I want to pick up where I left off on I Corinthians 8. It’s appropriate because that’s where he ended. I will get to the Scriptures that I didn’t get to in my first speech. Pat did not address a lot of the things I said in ending about I Corinthians 8. He didn’t tell us whether any of his members of the church do not believe the things in I Corinthians 8. I want you to look at your Bible with me. Let us look at this. Paul says, in I Cor. chapter 8, starting in verse four,
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice to idols” (by the Pagans) “we know...” We know, who’s the “we” Pat? Is that the “strong” and the “weak” brothers in that “we” or is it just the “strong brothers”? Just the “strong brothers”? (Pat audibly answers here) Okay, let’s read that. “We,” strong brothers, that’s Paul and the Corinthians he’s writing to, right? “We” (Paul and the Corinthians), “we know,” he is saying all the Corinthians are strong brothers. When he says “we know this,” he is saying every Corinthian is a strong brother.
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, WE KNOW that an idol is nothing in the world.” The Pagans don’t know that! “WE know,” the Corinthians, Paul knows, “that there is none other God but one.” The Pagans don’t know that!
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or earth, as there be gods many and lords many” (that is, to the Pagans) “BUT to US” (that’s a contrast!), “but to us” who I’m writing to (Paul and the Corinthians), “to us,” not to the “weak brother” outside the Corinthian church. “To US there is one God, the Father, of whom are all the things.” The Pagans don’t believe this. “To US there is one Lord Jesus Christ and we in him.” The Pagans don’t believe this. Watch verse seven.
“Howbeit there is not in everyone that knowledge.” Does he mean everyone in the Corinthian Church? Is that what he means? That’s what you believe. He believes Paul is saying, “Howbeit, you Corinthians, there is not in everyone in the church at Corinth this knowledge that there is one God, one Lord Jesus Christ.” So, if he is trying to say that these “weak brethren” are in the church at Corinth, the church at Corinth took them knowing that they did not believe in "one God and one Lord Jesus Christ."
He can say “brothers” up there means that they are regenerated, but it doesn’t. Brother Pat, or Pat (I will call you “brother” in the sense of “neighbor” here, okay, just like the passage here), when Paul addressed his lost brethren – “My heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, my brothers according to the flesh,” was he addressing them as saved? Did you address that in I Cor. 9 when he said, “I became weak that I might GAIN the weak”? That sort of identifies what he means by “weak brethren” doesn’t he? Let’s go on in I Cor. 8.
He’s giving you the Christian creed. Here’s what strong brothers believe. “One God,” “one Lord Jesus Christ”! The “weak brother” doesn’t believe this. Did you answer the question – I said “Pat tell us, down there in Huntsville, Alabama “Church of Christ,” do you take people in who don’t believe in "one God"? You do if you identify these “weak brothers” as not believing these things. Now, look here.
“Howbeit there is not in everyone that knowledge,” again, tell me Pat, does he mean everyone in the world or everyone in the church? I say its everyone in the world. “There is not in everyone that knowledge,” that Christian knowledge, “for SOME,” not “SOME in the church,” but “SOME out here in the world,” but “SOME with conscience of the idol UNTIL THIS HOUR,” --is he talking about people in the church who “until this hour” keep eating this, recognizing that this food is unto this god, unto this idol god? That’s what his view is. And watch this.
“For some with conscience of the idol,” not “some” in the church, but “some” outside the church, “with conscience of the idol eat it UNTO THIS HOUR as a thing offered to an idol and THEIR CONSCIENCE,” that’s third person – he did not say “YOUR conscience.” See? He is in the third person. “And their conscience, being weak, is defiled.” And again, “weak” is defined in I Cor. 9. Watch this, verse 8.
“But food commends us not to God.” Who is it that recognizes and understands that? These “weak brethren” don’t. Do you take brethren into your church, weak brothers, who think that their food is going to approved unto God? Apparently he does. But Paul says, “but food commends us not to God.” We Christians know that. It doesn’t do that. Pagans have not come to that understanding yet. He’ll take them into the church though. Their good weak Pagan brothers.
“For neither if we eat are we better; neither if we ear not are we the worse. But take heed, lest by any means, this liberty of yours,” you Corinthians, you strong brothers, “become a stumblingblock” to your weak neighbor, your weak Pagan brother, who you used to go to the idol temple with on Thursday nights till you became a Christian, but they are still your neighbor. It’s just like Paul addressed his lost Jewish brothers as "brothers" so that he could endear himself to them. So these good Corinthian Christians who were once Pagan, went to the temple lodge together on Thursday, they still said “brother” in the sense of “neighbor,” saying “you need to quit worshiping idols, you need to quit thinking that this food is going to somehow commend you to God.” You know, like the Catholics, they think eating the food is going to bring them to God. Anyway, let’s go on.
Look at I Cor. 10. Because he takes up three chapters here talking about this subject. In chapter 10, verse 25.
“Whatever is sold in the shambles that eat.” Talking to the Corinthians, right? “Eat, asking no question for conscience sake, for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not,” Pat, “invite you to a feast, and you be disposed to go,” you know, your temple neighbor, who still worship as Pagans, “whatever is set before you eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice to idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake, for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof.”
Now watch verse 29. “Conscience I say, not your own,” not you Corinthians, you strong brothers, but of the other, “for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?” Did you notice here it’s the unbelievers that are called “weak brothers.”
Now, let’s go to Romans 14, because its talking about the same thing, their also called “weak brothers” in Romans chapter 14. Let’s first of all look at how Romans chapter 14 is sandwiched in between two verses that talk about “neighbors.” Look at Romans 13:10. He says:
“Love worketh no ill to his NEIGHBOR.” Now look at Romans 15 verses 1 & 2.
“We then who are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak,” your weak Pagan neighbors, “and not to please ourselves,” so he says “let everyone of us please his NEIGHBOR.” So here in the end of Romans 13 –“neighbor.” Romans 15 – “neighbor,” used as the word “brother” in Romans 14. I say, Pat, it means “neighbor,” the word “brother.” And, if you don’t agree with that, then you take members into your church that don’t believe the creed in I Cor. 8, verses 5-8.
Now also, look at verse 7 of Romans 14. Paul says,
“For none of us lives to himself, and no man dies to himself.” God does not intend that we live as hermits away from the world but that we engage the world and seek to do what we can to “build up our neighbors.” This is said as a statement therefore of our dutiful relations to our neighbors generally, our ,b>“brothers.”,/b> Just like, you know, over in Russia, they call each other “comrade,” or “brother.” Black people – “brother,” you know? Paul did that with his lost Jewish people, “brother,” you know? Now look at verses 10-12. Paul said,
“Why do you judge your brother,” your neighbor? “Why do you set at nought your brother? For WE shall all stand,” – Who’s the “we”? Does he mean just “we Corinthians,” Pat, when he says “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ”? “For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee,” that means every neighbor, every brother, “shall bow the knee and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, so then everyone of US,” who is the “us” Pat? If you’re going to define this, as you are, making it just the Corinthians, then only Christians are going to be judged. But he says “everyone of US,” meaning “everyone of us in the world.” By “we” and “everyone of US,” Paul does not intend Christians only. Obviously he’s using the term “brother,” as I said, in the sense of “neighbor” seeing he’s using it in the wider context of all men. Compare Jesus’ use of the word “brother” as “neighbor” in a verse I think he even quoted, not I quoted it, Jesus said, “whosoever is angry with his brother, without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say to his brother RACA shall be in danger of the council.” Well, is that just talking about our "brothers" in the church? Or, is he talking about our "brother" out here in Adam?
When Christ said in Matthew 7 verse 5, “Hypocrite, cast out the beam out of your own eye, then you shall see clearly to cast the mote out of your BROTHER’S eye.” “Brother” means “neighbor” there. If you don’t believe that, then you’re restricting the casting out of motes only from your Christian brother’s eyes but nobody else.
Now look at verse 23 of Romans 14. “He that doubteth is damned if he eat.” Now, we heard a lot on that, didn’t we? For what does he say about that "weak brother," Pat, who is being damned by eating things sacrificed to idols? Because they believed in these idol god! They believed in “many gods,” so it says here that “he that doubts,” that is, that Pagan neighbor, “is damned if he eat.” Why Pat? “Because “he eats NOT OF FAITH.” Brothers, let’s just close the doors and go home. I mean, it clearly says these people don’t have faith! How could you make these “brothers” regenerated children of God? Isn’t that in the definition? But he says right here “because he does not eat from faith.” He doesn’t have faith! Don’t you have to have faith to be a child of God? He says “whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” so what they are doing they are doing without faith! And yet he says they are born again! You see, these brethren, in I Cor. 8 and Romans 14. So here, it is clear, these “weak brothers” are weak Pagan friends, weak neighbors of the Corinthian Christians, and such as did not have faith in Christ. They had beliefs. They had a religion obviously, being in some ways “god fearers,” and devout men, yet they did not have the “faith” of Christians, the faith of salvation. It’s clear that these “brothers” did not have “faith” and this was the cause of their sin. These “weak brothers” mostly resemble, don’t they, the “wayside hearers” and those others in the parable? Paul had his unsaved Jewish brothers, who he could also call “weak brothers,” not because they denied there was “one God,” but because they denied the Lord Jesus Christ. So they were “weak” too, in a different sense than Pagans, but still “weak.”
Now, look at verse 4. I’m going to read to you verse 4 from the New King James Version. Paul says, “who are you to judge another man’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, HE WILL BE MADE TO STAND, for God is able to make him stand.” Brothers, we could just shut the doors right now and go home for that’s what I believe and I firmly believe Pat does not believe this verse. Here he says, “to his own master he stands or falls, yea he,” the servant of the Master, Christ, “will be made to stand”! “For God is able to make him stand”! Now Pat reads that and says “for he shall be made to stand for the sinner will make himself to stand.” That’s what he believes. But he says, “he SHALL BE MADE to stand FOR GOD IS ABLE to make his stand.” So, he puts the responsibility upon God to make him stand. Now you deal with that Pat.
Also, a kindred verse on this is II Cor. 1:21, 22, Paul says, “Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us and set his seal of ownership upon us and put his Spirit in our hearts, as a deposit, GUARANTEEING what is to come.” (NKJV)
Now about converting the “erring brothers.” In James 5:19,20 the verse does not say that any truly regenerated child of God will fail to be converted. It does not say that. You can read that verse as long as you want, it does not say that. In the case of “brothers,” who show by their apostasy that they were only shallow ground hearers or thorny ground hearers. Those who are truly saved become the means God will use to truly convert the deluded brothers from their errors and sins, error and sin that will bring eternal death. In the case of those who are true brothers, they will often be kept from losing salvation, being preserved by the means of other brothers whom God will be faithful to send.
Notice I John 2:19. John says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us, for had they been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” So, apply that to this passage here in James. These brethren “went out from us but they were not of us, for had they been of us, they would have continued with us.”
Let me say one thing really quickly about the parable of the sower. Brother, he did not get to one tenth of my definitions so my definitions of what it means to be regenerated stand. But, if I heard him rightly, he does not believe that only the good ground hearers were the only ones that were regenerated. So, he’s got these shallow ground hearers regenerated but they don’t even have a good and honest heart. Why? Because it says “they believed for awhile.” The Hardshells do the same thing on this parable. You know the Hardshells and this man’s group, historically known as “Campbellites,” they both have gone into error on the parable of the sower, brother. He cannot make those shallow ground hearers who “believed for awhile and then FELL AWAY” good ground hearers! You cannot do it! Did they have a good and honest heart or not? Because when he says “BUT they that received seed on good ground” implies the others did not have good and honest hearts. Can you be saved without a good and honest heart? Were those shallow ground hearers who believed for awhile, were they saved without that good and honest heart? I don’t believe they were saved. Now, the devils believe and tremble. Just to get up and say, hey they “believed for awhile” and that proves they were regenerated. Brother, I don’t believe that, I’ve never believed that. If that’s true the devils are going to be saved.
