They are designed to draw people in and hit them with something unexpected, in the same way a joke does. Most parables have only one message or central idea, and even if multiple messages are present, one of them will be the chief idea. Note also that they are not perfect analogies! Parables are also found in parts of the Gospels.
Apocalypse. This includes the book of Revelation, and also large parts of Ezekiel and Daniel. Revelation is a vision of warning and encouragement to the early church as it was going through immense persecution.
I believe the above 3 give some idea of this man's biases entering this so-called "neutral" review of biblical interpretation. His comments on prophecy, parables, and apocalypse are hotly debated and he states them as if they are fact. From these comments he's made, it's obvious to me that I'm dealing with someone who has a moderately liberal interpretive bias.
Prophecy - he says the "vast majority of Bible prophecy speaks to the present." He means the prophetic literature speaks to the "present day of the writer." In other words, he's saying it applies to a time millenia AGO. He says this is true of the "vast majority" of the prophetic writings. The debate is that that is simply not the case. Others believe the vast majority of the preserved writings dealt with a time other than that of the author. A huge portion of the prophetic literature dealt with the coming of the Messiah which occurred hundreds of years AFTER the time of the prophet author. A huge portion of it deals with a time that CANNOT be easily cubby-holed into the time of the author prophet....in fact one can make a case for curiosity of the original readers about the intended time being a primary reason why they preserved the prophetic literature in the first place.
Parables - Most parables have only one message or central idea, and even if multiple messages are present, one of them will be the chief idea. This is such a common, monotonous refrain of the moderately liberal interpretive advocates that I cannot believe they don't mention that others simply don't see it that way. Only one meaning is a gross assumption that ALSO means by these folks that one can make only ONE allegorical cross-application. The story of the treasure hidden has only one application -- the treasure equals the kingdom of heaven. One cannot speculate on who the man represents.
But look at the parable of the sower who went out to sow. Jesus says that virtually everything in that parable has an allegorical application. The seed equals the word of God. The seed that fell on the good soil equals and abundant harvest. Jesus uses this parable as an example of how we will interpret any parable. 13Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14The farmer sows the word. 15Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them.
Apocalypse (especially Revelation) -- Revelation is a vision of warning and encouragement to the early church
This is such a gross misrepresentation of the current debate over Revelation that it's almost laughable. The moderate liberal will always try to relegate the Revelation to that early Church era. They don't want to see a future application aspect to it. This man has just told you that proper interpretation of Revelation REQUIRES YOU to strip it of any notions YOU might have about its being a futuristic book. Despite what you might read in that sounds futuristic, looks futuristic, compares with other passages as futuristic, this man tells you that you are mistaken.
We call that assuming the result before the debate.
Show of hands: How many of you think Revelation is a book with many futuristic elements in it? Good....I thought so. Many of you.
How many of you think Revelation is a book that MIGHT contain many futuristic elements in it? Just as I though....most of the rest of you.
This guy just told you all that you're dead wrong.
Unbiased biblical interpretative method........bah, humbug! book.
Most of Revelation is written to the persecuted church. I know that view isn't popular, but popularity doesn't really mean much.
However, major portions of Revelation do look forward (from its writing) and major portions of the old testament prophets do look forward. Enough to establish supernatural foreknowledge of a wide range of things.
The prophet Daniel outlines history for the next 500 years after his writing with stunning detail. The materialists who reject the supernatural can only get around Daniel's predictions by making him a near-contemporary of Christ or ignoring him altogether. Of course, then you run into more problems, such as Alexander's identification with one horn, where he would be depicted with the two horns of Amen-Ra after visiting Egypt if Daniel had written at a later date.
[2] Parables - Most parables have only one message or central idea, and even if multiple messages are present, one of them will be the chief idea. This is such a common, monotonous refrain of the moderately liberal interpretive advocates that I cannot believe they don't mention that others simply don't see it that way. Only one meaning is a gross assumption that ALSO means by these folks that one can make only ONE allegorical cross-application. The story of the treasure hidden has only one application -- the treasure equals the kingdom of heaven. One cannot speculate on who the man represents. But look at the parable of the sower who went out to sow. Jesus says that virtually everything in that parable has an allegorical application. The seed equals the word of God. The seed that fell on the good soil equals and abundant harvest. Jesus uses this parable as an example of how we will interpret any parable. 13Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14The farmer sows the word. 15Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them.
[3] Apocalypse (especially Revelation) -- Revelation is a vision of warning and encouragement to the early church This is such a gross misrepresentation of the current debate over Revelation that it's almost laughable. The moderate liberal will always try to relegate the Revelation to that early Church era. They don't want to see a future application aspect to it. This man has just told you that proper interpretation of Revelation REQUIRES YOU to strip it of any notions YOU might have about its being a futuristic book. Despite what you might read in that sounds futuristic, looks futuristic, compares with other passages as futuristic, this man tells you that you are mistaken.
_____________________________
I don't know anything about this fellow's presuppositions, but I think what he wrote is basically sound. I think you may be being a little tough on the guy for not saying more.
[1]Prohpecies. I think I understand your point, but it seems to me that even you would agree that, as far as he goes, he is correct. Certainly, the vast majority of prophecies did have a near-term application.
But of course, you argue, "Others believe the vast majority of the preserved writings dealt with a time other than that of the author." But, I think, most would say that there is a second, futuristic, application, not that there was no near-term (to the writer) application. Is that not true?
[2]I am not sure I understand your point here. You say Jesus gives us an example of interpretation and He does. But it is quite a specific interpretation and He clearly implies that He had a single meaning in mind and His listeners were dense not to appreciate that meaning He wasn't arguing that there were several meanings available and they were dense for only seeing one.
So, I think I need to hear more as to why he is so wrong here. He appears to allow for secondary applications and meanings as the context might indicate. What is wrong with that? On what basis should anyone assume multiple available interpretations?
[3] Revelation. Again, what he says seems unremarkable. I wouldn't think anyone -- even a thoroughgoing dispensationalist -- would dispute the truth of what he said. They might say it was also much more, but it was at the very least a warning and encouragement to the early church. Is that not true?
Perhaps you are much more sensitive to liberal phrasing than I am, but I didn't find that much to quarrel with in what he said
By the way, wouldn't you agree that where secondary meanings and/or fulfillments are to be found, there should be some direct clue in the text that tells us? We shouldn't be simply assuming such, should we?