[FONT="]COMMENTS ON LITERAL INTERPRETATION[/FONT]
[FONT="]“All interpretation began with the literal interpretation of Ezra. This literal method became the basic method of Rabbinism. It was the accepted method used by the New Testament in the interpretation of the Old and was so employed by the Lord and His apostles. [/FONT]
[FONT="]"This literal method was the method of the Church Fathers until the time of Origen when the allegorical method, which had been devised to harmonize Platonic philosophy and scripture, was adopted. Augustine’s influence brought this allegorizing method into the established church and brought an end to all true exegesis. This system continued until the Reformation. At the Reformation the literal method of interpretation was solidly established and, in spite of the attempts of the church to bring all interpretation into conformity to an adopted creed, literal interpretation continued and became the basis on which all true exegesis rests.[/FONT]
[FONT="]"It would be concluded, then, from the study of the history of interpretation that the original and accepted method of interpretation was the literal method, which was used by the Lord, the greatest interpreter, and any other method was introduced to promote heterodoxy. Therefore, the literal method must be accepted as the basic method for right interpretation in any field of doctrine today.” Dwight Pentecost, “Things to Come”, p. 32-33[/FONT]
[FONT="]“Well, here's a basic principle of understanding the Bible. If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense. Always go for the literal meaning first. For example, in John 15:5 when Jesus said, "I am the vine, you are the branches" what did He really mean? Is Jesus a vine? Yes or no. No, but even though it's a figure, the truth is still literal. Even though Jesus is not a vine and I'm not a branch, He is still like a vine—the main source of life. And since I get my life from Him, I'm just a branch. So, a figure, but still the truth is literal. – James MacDonald, “The Weekly Walk”, 6/14/10[/FONT]
[FONT="]Augustine:[/FONT]
[FONT="]“Augustine, according to Farrar, was one of the first to make Scripture conform to the interpretation of the church.” Dwight Pentecost, “Things to Come”, p. 23[/FONT]
[FONT="]“The exegesis of St. Augustine is marked by the most glaring defects... He laid down the rule that the Bible must be interpreted with reference to Church Orthodoxy, and that no Scriptural expression can be out of accordance with any other... Snatching up the Old Philonian and Rabbinic rule which had been repeated for so many generations, that everything in Scripture which appeared to be unorthodox or immoral must be interpreted mystically, he introduced confusion into his dogma of supernatural inspiration by admitting that there are many passages “written by the Holy Ghost,” which are objectionable when taken in their obvious sense.” (19)[/FONT]
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
A. WHEN TO INTERPRET LITERALLY, WHEN FIGURATIVELY
1. “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.” 6
2. “It should be observed at the very outset that the purpose of figurative language is to impart some literal truth, which may more clearly be conveyed by the use of figures than in any other way.” 3
3. “The literal meaning of words must be retained, more in the historical books of Scripture than in those which are poetical.” 1
4. “The literal meaning of words is to be given up, if it be either improper, or involve an impossibility, or where words, properly taken, contain anything contrary to the doctrinal or moral precepts delivered in other parts of Scripture.” 1
5. “If the literal meaning makes good sense in its connections, it is literal; but if the literal meaning does not make good sense, it is figurative.” 5
6. “Since the literal is the most usual signification of a word, and therefore occurs much more frequently than the figurative, any term will be regarded as literal until there is good reason for a different understanding.” 5
7. “It is an old and oft-repeated hermeneutical principle that words should be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity.” 7
A. INTERPRETATION OF WORDS
1. In any passage the most simple sense – that which most readily suggests itself to an intelligent reader with competent knowledge – is usually the genuine sense or meaning.1
2. Determine what the word(s) meant to the persons who used the language or now use it, in the context of the subject under discussion in the context. 1
3. This meaning should be retained unless there is a clear reason for abandoning it. 1
4. When a word has several meanings, use the one that best suits the passage and that best suits the author, given his character, sentiments, situation, and circumstances. 1
5. General terms are used sometimes in their whole extent, & sometimes in a restricted sense. If the word is a general term, determine which way it is used by examining the scope, subject matter, context, and parallel passages. 1
6. An interpretation should not affirm nor deny more than the inspired penman affirmed or denied at the time they wrote. Don’t read into it more than what is there.1
7. Words of scripture must be taken in their common meaning, unless shown to be inconsistent
a) with other words in the sentence,
b)with the argument or context, or
c) with other parts of Scripture. 2
8. When words have more than one meaning, the one which was more obvious to the comprehension of the original readers is preferred. 2
a) allowing for modes of thought prevalent in their own day, and
b) for figurative expressions familiar to them. 2
9. The true meaning of any passage is not every sense which the words will bear, but that which is intended by the inspired writers, or by the Holy Spirit even though imperfectly understood by the writers themselves.2
10. Summary: words must be interpreted in the usual, natural, literal sense. 3
B. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTEXT
1. Careful consideration of the preceding and subsequent parts will enable determination of whether it is literal or figurative. 1
2. A passage must not be connected with a remote passage unless the remote passage agrees better with it than a nearer passage. 1
3. Determine whether the writer is continuing the topic after the passage in question rather than assuming he is transitioning to another topic. He may be explaining the topic further. 1
4. No explanation must be admitted, but that which suits the context.
5. Where there is no connection with the preceding and subsequent part of a book, none should be sought. 1
C. INTERPRETATION OF HISTORICAL SETTING
1. The Word of God originated in a historical way, and therefore, can be understood only in the light of history.
2. A word is never fully understood until it is understood as it originated in the soul of the author.
3. It is impossible to interpret the author’s words correctly unless seen against the proper historical background.
4. The writings are naturally colored by
a) the place and time,
b) the circumstances, and
c) the prevailing view of the world and of life in general.
5. Get to know the author:
a) his parentage, character, temperament, intellect, religious characteristics, and circumstances of his life.
b) his purpose in writing
c) special circumstances surrounding the writing
6. Study the environment in which the writing originated.
7. Put yourself mentally into the 1st Century environment in which the author wrote, guarding against transferring the author into present day and making him speak present day language.
D. INTERPRETATION OF THE GRAMMAR
1. The authors of scripture used the current language of the country and time period. Their writings would not have otherwise been intelligible. 4
2. This part of interpretation cannot be done without knowledge of the original language. 3
3. The interpreter can assume that no sensible author will be knowingly inconsistent with himself, or seek to bewilder and mislead his readers. 4
1 Thomas Hartwell Horne, Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.
2 Joseph Angus & Samuel G. Green, The Bible Hand-Book, p.180.
3 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 36.
4 Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics.
5Clinton Lockhart, Principles of Interpretation
6 David L. Cooper, The God of Israel
7 Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics
8 Charles Fritsch, “Biblical Typology,” Bibliotheca Sacra.
9 Charles L. Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism
There is no mention of looking at nature or asking the scientists. We will have to simply agree to disagree on this. But I believe my view is the more consistent and historically established view.
In Christ,
H.
in our lit. of the instrument by which the capital punishment of crucifixion was carried out….” This definition is followed by citations from early Christian literature to support the definition given.