Now, getting to Hebrews 3:12 where he talks about Paul telling the Hebrews “take heed brethren,” let me read from the NIV here, “See to it brothers that none of you has a sinful unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.” This is an exhortation for the Hebrews to search their own hearts, to make sure first that they are not shallow ground, wayside, or thorny ground hearers, but that they have truly trusted Christ alone for salvation. Second, they should be careful not to let the slightest unbelief to enter into their hearts. Yes, we all as Christians, fail to believe as we ought, stumbling as did the disciples whom Christ “rebuked for their unbelief and slowness of heart to believe all that the prophets had written.” And, many Christians daily come to Christ saying “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.” Christ does hear such prayers. Constant watchfulness by all Christians is not something unheard of in churches that believed in “once saved always saved.” Brother, we admonish our members to persevere. God will finish his work. He will see to it that his servants persevere. He will effectually keep and discipline them see that they are progressively sanctified.
Now, about the Vine and the Branches in John 15. Again, this figure calls our attention back to the parable of the sower and the seed. Brother, that definition is going to hold throughout this debate. Take that as your criteria and the debate is over. If you remember, the shallow ground hearers did produce some fruit initially. Yet, they were never truly joined or glued to Christ, never really or truly in the true vine. Only the good ground hearers, Pat, were saved or born again and vitally connected to Christ. There are dead branches in the vine that produce only “withering fruit” and they are shallow ground hearers. Notice also that Jesus says that “no branch is ABLE TO BRING FORTH FRUIT OF ITSELF”! What does he believe? Why the man wins the race of himself. He bears fruit of himself. It all goes back to the man, his will power, his inner abilities. Brother, there are dead branches in the vine and yet we got some branches in the vine that seemingly are connected to Christ and not bearing more fruit. Brother, they are imposters. First of all, how could you be a Christian without bearing fruit? Isn’t faith a “fruit of the Spirit”? Isn’t love? Isn’t repentance? Well, how could they be in the vine without repenting, without believing? So, apparently, they got in without even doing that! So they were imposters. Interestingly, did you know the term “dried up” in John 15, about these branches, is the exact same term found in the parable of the sower in Mark 4: 5,6 where Christ said, “other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil and when the sun had risen it was scorched, and because it had not root, it WITHERED AWAY”? That’s the same word. It withered, it dries up, so those in the vine in John 15, what are they showing by “drying up”? Showing they weren’t good ground hearers, that they weren’t regenerated. The branch’s ability, Pat, to do what it is designed to do, that is, bear fruit, is totally and completely contingent upon another, that one being the Vine. The life giving sap flows from the vine to the branches resulting in the creation of fruit.
I will pick off where I left off in my next time, give Pat your attention.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Donahue 1st Affirmative
The following are six speeches from the first session of the debate I had with Patrick Donahue of the Huntsville, Alabama "Church of Christ," at Crossroads Baptist Church, Monroe, N.C., in October of 2006. We had three sessions. The first two deal with "eternal security" and the final session with the doctrine of "election."
Donahue 1st Affirmative
Now, I forget the exact proposition, but what I’m supposed to prove tonight is that the doctrine of "once saved always saved" is not true. The proposition may be something like, "The Bible teaches that a truly born again Christian may sin so as to be lost." But it amounts to this, is the doctrine of "once saved always saved" true? Now, Steve will probably give you some explanation of for what sense he believes that is true. I’m sure he will, so I will let him do that. But let’s get right into the passages, or some passages, that I think prove this position is wrong. The first one I would like for you to look at is Galatians chapter five and verse four. The Bible says there, "Christ is become of no effect unto you" – I tell you, if something can go wrong with this electronic equipment, it will. Start my time, Frank, we’ll go on and Andy will try to get that working again. In Galatians 5:4 the Bible says, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you is justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace." Now the standard position, the standard Baptist position, is that a Christian cannot "fall from grace." But, this verse specifically points out that it’s possible.
Now, this verse has to be talking about Christians. When I bring up these passages, either Steve’s going to have to say, "that’s not talking about a true Christian" or "it’s not saying they’re really going to be lost." But this verse has to be talking about a true Christian because you can’t fall from a tree unless you are in a tree first. You can’t "fall from grace" unless you were in grace first.
The verse is written to the "churches of Galatia." (Chapter one, verse two) "Brethren," chapter one, verse eleven, 3:15, 4:12, you see all the references. "Children of God," "adopted sons of God," who had "received the Holy Spirit," Steve. Chapter 4, verses five through six. So, he’s talking about Christians and it presents the possibility that if they tried to be "justified by the law of Moses," the old law, that means the law of Moses, they could "fall from grace." Now this "in grace" is referring to their personal salvation because two verses before that Paul said "if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." And, you can’t be saved unless you are "profited" by the death of Christ. As a matter of fact, that is the only way to be saved. So, he’s talking about their personal salvation. And it says "you have" or "will fall from grace," if you do this. I believe this is clear, talking about Christians, it presents the possibility that they can "fall from grace," therefore, it proves my position, in the debate with Stephen. Now, chart # 15 Andrew.
James 5:19,20. "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and hide a multitude of sins." Notice this is talking about "brethren," Christians. You can see these verses is talking about that. It says he "errs from the truth," he’s now called a "sinner," he needs "converting," and if not converted back, his soul will be lost.
Let’s look at one of those passages. James one, verse 16. "Do not err, my beloved BRETHREN..." Now notice, not only did this present the possibility that he could be lost, Steve, but it shows that here is a "brother" that did not "persevere." So it’s possible for a truly born again Christian not to "persevere," and if he does that, if he does not "persevere," his soul needs to be "converted" back or his soul will be lost.
Now the Calvinists, or the "once saved always saved" position, makes this verse meaningless. If the man is a "brother" or an "elect," like the text says, then he can’t fail to "persevere." That’s, I believe, Steve’s position. I’ll let him explain it. His soul is not susceptible to death, that’s Steve’s position. If he’s of the "elect," he’s really a "brother," he can’t fail to persevere. His soul is not susceptible to death.
Now, if he’s not of the "elect," if this is talking about somebody not of the "elect," then his soul cannot be "saved from death" anyway. But yet, Paul tells us, James tells us, I said Paul awhile ago, James tells us to try to "convert" him back. But, if he’s not of the "elect" it would be impossible to "convert" him back, to "save his soul from death," he’s going to be lost for sure, he’s not of the "elect." You see the predicament that I believe that Steve’s in?
If he takes the position that he’s not of the "elect," then why does James say "go and try to convert his soul" and "save his soul from death"? That’s impossible. If he takes the position, he is of the "elect," that he admits does not persevere, and his soul could be lost if we are unable to "convert" him back.
Next I would like to go to Revelation chapter three verse 5.
"He that overcometh the same shall be clothed in white raiment and I will not blot his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels." Likewise, Revelation 22:19.
"If any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life."
Now notice here it presents the possibility that a person who "overcomes," his name "will not be blotted out of the book of life." That implies that if he does not "overcome," his "name" will be "blotted out." Now, Steve would agree with me, I think it’s one of the questions, that a person doesn’t get his "name" in the "book of life" unless he is a saved person.
The "book of life," that reference is six or eight times in the Bible, perhaps more, it refers to, whether it’s literal or not, it’s a book that God has where he keeps up with the names of all the saved people. Steve will agree with me when a person becomes saved, his "name" is put in the book. Now this presents the possibility that your name could be "erased" out of the book. That means, the person was saved, because his "name" was in the book, and now he could possibly be "erased out of the book," he’s not saved. Now, that’s the question tonight.
Really, the debate is, can a person, is it possible for a person, to be "erased out of the book?" That’s the debate proposition I believe, that I take, and this shows that it is. And, here’s some verses that show that the "book of life" is a list of names of all the saved people. Steve will agree with that so I don’t think I need to go into that.
Notice another passage that mentions the "book of life." When the Israelites made the golden calf, while Moses was upon the mount, receiving the ten commandments, God said about them in Exodus 32:33 – you remember Moses said, "why don’t you blot me out?" You know, he tried to take the penalty for it, he said "no, I’m not going to blot you out." "Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book."
You see, so back under the Old Testament you could be "blotted out" of this "book of life."
In conclusion, only the saved are in the "book of life" to start with and it is possible to get your "name blotted out" or "taken away from the book of life," and it is clear that it is possible for a saved person to lose his salvation.
Next, I would for you to look at I Cor. 9:25-27.
"And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. But, I keep my body under subjection," or "I keep under my body and bring it into subjection," that’s Paul speaking here, "lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
Paul is saying here that he "strives" or "runs" to "obtain an incorruptible crown." That’s heaven right? Revelation 2:10 -- "I will give thee the crown of lift," referring to our reward in heaven.
But, Paul goes on to say if he didn’t "keep his body under subjection," if he did not control his fleshly desires, he would become a "castaway." "Castaway" from what? The "incorruptible crown!" Heaven, obviously. So Paul, one of the greatest Christians of all time, at least second to Jesus, but one of the greatest, so Paul recognized the possibility that even he could be lost.
Now notice this word "castaway" in the Greek, Strong’s number 96 Steve. Did you know, in the New Testament, number 96, this Greek word, is used eight times. It’s translated "castaway" in the King James Version here. Six out of those eight times, and here are those six times I believe, I think I have all of them, but maybe not, it’s translated "rejected," no I mean it’s translated "reprobate." The other time it is "rejected," so one time it is translated "castaway," one time it’s translated "rejected," six times it’s translated "reprobate." The same Greek word.
Now "reprobate," what does that mean? The English word? "Rejected" by God and beyond hope of salvation. That’s what this Greek word means. Paul is saying, "I need to watch myself because if I don’t keep my body under subjection I will become a castaway, a reprobate," meaning "rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation." I think that’s clear. If it’s possible for perhaps the greatest gospel preacher in history to be lost, then it is certainly possible for any Christian today to be lost.
Next, I would like for you to turn to Romans 14:15-23. If I had time we’d read practically all of this chapter. Now, these next three passages Steve, and audience, I’m going to take advantage of something that Steve believes, and this church shares with him in this belief, and that is, Steve believes in what we call a "limited atonement," okay? Now not all Baptists believe that. I mean, not all people who believe in "once saved always saved" believe in a "limited atonement." That means that Steve believes that Christ only died for the elect, the saved. The "general atonement" is what most members of the "Churches of Christ" believe. That would mean that Jesus died for everybody, but of course we don’t believe everybody is going to be saved. Alright?
So we are not debating that tonight, but just to let you know he believes in the "limited atonement." That means that if I can find a place that shows that Jesus died for somebody, then Steve will have to admit they’re of the elect. He can’t say "I don’t think they were really saved to begin with" because that will be his tactic in this debate – he’s going to say - "well if this person didn’t persevere, he must never have been save."
So, I’m going to take advantage of the fact that he believes in a "limited atonement." I’ve got three passages here we’re going to go through where it looks like to me it’s talking about a Christian and I’m going to be able to verify that because it says it’s somebody Jesus died for, which according to Steve’s position, it would have to mean they are of the "elect." It would have to. It wouldn’t have to mean that for me, but it would have to for Steve.
Notice Romans 14:15 and then verse 23. Remember the context of this chapter and I Corinthians 8, basically saying they are "meat." I believe in this case it may be pork and stuff like that but in I Corinthians 8 it may be meat offered to idols, but it really doesn’t matter, the principle is the same.
If your brother thinks it’s wrong to eat this meat, even though you know, maybe you have studied more from the Scriptures, you know it is not wrong to eat it, don’t eat the meat in front of him because that might "embolden him," as the King James puts it, "encourage him" to eat the meat when he thinks it is wrong, violating his conscience. Alright, remember that. That’s what it’s about. Now notice the verse.
"But if thy brother," talking about a Christian here, "be grieved with they meat, destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died. He that doubted is D-A-M-N-E-D," that’s such a strong word I don’t even say it. I substituted the word "condemned" for it. But it’s the strongest word in the Bible for a person lost. I cannot think of a word in the Bible that, without dispute, means more about, means "lost." This is the strongest word, it always means "lost" spiritually. You can’t think of a stronger word and say this one doesn’t mean lost but this one over here does. It says "he that doubteth is D-A-M-N-E-D if he eat because he eateth not of faith."
So here’s this brother "for whom Christ died," if he eat this "meat" in front of him, he might be encouraged to eat it even though he doubts it’s right and so he violates his conscience and says he is "D-A-M-N-E-D." If a "brother" Steve, somebody "for whom Christ died," according to his position that means they have to be of the "elect," he’s going to be lost if he eats. Well, I guess I said all that. Let’s go to the next one, which is the parallel, I Corinthians 8:11.
Again it’s the same principle. It’s not really wrong to eat this meat, you know that, but Paul says "don’t eat it in front of him, you might encourage him to eat it when he thinks it’s wrong and violate his conscience." He says "through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died." This is talking about a "brother," one "for whom Christ died." I know he’s a Christian, and Steve certainly knows he’s a Christian, a person that’s an "elect," because it says "for whom Christ died." That should verify to Steve that he agrees with me, it’s talking about a Christian.
I learn that from the fact that it says it’s a "brother" in the context of Christians here, not Jews. So it is possible for a "brother" to "perish," which means (that Strong’s 622), it means, for example, I won’t go through all of these passages, but John 3:16 – "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish." Uh, did I quote that right?
"But have everlasting life." Now, does that mean lost? I think it does. "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in H-E-L-L (or Gehenna)," that means lost. Jesus "came to save that which was lost." That’s the same Greek word as "perish" here. Here’s the word "perish" in second Thessalonians two. He goes on to use the word "D-A-M-N-E-D" to refer to the same person.
"Not willing that any should perish" in II Peter 3:9. Steve would agree that’s talking about lost spiritually. The same word for "perish" is right here in Romans 14, Steve, as right here, "destroy." And then we’ve already been through that. So, we have the same thing as Romans 14.
"If the brother," that means a Christian, Steve would agree he is of the elect for it’s "for whom Christ died," yet the possibility is that he "might perish" or be lost. And then one more passage using that same theme.
II Peter chapter two verses 1 & 4. Now I’m using this passage in this debate, especially because Steve believes in a limited atonement. If he didn’t believe that I might not use this passage. I might, but I might not. But I believe an extra good argument against one, Steve’s position, who believes in limited atonement.
It says, "But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you who privily shall bring in," there’s that word, "D-A-M-N-A-B-L-E (condemnable) heresies even denying the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
Notice they definitely did not persevere. "If God spared not the angels that sinned but cast them down to H-E-L-L, and delivered them unto chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment – the Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust to the day of judgment to be punished."
Now I don’t see how you can get around the fact that it’s talking about somebody who is lost here, especially with Steve’s position, that says anybody who is truly saved will persevere. It’s obvious that these "false teachers," the ones that lead astray, aren’t persevering. They’ve got to be lost. Yet, it’s talking about these "false teachers," it says they "denied the Lord that bought them." Jesus died for them. These "false teachers" are "bought" by the Lord Jesus Christ, chapter one verse sixteen, that is, he died for them, so they were saved, "elect," according to Calvinism.
And I believe, implied by the fact that they had "forsaken the right way," which means they had been in the right way and forsook it, like you cannot "fall from grace" unless you’re in it. You can’t "forsake the right way" unless you’re in it to begin with. Now notice these passages.
I Corinthians 6:2 – "bought with a price." It’s talking about the people at Corinth. Doesn’t that mean that Jesus died for them? "Bought with a price." Revelation – "redeemed us to God by thy blood," "redeemed from among men." It’s the same idea as being "bought."
You go down to the pawn shop and you "redeem" the item. I’ve never been to a pawn shop, but if you took your ring down there and get some money and come back later and "redeem" it with your money, your "bought it back," that’s what this is talking about. You "redeem" it. That’s what Jesus did for us. We were "sold" to the devil, we might say, by our own choice, but that’s another debate. And Jesus buys us back. He redeemed us. How did he do it? With his death. Now, according to Steve, if Jesus died for these people, they would have to be of the elect. He can’t say they were never saved to begin with, because Jesus died for them. But notice how clear it is that they were lost, that they did not persevere. These "false teachers" became lost. It says they "bring in condemnable heresies" – "Bring upon themselves swift destruction" – "denying the Lord" – "pernicious ways" – "covetousness" – "feigned words" – "make merchandise of you"; their "condemnation," that’s a stronger word than in the King James, "slumbereth not," "reserved unto the day of judgment to be punished," "servants of corruption."
I don’t see any way that Steve can say they are still going to be saved. Now, his dad might. But he could not say that. Then let’s go on in II Peter toward the end of the chapter. I believe this is connected. But I want to use it as a separate argument. How much time do I have Frank? It says in II Peter chapter two, verses 20-22;
"If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment which was delivered unto them. But, it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
Alright, I think most of us are familiar with that passage. Now let’s talk about it. Notice the following facts about the people in this passage.
They had become Christians. How do I know that? It says they "escaped the pollutions," that’s King James version, "of the world through the knowledge of Christ." Now notice here. If you look at your footnote in your Bible, we’re not talking about "smog" "pollution," we’re not talking about that kind of "pollution" or oil dumping out into the river or ocean. We’re not talking about that kind of "pollution." We’re talking about "pollution"– the sins of the world. Okay? Then we have the analogy. The analogy is, it’s like a "sow that was washed," a pig was clean of all the mud off the pig and it went right "back into the mire." That’s the analogy of a Christian who is clean and then goes right back into the mud, the sins of the world, the "pollutions of the world." You see the analogy? But that pig was "clean," meaning it had been "forgiven," according to the analogy given by Peter here. He had been forgiven, not the pig, but the cleaning off the mud is analogous to us being forgiven of our sins, clean, then we go right back into the mud, go right back into sin.
Verse one, referring back to what we already referred to in the same chapter, the Lord "bought them," or died for them, that means that Calvinism would have to say that these people were Christians. Thus they "become entangled again" in those sins and then it says they’re current state is "worse" than if they had never become Christians to start with.
Now Steve, it says, that their current state is "worse" than the beginning. Certainly "worse" than non-saved wouldn’t mean they were still saved, would it? I don’t see how that could mean that, how you could be "worse" off than a person not saved, and still be saved yourself. Peter says they’re "worse" off than they were in the beginning, than before they ever became, before they "escaped the pollutions of the world," before they became Christians.
II Peter 1:9-11. "But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure. For it ye do these things, ye shall never fall. For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."
Now the man in this passage had been "purged from his old sins." Do you see that in the first part of the passage? That means he was saved. He was saved. But it goes on to say he needed to "make his calling and election sure." Now tomorrow afternoon at 2:30 we’re going to finish up this debate and let Steve go on into the affirmative on this topic, then tomorrow night at 7pm, I invite you to both of those sessions, we’re going to talk about "election" and whether or not it is conditional or unconditional, and I suppose we’ll talk about salvation some too and whether or not it is conditional or unconditional.
I understand more about Steve’s position after eating supper with him tonight, that I didn’t understand before. But you can be sure I am going to bring this up tomorrow night Steve, because it says we’ve got to "make our calling and election sure," which shows that our election is conditioned upon something we have a say over. And what this implies in this debate is that he can lose his "calling" and "election." He’s "elected" alright, but he has to "make it sure." He could lose it.
When you, let’s say, we go fishing in a boat, and we tie the boat to the rail, and we walk away with my son, and I say, "son, I think I just kind of wrapped it around the post, the rope, why don’t you go make that boat ‘sure,’" meaning tying it in a knot, or something like that, "make sure it doesn’t float off."
What do we mean by that, "making it sure"? Let’s "make sure" it doesn’t float off! Alright. And thus here we are "making our calling and elections sure." We’re "making sure" that election is sure, that we have it, that it doesn’t float off, that we don’t lose our "election," lose our salvation.
Notice they had the possibility of "falling." He says "for if ye do these things ye shall never fall." Now, I know, every time I have a debate, that everybody I debated, always has an answer for what I’ll say. Some answer. Now many times I don’t think it’s very reasonable and I have to let the audience be the judge.
Now Steve will have some kind of answer for this word "if." No doubt about it. But you’re going to have to ask yourself, is it reasonable? When you see the word "if," like if you were to tell your son, "Bobby, if you eat your carrots, you can have chocolate pie." What do we mean by that? We mean by that, and it’s simple, if he eats his carrots he gets chocolate pie and if he doesn’t, he doesn’t get chocolate pie. Right? We understand the word "if."
"If ye do these things ye shall never fall." What does that mean? Simply and plainly, without trying to get around it, what does it mean? It means, "if you do these things," that is "add," or put into your life, the practice of this, what we call the Christian graces, just a few verses before, you won’t "fall." But, if you don’t do these things, you will "fall"!
So that presents just enough a possibility that a person who had been "purged from his old sins," a Christian, could "fall" from that, and he could, presents the possibility, that Bobby might not receive that chocolate pie if he doesn’t eat his carrots. They had the possibility of falling. Falling away from what? His "election" and "salvation," that is, as the verse goes on to say, in verse eleven, he will lose "entrance" "into the everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ." It tells us what he would lose if he "falls." He would lose the "entrance" "into the everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ." Look it up in your Bibles right there in verse eleven. So if a Christian does not "add" the Christian graces, verses five through seven, he will fall from his "election," salvation, that is, he will miss out on heaven.
Everybody turn to Hebrews 3:12. The Bible says there – "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God."
Now notice that these people addressed are called "brethren." I asked him a question. He said these are "professed Christians." So I guess what he is saying, just because they are called "brethren" doesn’t prove they are genuine Christians. But I want you to notice verse one who he is talking to. Verse twelve calls them "brethren" but verse one, talking about the same people, says "wherefore, holy brethren." Now people who are Christians but only in a professed way, meaning their hypocrites, their not really Christians, but they just professed it, maybe they believed and were baptized to please their wife or something like that. Yes, I can see how somebody might mistakenly call them "brethren," Steve or I might mistakenly call them a "brother," but Paul wouldn’t mistakenly call them a "brother," would he? Paul was inspired of God. He would not call somebody a "brother" if they were only professed "brethren," and not really truly Christians.
"He assumes he’s talking to true Christians," that’s what he said, and then, I’m continuing with my point in verse one, he not only calls them "brethren," Steve, he calls "holy brethren," which means they’re not just hypocritical brethren, just professed Christians. They’re "holy" brethren. Notice that perseverance, according to this text, is not a certainty for these brethren. Not even for the Hebrew writer. He includes himself in these warnings. He says "who’s house we are," that would be him and those he is writing to, "if we hold fast the confidence and hope firm unto the end."
So even, let’s assume for a moment that Paul wrote it, I don’t know who wrote it, but it is easier to say, even Paul recognized, along with the ones he’s writing to, the Hebrews, that if he didn’t "hold fast the confidence and hope firm unto the end," he would not be considered God’s "house" any more. Verse 14 "we," that would be the writer and those he’s writing to, are "made partakers of Christ IF we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." So, it’s conditioned upon "holding the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end," and we’re not going to be "partakers of Christ" if we don’t do that. Do you see that? So Paul recognized the possibility that even himself, assuming he is the writer and I don’t know if he was, that he himself and his "holy brethren" could be lost if they didn’t hold their faith till the end. This last part is similar too.
"We are made partakers of the benefits of the national honor society if, or as long as, we hold to a 3.5 grape point average." Okay? Now, Steve said a believer cannot become an unbeliever. This verse stated that you can. "Take heed brethren," these are "holy brethren," "lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief." So a "holy brother" could change, a "holy brother" could change to unbelief. Steve says a "holy brother" could not "depart" from God, but this verse says he can, in "departing from the living God."
And Steve says a brother can’t lose his salvation, but this verse, along with verses six and fourteen, teaches that he can. Now, what is the fate of the believer who changes to unbelief? John 3:36b makes that clear, it says "he that believeth not shall not see life." So, a person who is a believer, that changes to an unbeliever, John 3:36 says "he that believeth not shall not see life."
Everybody turn to John 15, let’s look at the context of verses 2-6. Jesus said – "I am the vine, ye are the branches." Now, he’s just said, this is "ye," who he’s talking to, second person, he says now "you are clean through the word."
Does that sound like somebody who is not a Christian? No, only Christians are "cleaned through the word." Not just a professed Christian, but a true Christian is the only one who has been "cleaned through the word," forgiven of sin.
He says, "every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away, and every branch that beareth fruit he purgeth it that it may bring forth more fruit. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered and men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned."
Now notice he’s talking to people, he says, "ye are clean through the word," that means somebody, you can’t be "cleaned through the word" without being forgiven, a Christian. He says, he’s basically encouraging them to abide in him, and he says if you don’t abide in me, and he’s using an analogy here, like a person that’s a fruit tree that’s not bearing fruit, you "prune" it, trying to get it to bear fruit and you take the branches that you cut off, the stems, and you go and burn them. What do you think that Jesus is talking about here when it says he "casts them in the fire and they are burned"?
Making an analogy, what’s the spiritual parallel to being "burned in the fire"? I think we all know. Jesus is the "vine" and the "branches" are people, verse five, they’re talking about Christians, they’re "in me," that means their "in Christ," their "clean through the word," so it’s Christians. He says if they don’t bear fruit, they are "taken away," "cast forth" and "burned."
So a Christian who does not bear fruit will end up being burned in everlasting punishment. I think that is very clear. I really think if you’ll just accept the clear and plain meaning of these passages you’ll come to the conclusion I’m contending for tonight.
Next, I would like to look at Hebrews 10:26-27. It says – "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation that shall devour the adversary."
Now notice this is talking about Christians. Calls them "brethren." Chapter ten, verse nineteen. He’s talking to the same people that we mentioned awhile ago, that he was talking to in Hebrews three, verse one, "holy brethren." He warns them in chapter ten not to forsake the church assembly. But he says, if this person "sins willfully" he will be lost. How do I know that? Verse 26 says "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin." In other words, the benefits of the sacrifice are no longer applied to that person. Now you can’t be saved if the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ are no longer applied to you, because the only way we can be saved is based upon the benefits of the death of Christ.
In chapter ten, verse 27, "fearful judgment" and "fiery indignation." Does that sound like a person that’s saved? No. So it was a person who was saved, who was called a "holy brethren" but he’s being warned that if you "sin willfully," assuming they don’t repent, then this is what will await you, you will be lost. Christians who "sin willfully" cease to receive the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ, instead they face a fiery judgment.
Now I would like for you to look at I John 1:9. I believe he’s talking to Christians there, in I John 1:9. But let’s look at it. Either way it wouldn’t matter. It says – "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Now let’s think about Bobby and the chocolate pie, and the carrots, "if you eat your carrots, you can have a piece of chocolate pie" – we know what this kind of phraseology means. "If," this says, "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We know what that means! That means if you confess he’ll forgive you, and if you don’t, he won’t forgive you. That’s simple and plain. It can only be garbled if someone’s trying to get around the plain meaning.
But, the limited atonement version of "once saved always saved," which Steve holds, is made absurd by this verse. If your of the elect your forgiven even if you don’t confess! Right, Steve? And, if you’re not of the elect, your not forgiven even if you do confess! Do you see that? Let me say it again. According to Steve’s position, if your of the elect you’re forgiven even if you don’t confess your sin and if your not of the elect, your not forgiven even if you do confess your sin. But this says, "if we confess our sins" he will forgive us, naturally applying it. "Confess" and you will be forgiven, and if you don’t confess, you won’t.
Look’s like I’m running out of time, but you’ll remember Simon the Sorcerer.
It says, it talks about the people of Samaria who "believed and were baptized." I feel confident that Steve would say they are saved. Verse 13 says, "then Simon himself believed also." It wasn’t a false belief Steve. It says he "believed ALSO," meaning "like the other people of Samaria" and they were saved, according to your position, I believe, "and when he was baptized he continued with Philip."
So, it says "Simon believed," not a false belief because it says "also," meaning like these other people, who Steve would say is saved. Then later he tried to buy the gift of God, the gift of the Holy Spirit, with money. Peter told him "repent therefore of this thy wickedness and pray God perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the fall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." You see that? He was saved, yet when he sinned, through thought and action, Peter said you’re "in the gall of bitterness and the bondage of corruption."
Does that sound like he’s still saved? It doesn’t, does it? He said, "you need to repent." And, it looks like, if you read the rest of the text, that he did repent. Do you see that? Is that pretty simple?
Let’s go back to this little word "if." "Bobby, if you eat your carrots, mom will get you some ice cream." "Finish your homework you can go out and play." "If you take this medicine it should make you feel better."
Notice I Corinthians 15:1,2. "Brethren, I declare unto you the gospel, which you have received, and wherein you stand," so their Christians. "By which you are saved IF ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain."
Notice that they’re Christians, they are called "brethren," they "stand in the faith," in the gospel. Their not just professing Christians, they’re truly Christians. He says you will be saved "if ye keep this in memory." What does this mean?
Thank you very much. I invite you to pay special and close attention to what Steve has to day. I appreciate Steve being willing to do this and I know you do too.
Donahue 1st Affirmative
Now, I forget the exact proposition, but what I’m supposed to prove tonight is that the doctrine of "once saved always saved" is not true. The proposition may be something like, "The Bible teaches that a truly born again Christian may sin so as to be lost." But it amounts to this, is the doctrine of "once saved always saved" true? Now, Steve will probably give you some explanation of for what sense he believes that is true. I’m sure he will, so I will let him do that. But let’s get right into the passages, or some passages, that I think prove this position is wrong. The first one I would like for you to look at is Galatians chapter five and verse four. The Bible says there, "Christ is become of no effect unto you" – I tell you, if something can go wrong with this electronic equipment, it will. Start my time, Frank, we’ll go on and Andy will try to get that working again. In Galatians 5:4 the Bible says, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you is justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace." Now the standard position, the standard Baptist position, is that a Christian cannot "fall from grace." But, this verse specifically points out that it’s possible.
Now, this verse has to be talking about Christians. When I bring up these passages, either Steve’s going to have to say, "that’s not talking about a true Christian" or "it’s not saying they’re really going to be lost." But this verse has to be talking about a true Christian because you can’t fall from a tree unless you are in a tree first. You can’t "fall from grace" unless you were in grace first.
The verse is written to the "churches of Galatia." (Chapter one, verse two) "Brethren," chapter one, verse eleven, 3:15, 4:12, you see all the references. "Children of God," "adopted sons of God," who had "received the Holy Spirit," Steve. Chapter 4, verses five through six. So, he’s talking about Christians and it presents the possibility that if they tried to be "justified by the law of Moses," the old law, that means the law of Moses, they could "fall from grace." Now this "in grace" is referring to their personal salvation because two verses before that Paul said "if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." And, you can’t be saved unless you are "profited" by the death of Christ. As a matter of fact, that is the only way to be saved. So, he’s talking about their personal salvation. And it says "you have" or "will fall from grace," if you do this. I believe this is clear, talking about Christians, it presents the possibility that they can "fall from grace," therefore, it proves my position, in the debate with Stephen. Now, chart # 15 Andrew.
James 5:19,20. "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and hide a multitude of sins." Notice this is talking about "brethren," Christians. You can see these verses is talking about that. It says he "errs from the truth," he’s now called a "sinner," he needs "converting," and if not converted back, his soul will be lost.
Let’s look at one of those passages. James one, verse 16. "Do not err, my beloved BRETHREN..." Now notice, not only did this present the possibility that he could be lost, Steve, but it shows that here is a "brother" that did not "persevere." So it’s possible for a truly born again Christian not to "persevere," and if he does that, if he does not "persevere," his soul needs to be "converted" back or his soul will be lost.
Now the Calvinists, or the "once saved always saved" position, makes this verse meaningless. If the man is a "brother" or an "elect," like the text says, then he can’t fail to "persevere." That’s, I believe, Steve’s position. I’ll let him explain it. His soul is not susceptible to death, that’s Steve’s position. If he’s of the "elect," he’s really a "brother," he can’t fail to persevere. His soul is not susceptible to death.
Now, if he’s not of the "elect," if this is talking about somebody not of the "elect," then his soul cannot be "saved from death" anyway. But yet, Paul tells us, James tells us, I said Paul awhile ago, James tells us to try to "convert" him back. But, if he’s not of the "elect" it would be impossible to "convert" him back, to "save his soul from death," he’s going to be lost for sure, he’s not of the "elect." You see the predicament that I believe that Steve’s in?
If he takes the position that he’s not of the "elect," then why does James say "go and try to convert his soul" and "save his soul from death"? That’s impossible. If he takes the position, he is of the "elect," that he admits does not persevere, and his soul could be lost if we are unable to "convert" him back.
Next I would like to go to Revelation chapter three verse 5.
"He that overcometh the same shall be clothed in white raiment and I will not blot his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels." Likewise, Revelation 22:19.
"If any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life."
Now notice here it presents the possibility that a person who "overcomes," his name "will not be blotted out of the book of life." That implies that if he does not "overcome," his "name" will be "blotted out." Now, Steve would agree with me, I think it’s one of the questions, that a person doesn’t get his "name" in the "book of life" unless he is a saved person.
The "book of life," that reference is six or eight times in the Bible, perhaps more, it refers to, whether it’s literal or not, it’s a book that God has where he keeps up with the names of all the saved people. Steve will agree with me when a person becomes saved, his "name" is put in the book. Now this presents the possibility that your name could be "erased" out of the book. That means, the person was saved, because his "name" was in the book, and now he could possibly be "erased out of the book," he’s not saved. Now, that’s the question tonight.
Really, the debate is, can a person, is it possible for a person, to be "erased out of the book?" That’s the debate proposition I believe, that I take, and this shows that it is. And, here’s some verses that show that the "book of life" is a list of names of all the saved people. Steve will agree with that so I don’t think I need to go into that.
Notice another passage that mentions the "book of life." When the Israelites made the golden calf, while Moses was upon the mount, receiving the ten commandments, God said about them in Exodus 32:33 – you remember Moses said, "why don’t you blot me out?" You know, he tried to take the penalty for it, he said "no, I’m not going to blot you out." "Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book."
You see, so back under the Old Testament you could be "blotted out" of this "book of life."
In conclusion, only the saved are in the "book of life" to start with and it is possible to get your "name blotted out" or "taken away from the book of life," and it is clear that it is possible for a saved person to lose his salvation.
Next, I would for you to look at I Cor. 9:25-27.
"And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. But, I keep my body under subjection," or "I keep under my body and bring it into subjection," that’s Paul speaking here, "lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
Paul is saying here that he "strives" or "runs" to "obtain an incorruptible crown." That’s heaven right? Revelation 2:10 -- "I will give thee the crown of lift," referring to our reward in heaven.
But, Paul goes on to say if he didn’t "keep his body under subjection," if he did not control his fleshly desires, he would become a "castaway." "Castaway" from what? The "incorruptible crown!" Heaven, obviously. So Paul, one of the greatest Christians of all time, at least second to Jesus, but one of the greatest, so Paul recognized the possibility that even he could be lost.
Now notice this word "castaway" in the Greek, Strong’s number 96 Steve. Did you know, in the New Testament, number 96, this Greek word, is used eight times. It’s translated "castaway" in the King James Version here. Six out of those eight times, and here are those six times I believe, I think I have all of them, but maybe not, it’s translated "rejected," no I mean it’s translated "reprobate." The other time it is "rejected," so one time it is translated "castaway," one time it’s translated "rejected," six times it’s translated "reprobate." The same Greek word.
Now "reprobate," what does that mean? The English word? "Rejected" by God and beyond hope of salvation. That’s what this Greek word means. Paul is saying, "I need to watch myself because if I don’t keep my body under subjection I will become a castaway, a reprobate," meaning "rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation." I think that’s clear. If it’s possible for perhaps the greatest gospel preacher in history to be lost, then it is certainly possible for any Christian today to be lost.
Next, I would like for you to turn to Romans 14:15-23. If I had time we’d read practically all of this chapter. Now, these next three passages Steve, and audience, I’m going to take advantage of something that Steve believes, and this church shares with him in this belief, and that is, Steve believes in what we call a "limited atonement," okay? Now not all Baptists believe that. I mean, not all people who believe in "once saved always saved" believe in a "limited atonement." That means that Steve believes that Christ only died for the elect, the saved. The "general atonement" is what most members of the "Churches of Christ" believe. That would mean that Jesus died for everybody, but of course we don’t believe everybody is going to be saved. Alright?
So we are not debating that tonight, but just to let you know he believes in the "limited atonement." That means that if I can find a place that shows that Jesus died for somebody, then Steve will have to admit they’re of the elect. He can’t say "I don’t think they were really saved to begin with" because that will be his tactic in this debate – he’s going to say - "well if this person didn’t persevere, he must never have been save."
So, I’m going to take advantage of the fact that he believes in a "limited atonement." I’ve got three passages here we’re going to go through where it looks like to me it’s talking about a Christian and I’m going to be able to verify that because it says it’s somebody Jesus died for, which according to Steve’s position, it would have to mean they are of the "elect." It would have to. It wouldn’t have to mean that for me, but it would have to for Steve.
Notice Romans 14:15 and then verse 23. Remember the context of this chapter and I Corinthians 8, basically saying they are "meat." I believe in this case it may be pork and stuff like that but in I Corinthians 8 it may be meat offered to idols, but it really doesn’t matter, the principle is the same.
If your brother thinks it’s wrong to eat this meat, even though you know, maybe you have studied more from the Scriptures, you know it is not wrong to eat it, don’t eat the meat in front of him because that might "embolden him," as the King James puts it, "encourage him" to eat the meat when he thinks it is wrong, violating his conscience. Alright, remember that. That’s what it’s about. Now notice the verse.
"But if thy brother," talking about a Christian here, "be grieved with they meat, destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died. He that doubted is D-A-M-N-E-D," that’s such a strong word I don’t even say it. I substituted the word "condemned" for it. But it’s the strongest word in the Bible for a person lost. I cannot think of a word in the Bible that, without dispute, means more about, means "lost." This is the strongest word, it always means "lost" spiritually. You can’t think of a stronger word and say this one doesn’t mean lost but this one over here does. It says "he that doubteth is D-A-M-N-E-D if he eat because he eateth not of faith."
So here’s this brother "for whom Christ died," if he eat this "meat" in front of him, he might be encouraged to eat it even though he doubts it’s right and so he violates his conscience and says he is "D-A-M-N-E-D." If a "brother" Steve, somebody "for whom Christ died," according to his position that means they have to be of the "elect," he’s going to be lost if he eats. Well, I guess I said all that. Let’s go to the next one, which is the parallel, I Corinthians 8:11.
Again it’s the same principle. It’s not really wrong to eat this meat, you know that, but Paul says "don’t eat it in front of him, you might encourage him to eat it when he thinks it’s wrong and violate his conscience." He says "through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died." This is talking about a "brother," one "for whom Christ died." I know he’s a Christian, and Steve certainly knows he’s a Christian, a person that’s an "elect," because it says "for whom Christ died." That should verify to Steve that he agrees with me, it’s talking about a Christian.
I learn that from the fact that it says it’s a "brother" in the context of Christians here, not Jews. So it is possible for a "brother" to "perish," which means (that Strong’s 622), it means, for example, I won’t go through all of these passages, but John 3:16 – "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish." Uh, did I quote that right?
"But have everlasting life." Now, does that mean lost? I think it does. "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in H-E-L-L (or Gehenna)," that means lost. Jesus "came to save that which was lost." That’s the same Greek word as "perish" here. Here’s the word "perish" in second Thessalonians two. He goes on to use the word "D-A-M-N-E-D" to refer to the same person.
"Not willing that any should perish" in II Peter 3:9. Steve would agree that’s talking about lost spiritually. The same word for "perish" is right here in Romans 14, Steve, as right here, "destroy." And then we’ve already been through that. So, we have the same thing as Romans 14.
"If the brother," that means a Christian, Steve would agree he is of the elect for it’s "for whom Christ died," yet the possibility is that he "might perish" or be lost. And then one more passage using that same theme.
II Peter chapter two verses 1 & 4. Now I’m using this passage in this debate, especially because Steve believes in a limited atonement. If he didn’t believe that I might not use this passage. I might, but I might not. But I believe an extra good argument against one, Steve’s position, who believes in limited atonement.
It says, "But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you who privily shall bring in," there’s that word, "D-A-M-N-A-B-L-E (condemnable) heresies even denying the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
Notice they definitely did not persevere. "If God spared not the angels that sinned but cast them down to H-E-L-L, and delivered them unto chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment – the Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust to the day of judgment to be punished."
Now I don’t see how you can get around the fact that it’s talking about somebody who is lost here, especially with Steve’s position, that says anybody who is truly saved will persevere. It’s obvious that these "false teachers," the ones that lead astray, aren’t persevering. They’ve got to be lost. Yet, it’s talking about these "false teachers," it says they "denied the Lord that bought them." Jesus died for them. These "false teachers" are "bought" by the Lord Jesus Christ, chapter one verse sixteen, that is, he died for them, so they were saved, "elect," according to Calvinism.
And I believe, implied by the fact that they had "forsaken the right way," which means they had been in the right way and forsook it, like you cannot "fall from grace" unless you’re in it. You can’t "forsake the right way" unless you’re in it to begin with. Now notice these passages.
I Corinthians 6:2 – "bought with a price." It’s talking about the people at Corinth. Doesn’t that mean that Jesus died for them? "Bought with a price." Revelation – "redeemed us to God by thy blood," "redeemed from among men." It’s the same idea as being "bought."
You go down to the pawn shop and you "redeem" the item. I’ve never been to a pawn shop, but if you took your ring down there and get some money and come back later and "redeem" it with your money, your "bought it back," that’s what this is talking about. You "redeem" it. That’s what Jesus did for us. We were "sold" to the devil, we might say, by our own choice, but that’s another debate. And Jesus buys us back. He redeemed us. How did he do it? With his death. Now, according to Steve, if Jesus died for these people, they would have to be of the elect. He can’t say they were never saved to begin with, because Jesus died for them. But notice how clear it is that they were lost, that they did not persevere. These "false teachers" became lost. It says they "bring in condemnable heresies" – "Bring upon themselves swift destruction" – "denying the Lord" – "pernicious ways" – "covetousness" – "feigned words" – "make merchandise of you"; their "condemnation," that’s a stronger word than in the King James, "slumbereth not," "reserved unto the day of judgment to be punished," "servants of corruption."
I don’t see any way that Steve can say they are still going to be saved. Now, his dad might. But he could not say that. Then let’s go on in II Peter toward the end of the chapter. I believe this is connected. But I want to use it as a separate argument. How much time do I have Frank? It says in II Peter chapter two, verses 20-22;
"If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment which was delivered unto them. But, it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
Alright, I think most of us are familiar with that passage. Now let’s talk about it. Notice the following facts about the people in this passage.
They had become Christians. How do I know that? It says they "escaped the pollutions," that’s King James version, "of the world through the knowledge of Christ." Now notice here. If you look at your footnote in your Bible, we’re not talking about "smog" "pollution," we’re not talking about that kind of "pollution" or oil dumping out into the river or ocean. We’re not talking about that kind of "pollution." We’re talking about "pollution"– the sins of the world. Okay? Then we have the analogy. The analogy is, it’s like a "sow that was washed," a pig was clean of all the mud off the pig and it went right "back into the mire." That’s the analogy of a Christian who is clean and then goes right back into the mud, the sins of the world, the "pollutions of the world." You see the analogy? But that pig was "clean," meaning it had been "forgiven," according to the analogy given by Peter here. He had been forgiven, not the pig, but the cleaning off the mud is analogous to us being forgiven of our sins, clean, then we go right back into the mud, go right back into sin.
Verse one, referring back to what we already referred to in the same chapter, the Lord "bought them," or died for them, that means that Calvinism would have to say that these people were Christians. Thus they "become entangled again" in those sins and then it says they’re current state is "worse" than if they had never become Christians to start with.
Now Steve, it says, that their current state is "worse" than the beginning. Certainly "worse" than non-saved wouldn’t mean they were still saved, would it? I don’t see how that could mean that, how you could be "worse" off than a person not saved, and still be saved yourself. Peter says they’re "worse" off than they were in the beginning, than before they ever became, before they "escaped the pollutions of the world," before they became Christians.
II Peter 1:9-11. "But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure. For it ye do these things, ye shall never fall. For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."
Now the man in this passage had been "purged from his old sins." Do you see that in the first part of the passage? That means he was saved. He was saved. But it goes on to say he needed to "make his calling and election sure." Now tomorrow afternoon at 2:30 we’re going to finish up this debate and let Steve go on into the affirmative on this topic, then tomorrow night at 7pm, I invite you to both of those sessions, we’re going to talk about "election" and whether or not it is conditional or unconditional, and I suppose we’ll talk about salvation some too and whether or not it is conditional or unconditional.
I understand more about Steve’s position after eating supper with him tonight, that I didn’t understand before. But you can be sure I am going to bring this up tomorrow night Steve, because it says we’ve got to "make our calling and election sure," which shows that our election is conditioned upon something we have a say over. And what this implies in this debate is that he can lose his "calling" and "election." He’s "elected" alright, but he has to "make it sure." He could lose it.
When you, let’s say, we go fishing in a boat, and we tie the boat to the rail, and we walk away with my son, and I say, "son, I think I just kind of wrapped it around the post, the rope, why don’t you go make that boat ‘sure,’" meaning tying it in a knot, or something like that, "make sure it doesn’t float off."
What do we mean by that, "making it sure"? Let’s "make sure" it doesn’t float off! Alright. And thus here we are "making our calling and elections sure." We’re "making sure" that election is sure, that we have it, that it doesn’t float off, that we don’t lose our "election," lose our salvation.
Notice they had the possibility of "falling." He says "for if ye do these things ye shall never fall." Now, I know, every time I have a debate, that everybody I debated, always has an answer for what I’ll say. Some answer. Now many times I don’t think it’s very reasonable and I have to let the audience be the judge.
Now Steve will have some kind of answer for this word "if." No doubt about it. But you’re going to have to ask yourself, is it reasonable? When you see the word "if," like if you were to tell your son, "Bobby, if you eat your carrots, you can have chocolate pie." What do we mean by that? We mean by that, and it’s simple, if he eats his carrots he gets chocolate pie and if he doesn’t, he doesn’t get chocolate pie. Right? We understand the word "if."
"If ye do these things ye shall never fall." What does that mean? Simply and plainly, without trying to get around it, what does it mean? It means, "if you do these things," that is "add," or put into your life, the practice of this, what we call the Christian graces, just a few verses before, you won’t "fall." But, if you don’t do these things, you will "fall"!
So that presents just enough a possibility that a person who had been "purged from his old sins," a Christian, could "fall" from that, and he could, presents the possibility, that Bobby might not receive that chocolate pie if he doesn’t eat his carrots. They had the possibility of falling. Falling away from what? His "election" and "salvation," that is, as the verse goes on to say, in verse eleven, he will lose "entrance" "into the everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ." It tells us what he would lose if he "falls." He would lose the "entrance" "into the everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ." Look it up in your Bibles right there in verse eleven. So if a Christian does not "add" the Christian graces, verses five through seven, he will fall from his "election," salvation, that is, he will miss out on heaven.
Everybody turn to Hebrews 3:12. The Bible says there – "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God."
Now notice that these people addressed are called "brethren." I asked him a question. He said these are "professed Christians." So I guess what he is saying, just because they are called "brethren" doesn’t prove they are genuine Christians. But I want you to notice verse one who he is talking to. Verse twelve calls them "brethren" but verse one, talking about the same people, says "wherefore, holy brethren." Now people who are Christians but only in a professed way, meaning their hypocrites, their not really Christians, but they just professed it, maybe they believed and were baptized to please their wife or something like that. Yes, I can see how somebody might mistakenly call them "brethren," Steve or I might mistakenly call them a "brother," but Paul wouldn’t mistakenly call them a "brother," would he? Paul was inspired of God. He would not call somebody a "brother" if they were only professed "brethren," and not really truly Christians.
"He assumes he’s talking to true Christians," that’s what he said, and then, I’m continuing with my point in verse one, he not only calls them "brethren," Steve, he calls "holy brethren," which means they’re not just hypocritical brethren, just professed Christians. They’re "holy" brethren. Notice that perseverance, according to this text, is not a certainty for these brethren. Not even for the Hebrew writer. He includes himself in these warnings. He says "who’s house we are," that would be him and those he is writing to, "if we hold fast the confidence and hope firm unto the end."
So even, let’s assume for a moment that Paul wrote it, I don’t know who wrote it, but it is easier to say, even Paul recognized, along with the ones he’s writing to, the Hebrews, that if he didn’t "hold fast the confidence and hope firm unto the end," he would not be considered God’s "house" any more. Verse 14 "we," that would be the writer and those he’s writing to, are "made partakers of Christ IF we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." So, it’s conditioned upon "holding the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end," and we’re not going to be "partakers of Christ" if we don’t do that. Do you see that? So Paul recognized the possibility that even himself, assuming he is the writer and I don’t know if he was, that he himself and his "holy brethren" could be lost if they didn’t hold their faith till the end. This last part is similar too.
"We are made partakers of the benefits of the national honor society if, or as long as, we hold to a 3.5 grape point average." Okay? Now, Steve said a believer cannot become an unbeliever. This verse stated that you can. "Take heed brethren," these are "holy brethren," "lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief." So a "holy brother" could change, a "holy brother" could change to unbelief. Steve says a "holy brother" could not "depart" from God, but this verse says he can, in "departing from the living God."
And Steve says a brother can’t lose his salvation, but this verse, along with verses six and fourteen, teaches that he can. Now, what is the fate of the believer who changes to unbelief? John 3:36b makes that clear, it says "he that believeth not shall not see life." So, a person who is a believer, that changes to an unbeliever, John 3:36 says "he that believeth not shall not see life."
Everybody turn to John 15, let’s look at the context of verses 2-6. Jesus said – "I am the vine, ye are the branches." Now, he’s just said, this is "ye," who he’s talking to, second person, he says now "you are clean through the word."
Does that sound like somebody who is not a Christian? No, only Christians are "cleaned through the word." Not just a professed Christian, but a true Christian is the only one who has been "cleaned through the word," forgiven of sin.
He says, "every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away, and every branch that beareth fruit he purgeth it that it may bring forth more fruit. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered and men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned."
Now notice he’s talking to people, he says, "ye are clean through the word," that means somebody, you can’t be "cleaned through the word" without being forgiven, a Christian. He says, he’s basically encouraging them to abide in him, and he says if you don’t abide in me, and he’s using an analogy here, like a person that’s a fruit tree that’s not bearing fruit, you "prune" it, trying to get it to bear fruit and you take the branches that you cut off, the stems, and you go and burn them. What do you think that Jesus is talking about here when it says he "casts them in the fire and they are burned"?
Making an analogy, what’s the spiritual parallel to being "burned in the fire"? I think we all know. Jesus is the "vine" and the "branches" are people, verse five, they’re talking about Christians, they’re "in me," that means their "in Christ," their "clean through the word," so it’s Christians. He says if they don’t bear fruit, they are "taken away," "cast forth" and "burned."
So a Christian who does not bear fruit will end up being burned in everlasting punishment. I think that is very clear. I really think if you’ll just accept the clear and plain meaning of these passages you’ll come to the conclusion I’m contending for tonight.
Next, I would like to look at Hebrews 10:26-27. It says – "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation that shall devour the adversary."
Now notice this is talking about Christians. Calls them "brethren." Chapter ten, verse nineteen. He’s talking to the same people that we mentioned awhile ago, that he was talking to in Hebrews three, verse one, "holy brethren." He warns them in chapter ten not to forsake the church assembly. But he says, if this person "sins willfully" he will be lost. How do I know that? Verse 26 says "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin." In other words, the benefits of the sacrifice are no longer applied to that person. Now you can’t be saved if the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ are no longer applied to you, because the only way we can be saved is based upon the benefits of the death of Christ.
In chapter ten, verse 27, "fearful judgment" and "fiery indignation." Does that sound like a person that’s saved? No. So it was a person who was saved, who was called a "holy brethren" but he’s being warned that if you "sin willfully," assuming they don’t repent, then this is what will await you, you will be lost. Christians who "sin willfully" cease to receive the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ, instead they face a fiery judgment.
Now I would like for you to look at I John 1:9. I believe he’s talking to Christians there, in I John 1:9. But let’s look at it. Either way it wouldn’t matter. It says – "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Now let’s think about Bobby and the chocolate pie, and the carrots, "if you eat your carrots, you can have a piece of chocolate pie" – we know what this kind of phraseology means. "If," this says, "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We know what that means! That means if you confess he’ll forgive you, and if you don’t, he won’t forgive you. That’s simple and plain. It can only be garbled if someone’s trying to get around the plain meaning.
But, the limited atonement version of "once saved always saved," which Steve holds, is made absurd by this verse. If your of the elect your forgiven even if you don’t confess! Right, Steve? And, if you’re not of the elect, your not forgiven even if you do confess! Do you see that? Let me say it again. According to Steve’s position, if your of the elect you’re forgiven even if you don’t confess your sin and if your not of the elect, your not forgiven even if you do confess your sin. But this says, "if we confess our sins" he will forgive us, naturally applying it. "Confess" and you will be forgiven, and if you don’t confess, you won’t.
Look’s like I’m running out of time, but you’ll remember Simon the Sorcerer.
It says, it talks about the people of Samaria who "believed and were baptized." I feel confident that Steve would say they are saved. Verse 13 says, "then Simon himself believed also." It wasn’t a false belief Steve. It says he "believed ALSO," meaning "like the other people of Samaria" and they were saved, according to your position, I believe, "and when he was baptized he continued with Philip."
So, it says "Simon believed," not a false belief because it says "also," meaning like these other people, who Steve would say is saved. Then later he tried to buy the gift of God, the gift of the Holy Spirit, with money. Peter told him "repent therefore of this thy wickedness and pray God perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the fall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." You see that? He was saved, yet when he sinned, through thought and action, Peter said you’re "in the gall of bitterness and the bondage of corruption."
Does that sound like he’s still saved? It doesn’t, does it? He said, "you need to repent." And, it looks like, if you read the rest of the text, that he did repent. Do you see that? Is that pretty simple?
Let’s go back to this little word "if." "Bobby, if you eat your carrots, mom will get you some ice cream." "Finish your homework you can go out and play." "If you take this medicine it should make you feel better."
Notice I Corinthians 15:1,2. "Brethren, I declare unto you the gospel, which you have received, and wherein you stand," so their Christians. "By which you are saved IF ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain."
Notice that they’re Christians, they are called "brethren," they "stand in the faith," in the gospel. Their not just professing Christians, they’re truly Christians. He says you will be saved "if ye keep this in memory." What does this mean?
Thank you very much. I invite you to pay special and close attention to what Steve has to day. I appreciate Steve being willing to do this and I know you do too.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Literal Method Part I
The following discussion was carried on in 2005 and 2006. Highlighting and emphasis are mine. It was a private e-mail discussion on "hermeneutics" between two are both Calvinists.
Recently I wrote to a Christian website about some things. This is an excellent web site and full of good teaching. I wrote the following recently:
Here is my first letter:
"I would like to see more articles on eschatology. Not many Calvinists are premillenial and pre-Trib. That is strange to me. I do believe in the literal historical method in hermenuetics."
I got the following correspondence from a writer there.
"I don't know much about eschatology. I used to be pre-mil pre-trib but interacting with others of different views has made me believe that the issue is actually quite complex. (I do not always adhere to a literal historical method in interpretation.) As of now I am pre-mil post-trib but this could change in the future. Roughly here is why.
I take this position because this seems to be the view of the earliest churches. For example, against our postmil/theonomy friends is the testimony of Eusebius who describes how grandsons of Jesus' brother Jude were taken before the emporer and questioned about Christ's kingdom. They said it is not of this world or anywhere on earth but angelic and in heaven, established at the end of the world. (This doesn't fit with the postmil argument the kingdom is earthly and continuing to advance so that the whole world will be governed by Christianity when Christ returns.) I think this tradition is accurate because Eusebius himself would biased AGAINST reporting it. Eusebius clearly did not believe in a literal thousand year reign because he chides Papias (and others) for believing it. Papias was someone who learned from people who knew the apostles themselves, and he believed in a literal millenium. Also, I can see how the millenium would be spiritualized later in church history as allegorical exegesis (which I think can be legitimate sometimes) became more prominent.
As to interpretive method, I don't adhere to a strict literal method because I think Paul uses allegory/typology to interpret the Old Testament (not taking it literally) and the genre of acopalypse and prophecy was meant to be interpreted figuratively (I've heard). Nobody interprets Revelation strictly literally (i.e. that there will be literal beasts swallowing each other). It's just a question of HOW literal its supposed to be I guess.
The literalness of interpretation is a matter of what genre the work belongs to. No one interprets poems (i.e. psalms) literally because it is understood by everything that the genre contains all kinds of metaphors and figures of speech. Similarly with apocalyptic.
I also see evidence in the Bible of an imminent return of Christ (also against postmil and possibly amil). I do not however see evidence for "two" comings of Christ, one in secret for the elect and one publicly.
Against amil (and postmil) I don't see strong evidence that Satan is bound presently, although of course Christ did win the victory at Calvary against Satan (and we have to make sense of what that means).
As for Mt 24, I think it's a big puzzle. I am open to the idea that it is solely referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (NT Wright and others argue this). However, it seems like at least some of it is talking about end times, because Paul alludes to the same traditions in 1 Th 4 and there Paul is clearly talking about the end times.
Anyway, there are some thoughts. But in short it's a complex issue and I haven't studied it enough yet.
Sincerely, ********
I then wrote the following in return.
Dear Brother *******:
I was taught Amillenialism and only got rid of it by personal Bible study. I also am post trib premillenial. I have posted some writings on this in http://www.apologetics.deardiary.net/ that you might want to see.
About the literal method; I believe that we have this rule given to us in the Scriptures and in the Apocalypse. We are to take the Scriptures literally unless told to do otherwise. For instance; in the Apocalypse the writer will stop and say, "this is a sign," showing that the norm is to interpret literally unless context or common sense tells us differently.
I do not see how Paul deviates from the literal method by his use of allegory in Galatians, no more than the use of metaphors does. Paul is not denying the literalness of the events regarding Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Hargar, Sarah, etc. Plus, the exception does not eliminate the rule, right?
People do take the Apocalypse literally except in those cases where the writer says not to. It is clear, even by the most ardent spiritualizer, that some things in the Apocalypse are literal. Is there then no rule to discern where to interpret literally and where not to? Is the rule not to first interpret literally unless the context or common sense indicate otherwise?
I must disagree on the idea of "imminency" in relation to Christ's return. I think this has led many into dividing the coming of Christ into two stages. I have posted some good writings on this in my Apologetics journal.
God bless my brother and thanks for taking the time to write back. Again, I want to say that I appreciate your spirit and work in the Lord.
Stephen
The following is another good e-mail from the brother with whom I have been carrying on a discussion in hermeneutics. He sent me this addition.
He writes:
"Dear Stephen:
Thanks for the thoughts on interpretation. I'm still working out kinks in my view on interpretation.
One important distinction I would make is between a historical interpretation and literal interpretation. A Bible passage might be talking about a historical event without doing so literally. (Just as some types of fiction might be meant to be understood literally even though it does not describe an actual historical event.) So I could take Revelation to describe some events that will or have occurred in history, but it may do so in a non-literal way. Another example might be Genesis. I personally believe that the day is a figure for a period of time. But I also believe it is referring to an actual, historical act of creation by God.
I agree that context and common sense determine when a passage ought to be taken literally, as in your example "he is a dog." If you are pointing to a person, then I know you are not speaking literally. I would simply include "genre" in the category of "common sense" or "context." The problem is that both common sense and context are culturally relative. What is common sense to us might not be to early Christians, or vice versa. For example, N. T. Wright argues that no Jew would take the apocalyptic language literally. They were used to hearing about the stars falling from the sky and the moon turning to blood (so says Wright). In their culture, that was known to be poetic language and it would bring up certainly meanings and images in their minds, and it may even be taken as a reference to something that will really happen, but it would have been literal to them. If you grow up in a fundamentalist evangelical church, however, it might be obvious that literal stars will fall from the sky at the end times. At least, that's what I was taught and used to believe, and it seemed axiomatic to me. So common sense is indexed to culture. I'm not saying Wright is right. Only a thorough study of history and Jewish culture and literature could answer the question of how they interpreted the apocalyptic. Who knows? Ancient Jews might say, "Well, of course stars don't fall from the sky. That's common sense. The prophecy is a figure of speech for judgment."
So I agree that literal vs. figurative interpretation requires application of common sense, context and knowledge of genre. But this is different than saying: We must interpret literally unless the Bible tells us otherwise. I don't see any support for the latter stronger claim. Just because the Bible sometimes says "this is a sign" does not mean that it will always do so. Another way to phrase the hermeneutical rule is: If it is reasonable to interpret literally, then do so. But what reason is there to apply this this rule (sic)?
I've heard some premillenialists argue that the Bible itself interprets its own prophecies literally. For example, I heard that Daniel interpreted some prophecy in Jeremiah about a 70-year exile as a literal 70-year period (I think that's the example that was given). But I think we evidence that Jesus (and the Jews of his day) did not interpret O.T. prophesies literally, or at least not all of them. Mal. 4:5 reads:
"Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord."
A literal interpretation of this prophecy is reasonable, given a supernatural God and the fact that Elijah was taken up to heaven and did not die. It is certainly conceivable, within a world of the miraculous, that the literal Elijah could be sent back to earth to preach again. But Jesus did not interpret the passage literally, even though this would be reasonable.
Jesus says, "If you are willing to accept it, John [the Baptist] himself is Elijah who was to come" (Matthew 11:14).
In Acts 2:17-21 Peter quotes the prophecy of Joel which says that in the last days there will be supernatural wonders such as the sun turning black with blood, fire and billows of smoke fuming from Earth. But Peter claims that this prophecy was already fulfilled (Acts 2:16). He did not seem to interpret the wonders literally.
Another famous example is Matthew 2:15 which says Hosea 11:1 is fulfilled when Jesus returns with his parents from Egypt. But the passage in its original context is not supposed to be a prophecy about the messiah. Of course, Matthew is not denying the literal historical exodus of Israel that Hosea 11:1 talks about (just as Paul doesn't deny literal events of Abaraham), but he is not interpreting the prophecy literally. In fact, Hosea 11:1 isn't even a prophecy in its original context! For Matthew, the passage MEANT something about the Messiah. But this meaning was not literally found in the words. This is significant because it shows that some prophecies about the first coming were taken figuratively.
Finally, Nicodemus was actually rebuked because he took Jesus too literally when talking about being born again (John 3:4). This underscores the importance of recognizing symbolic scripture for what it is. I'm not arguing that the rule is to interpret symbolically. I don't think there is an easy rule that says: Do X unles Y1..Yn. It seems more like each passage ought to be examined on a case by case basis and it would be difficult to codify exact criteria.
This is an interesting discussion. I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am.
May God bless you.
In Him, ********
Here is my return correspondence.
Dear Brother *******:
Thanks for the return correspondence. I want to look at what you have written and trust what I return will be for your edification.
You first write, saying:
“One important distinction I would make is between a historical interpretation and literal interpretation. A Bible passage might be talking about a historical event without doing so literally.”
I am not able to accept your distinction. In hermeneutic science the method I accept is styled literal grammatical-historical. It is defined thus:
“This is sometimes called the principle of grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.” (Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pp. 86-87)
J. Dwight Pentecost, in his book, “Things To Come,” has defined and defended this method very well. I am not Dispensationalist, although I share their hermeneutic rule, as do all Premillenialists. I found the above quotation by Ryrie on the internet (it was easier than getting out my copy of Pentecost’s book and typing).
It is not the common practice of historians, especially inspired ones, to veil their histories in symbols. That would defeat the purpose of the writing. Also, as I stated previously, EVERY TIME the gospel writers say, “such was done that it might be fulfilled by the prophet,” shows the fulfillment to be literal.
But, you did give a couple possible exceptions to this seeming rule. You did not dispute the rule. You seem to acknowledge it. Prophecies that refer to the first coming of Jesus were fulfilled literally. Your bringing up of possible examples, if true, would only show that there are exceptions to the rule. Again, this would augment the arguments already presented, showing that when the literal is dispensed with, by a prophetic writer or interpreter, historian, if you please, then the writer lets you know.
What you say about “common sense” being culturally defined, I might agree with you to some extent, but generally, “common sense” means what is common to all men.
Let me quote two interesting observations by Seiss on this matter. He writes:
“You will notice also that there is nothing in this vision to which the word MYSTERY is applied, but the stars and the candlesticks. Everything else is its own explanation; that is, it is literal and to be taken as it is written. The stars and candlesticks are symbolic, and stand for something which could not otherwise so well be fitted to the picture; but only these. We are thus furnished with several very important hints of interpretation. One is, that when the Scriptures employ symbols they tell you so. Another is, that where no indication to the contrary is given, we must interpret according to the letter...This book (Apocalypse), then, is not a book of symbols, as some speak...We find mysteries or symbols in this book, but only exceptionally, and always accompanied with the proper note of indication, and the necessary apocalupsis, or unveiling of what is meant.” (The Apocalypse, page51)
Then, in commenting upon the beginning of Rev. chpt. 12, he writes:
“This, the apostle tells us is A SIGN, semeion, a word which he here uses for the first time in the Apocalypse, and which serves to show that the apparition is not simply a ‘wonder,’ as our version has it, but a wonder intended to bring before us something beyond itself. I have repeatedly remarked, that when the Scriptures use figures or symbols, or speak in a way not intended to be taken literally, like all serious writings they always give some intimation of it, in one way or another. The text is a case in point. What is described, is said to be A SIGN, a representation or picture of something else–a symbol. And the fact that we are here told that this is A SIGN, goes far to prove that the Apocalypse in general is to be taken literally, except where indication to the contrary is given. It would be quite superfluous to tell us that this thing is a sign, and that certain things mean certain other things, except upon the assumption that whatever is not so labelled is to be taken just as it reads, a woman for a woman, a star for a star, a mountain for a mountain, and so on.” (Page 278)
You say, “So I could take Revelation to describe some events that will or have occurred in history, but it may do so in a non-literal way.”
But, I think Seiss has answered that very well. Let me add this thought. It is obvious that there is a correlation between Genesis and Exodus with the Apocalypse. We see the same plagues and judgments upon the world as occurred in Egypt by the hand of Moses. Why do we think the plagues in Exodus is literal but the plagues in Revelation are not?
You say further: “Another example might be Genesis. I personally believe that the day is a figure for a period of time. But I also believe it is referring to an actual, historical act of creation by God.”
I do not take the Genesis day other than literal. Day sometimes does mean a “period of time,” but I do not believe so in Genesis. But, I see that as a separate discussion issue and not appropriate for our present discussion. One question should be pertinent, however–How did Jesus and the later inspired writers interpret the days of creation?
You next write: “N. T. Wright argues that no Jew would take the apocalyptic language literally.”
I am not familiar with his writings but I would disagree with his thesis that “no Jew would take the apocalyptic language literally.” Daniel was a Jew and he interpreted the prophecies of Jeremiah literally. Jesus and the apostles were Jews and they all interpreted literally. Also, the fact that Jews have historically “left the door open for Elijah,” in their religious feasts, show this was not for a symbolic return of the prophet but for the literal.
So, I think it is an unlearned opinion and an erroneous thesis to say “no Jew would take apocalyptic language literally.” Certainly the question of the apostles in Acts one, about the restoration of Israel, shows they are looking for literal fulfillment.
You do say,“I'm not saying Wright is right. Only a thorough study of history and Jewish culture and literature could answer the question of how they interpreted the apocalyptic.”
Well, I am sure that the outcome, of such a study, is to show that most Jews were looking for literal fulfillment, not vice versa. And, if we could find some Jewish sects who interpret non-literally, only shows that times in the Old Testament are not different from today. People have been erring in interpretation from the beginning of written revelation.
You say, “Ancient Jews might say, "Well, of course stars don't fall from the sky. That's common sense. The prophecy is a figure of speech for judgment."”
But stars do fall to the earth! Stars, as they are often used in the Apocalypse, denote either meteors or comets. We even refer to such as “falling stars.” Also, if we are to interpret language first literally and only figuratively when there is reason to do so, then we should try to see if it is possible for a literal fulfillment. Is it possible that “stars falling from the sky” be literal? Yes, as I have just shown.
You then write:
“So I agree that literal vs. figurative interpretation requires application of common sense, context and knowledge of genre. But this is different than saying: We must interpret literally unless the Bible tells us otherwise. I don't see any support for the latter stronger claim. Just because the Bible sometimes says "this is a sign" does not mean that it will always do so. Another way to phrase the hermeneutical rule is: If it is reasonable to interpret literally, then do so. But what reason is there to apply this rule?”
I have already partially addressed your concerns here. Why stop, in the midst of a writing, and say, “now this is not to be taken literally, but symbolically,” if the norm has not been to take the writer literally? Surely you see the point.
I think we can agree that we interpret literally first and symbolically when
1) The context/writer indicates otherwise, in one manner or another.
2) Common sense dictates otherwise.
You then write:
“I've heard some premillenialists argue that the Bible itself interprets its own prophecies literally. For example, I heard that Daniel interpreted some prophecy in Jeremiah about a 70-year exile as a literal 70-year period (I think that's the example that was given).”
I agree with that statement and believe it can be defended. How? Look at how fulfilled prophecy has been fulfilled. Was it not always, or at least nearly always, literal? Did Daniel not believe that the seventy years was seventy literal years? If time periods are symbolic of other non-apparent periods of time, then we are all at a loss. If seventy years means ninety years, how do we know?
You next write:
“But I think we evidence that Jesus (and the Jews of his day) did not interpret O.T. prophesies literally, or at least not all of them. Mal. 4:5 reads: "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord." A literal interpretation of this prophecy is reasonable, given a supernatural God and the fact that Elijah was taken up to heaven and did not die. It is certainly conceivable, within a world of the miraculous, that the literal Elijah could be sent back to earth to preach again. But Jesus did not interpret the passage literally, even though this would be reasonable. Jesus says, "If you are willing to accept it, John [the Baptist] himself is Elijah who was to come" (Matthew 11:14).”
“But Jesus did not interpret the passage literally.” Oh, but he did! The prophecy of the coming again of Elijah, though fulfilled partially in the coming of John the Baptist, did not completely fulfill the ancient prophecy from Malachi. Let me cite some things again from Seiss on this point.
“Turning back to the ancient prophets, we find this word: “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom you seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom you delight in: behold he shall come, says the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of His coming? And who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap: and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years. And I will come near to you in judgment...For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, says the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch...BEHOLD, I WILL SEND YOU ELIJAH THE PROPHET {the Septuagint, Arabic, and old Latin versions read “ELIJAH THE TISHBITE”} before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” (Mal. 3,4)
This is God’s own word–the closing word of the Old Testament. It names Elijah the prophet, even Elijah the Tishbite, and says that God will sen HIM again upon earth, to minister among men as the forerunner of the great and terrible day of the Lord–the day of the final overthrow of all the hosts of the wicked.Here, then, we would seem to come upon solid Scriptural ground. If Elijah means Elijah, and the great and terrible day of the Lord is the day of Christ’s final coming in judicial majesty to crush out Satan and his seed, there is no alternative left to believers in God’s word, but to receive the doctrine that Elijah is to come again to prophesy and execute works of judgment upon earth, and just in that period of time to which the Apocalypse assigns these Two Witnesses. Whatever else may be compassed by the prediction, and in whatever narrower circles it may have been fulfilled, if words are not utterly deceitful, and certainty can at all be predicated of God’s very specific promises, this prophecy cannot be considered fulfilled or accomplished in the past, nor until Elijah the Tishbite, IN PROPRIA PERSONA, returns again to the earth.We accordingly find that the book of Ecclesiasticus (which the Roman Catholic Church receives as inspired, which the fathers and Reformers highly honored, and which Protestants often have bound in their Bibles between the Old and New Testaments), eulogizes Elijah and says, that he is anointed by God’s order to appear again in the world, to rebuke evil, declare the impending judgment, reconcile the children of Jacob, rescue many, and make the way for the great and terrible day then about to break. (Chap. 48:1-11) Hence also the ancient Jewish believers up to the time of Christ, as all strict Jews since, looked for the reappearance of Elijah in the flesh as the herald of the victorious Messiah. Arnold (in Ecclesiasticus 48:10) says: “It was the unanimous sense of the Jews, that Elias should first come himself in person before the Messiah, and restore all things” Their old Litany of the Hosannas celebrates this anticipation. Their most honored writers constantly refer to it.* Hence, too, the deputation to John the Baptist with the question: “Art thou Elias?” (John 1:19,20) And hence the remark of the disciples to Christ: “The Scribes say that Elias must first come.” (Matt. 17:10)”
Seiss’s footnote is also worthy of citing.
“Indeed, the Jewish belief in the literal appearance of Elias as the herald of the Messiah was universal, and so universal does it continue to this hour, even after the lapse of eighteen centuries, that the Jews at their marriage feasts always place a chair and knife and fork for Elijah. They also set a chair for him at their passover feast, at which time they more especially look for him.”–Armageddon, vol. i, p. 131.
And another footnote:
“In the celebration of the Passover two large cups are filled with wine. One of these is taken by the master of the house, and a blessing pronounced. After this blessing the head of the family gives the cup to all those sitting around. He then brings forth the hidden cake, and distributes a piece to each. The second cup of wine, called ‘Elijah’s cup,’ is then placed before him; the door is opened, and a solemn pause of expectation ensues. It is at this moment that the Jews expect that the coming of Elijah will take place to announce the glad tidings that the Messiah is at hand. Well do I remember the interest with which, when a boy, I looked towards the door, hoping that Elijah might really enter; for, notwithstanding the disappointment year after year, his arrival is still confidently expected.”–Herschell’s Brief Sketch, p. 61
Back to Seiss.
“Some teach that this was a mistake–a mere Jewish notion. If so, it was a most extraordinary mistake. What was so devoutly accepted, taught, and believed by the holiest saints from Malachi to Christ, the theme of so many holy prayers and songs, and given out for the truth of God by the most eminent Christian fathers down to and inclusive of Jerome and Augustine, cannot safely be set down as a groundless conceit. We also have the highest Scriptural reasons for believing that it was not an empty notion, but a part of the true and abiding Revelation of God. Jesus Himself has affixed His own infallible authentication to it, and in such explicit terms that we can only wonder how people can speak so contemptuously of it as some writers who call themselves Christians.
On the mount of Christ’s glorious Transfiguration Elijah appeared. The disciples saw him and knew him. And, as they were coming down form the mount, they asked the Master about this very point, alleging the doctrine of the scribes that “Elias must first come.” And He answered and said unto them: “ELIAS TRULY SHALL FIRST COME, AND RESTORE ALL THINGS.” (Matt. 17:11) This passage is decisive. “The great Interpreter of prophecy gives right to that interpretation of the prophetic word which the scribes maintained,” says Trench. It cannot refer to John the Baptist, for John was then dead, while every part of it specifically relates to THE FUTURE. “Elias truly SHALL come, and SHALL restore all things.” Besides, the restoration or “restitution of all things” (apokatastais panton), in the which it is affirmed that the coming of Elias is to take part, is specifically referred by the Apostle Peter to the time of Christ’s second coming. (Acts 3:19) In all its terms and relations, therefore, we are compelled to accept this solemn declaration of the Savior as looking to the future, and meant to set forth what yet awaited fulfilment.
Dr. Stier has rightly said: “Whoever, in this answer of Christ, would explain away the manifest and striking confirmation of the fact that a coming of Elias was yet to take place, must do great violence to the words, and will never be able to restrain the future of their form and import so as to be applicable to John the Baptist.” But, it may be asked, Did not Christ say in the same connection, that Elias had come already, leaving it to be understood that He spoke of John the Baptist? The answer is, Yes; but in a way entirely distinct from the declaration we have just been considering. Elsewhere also he says of John: “If you will receive {it, him, or something else} this is Elias, which was for to come.” (Matt. 11:14) This proves that there is a sense in which John the Baptist was Elias, but certainly not such a sense as that in which the Jews were expecting Elias, nor yet such a sense as that in which He declared, after John was dead: “ELIAS TRULY SHALL FIRST COME AND RESTORE ALL THINGS.” John was not the literal Elias. This we are compelled to admit, or else he did not tell the truth; for when the priest and Levites asked him, “Are you Elias?” he answered, “I am not.” (John 1:21) And this clear and positive denial is further sustained by the facts (1) that he did not restore all things as was predicted of Elias, and (2) that the great and terrible day, which was to be ushered in immediately upon the finishing of the Elijah ministry, did not succeed the ministry of John, but is even yet future. Whilst, therefore, there is a sense of much importance in which John WAS Elias, there is another, more literal, and equally important sense, in which he was NOT Elias, and in which Elias is still to be expected, according to the Savior’s own word.
There was a twofold ministry embraced in the ancient promise to send Elijah, just as there was a twofold advent in the predictions concerning the Messiah. In neither case did the Old Testament clearly distinguish between these two, but viewed them both as if they were but one.
And as the two Messiah-comings are widely separated in time, though belonging to one and the same work; so there are two Elijah-comings, equally separated in time, and equally comprehended in the predictions.
Hence, John, as the forerunner of Christ in the first advent, was Elias; that is, he filled the Elijah place, operated in the Elijah spirit and energy, did for that occasion the Elijah work, and so far fulfilled the Elijah promise. As the angel said of him before he was born, he went before Christ “in the spirit and power of Elias” (Luke 1:15-17); which implies that he was not Elias himself. The Savior could, therefore, truly say of him while living, “If you will recieve it, this is Elias which was for to come;” and so likewise after he was dead, “Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.” John the Baptist operated in the spirit and energy of Elias, and performed the Elijah mission for the first advent, and so far “WAS ELIAS,” but, according to the word of the angel, only the VIRTUAL, and not the LITERAL Elias. He could accordingly answer the Jews, who had in mind the literal Elias, that he was NOT Elias, while yet, in another respect, he WAS Elias. In him the prediction in Malachi concerning the sending of Elijah had a true and real fulfilment, but only a partial, germinant, preliminary fulfilment, whilst the highest and ultimate fulfilment respects another advent of the Messiah, and the coming of the literal Elijah as the herald of it.
Such also is the view which the fathers took of the matter; and so they held and taught on the subject with great unanimity.
Justin Martyr says, “If Scripture compels you to admit two advents, shall we not allow that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent? Accordingly our Lord in His teachings proclaimed that this very thing would take place, saying, that Elijah would also come. And we know that this shall take place when our Lord Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven; whose first manifestation the Spirit of God who was in Elijah preceded as herald in John.”
Hippolytus says, “As two advents of our Lord are indicated in the Scriptures, also two forerunners are indicated, the first was John, the son of Zacharias. He first fulfilled the course of forerunner. But since the Savior is to be manifested again at the end of the world, it is matter of course that His forerunners must appear first, as He says by Malachi, I will send to you Elias the Tishbite before the day of the Lord, who shall come and proclaim the manifestation of Christ that is to be from heaven, and perform signs and wonders.”
So too Origen: “The vision upon the mountain in which Elias was seen, did not appear to agree with what the scribes had said: for it seemed Elias came not before Jesus, but after Him. They asked the question, therefore, supposing that the scribes had misled them. But to this the Savior answers, NOT CONTRADICTING THE TRADITION ABOUT ELIAS, but declaring that there was another coming of Elias before Christ, which had been unknown to the scribes.”
Chrysostom says, “As John was the forerunner of the first coming so will Elias be the forerunner of the second coming”–“Christ called John Elias on account of his performing the same office.”
Jerome writes, “Elias himself, who will truly come IN THE BODY at the second coming of Christ, has now come IN THE SPIRIT through the medium of John the Baptist.”
And so the great Augustine: “It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias, who shall expound the law to them. For not without reason do we hope that before the coming of our Judge and Savior Elias shall come.”
These quotations are from pages 245-248. They are worth considering.
You next write:
In Acts 2:17-21 Peter quotes the prophecy of Joel which says that in the last days there will be supernatural wonders such as the sun turning black with blood, fire and billows of smoke fuming from Earth. But Peter claims that this prophecy was already fulfilled (Acts 2:16). He did not seem to interpret the wonders literally.
Another famous example is Matthew 2:15 which says Hosea 11:1 is fulfilled when Jesus returns with his parents from Egypt. But the passage in its original context is not supposed to be a prophecy about the messiah. Of course, Matthew is not denying the literal historical exodus of Israel that Hosea 11:1 talks about (just as Paul doesn't deny literal events of Abaraham), but he is not interpreting the prophecy literally. In fact, Hosea 11:1 isn't even a prophecy in its original context! For Matthew, the passage MEANT something about the Messiah. But this meaning was not literally found in the words. This is significant because it shows that some prophecies about the first coming were taken figuratively.”
Now, seeing that this e-mail is already long, let me say that I will work on responding to these last two paragraphs of yours, in another e-mail. But, let me say, again, with full heart, that I admire your web site. I too enjoy Piper and other strong Calvinists. Have you ever read any of the late Gordon Clark’s writings?
I see that you are interested in theodicy, free will, predestination, and related topics. Care to look over my notes and writings in my two journals and offer some comments and additional sources for citations?
God bless and hope to hear from you again. I too enjoy good discussion where the aim is to please the Father in finding his will.
And then here is my next return correspondence.
Dear ******:
As promised I am finishing my reply to your recent e-mail. I want to deal with the last three issues in hermeneutics that you raise and I left off commenting upon.
You wrote:
In Acts 2:17-21 Peter quotes the prophecy of Joel which says that in the last days there will be supernatural wonders such as the sun turning black with blood, fire and billows of smoke fuming from Earth. But Peter claims that this prophecy was already fulfilled (Acts 2:16). He did not seem to interpret the wonders literally.
First, let me cite this article, taken from the internet, that briefly expresses my views, views which I believe are correct, being in accordance with Scripture and the teachings of the fathers and of historic orthodox Christianity.
THE DAY OF THE LORD IN ACTS 2:16-21
by Ron Merryman
"The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come." (Acts 2:20)
The Day of the Lord, mentioned by Peter in Acts 2:20, requires special attention particularly in view of its many misapplications.
Peter in Acts 2:15ff is seeking to explain the amazing miracle of speaking in tongues that had just occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13). His explanation begins, “These are not drunken as you suppose…… but this is that spoken by the prophet Joel……;” that is, “This tongues-language-phenomena that we have all just experienced is clear evidence of the power and special ministry of the Holy Spirit spoken of by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16,17).
Peter is not indicating that the Day of the Lord so predominant in the prophecies of Joel had arrived. He is merely interpreting and explaining the tongues’’ experience in the light of an Old Testament passage that spoke of special ministries of the Holy Spirit manifested in human communication. Peter well knew that Joel’s words not only included special revelation (prophecies, visions, dreams) from the Holy Spirit, but also seismic and astral catastrophes –– “wonders in the heavens above and signs in the earth below ……the sun turned to darkness, the moon to blood before the great and notable Day of the Lord comes” (Acts 2:19-21).
Peter also knew and wrote that the Day of the Lord is to be associated with the Second Advent of Christ and the events surrounding it (II Peter 3:1-13). Obviously, none of these occurred on the Day of Pentecost.
So why did Peter quote Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2? Simply to help his Jewish listeners perceive that what they had just heard and experienced (tongues/languages miraculously spoken) had precedent in Old Testament prophecy.
Using O. T. Scripture to Explain N. T. Phenomena
He along with the leaders in the early church on a number of occasions sought to explain what they experienced by referring to holy Scripture. A clear example is found in Acts 4:23-27. There, in an effort to explain the persecution that they were experiencing and that Christ had suffered, the Christians quote Psalm 2:1,2:
"Who by the mouth of thy servant David has said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ (Messiah, the Anointed One)."
They follow this by a direct application of the passage to the ruling authorities responsible for the crucifixion of Christ (Acts 4:27). "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together." Does this mean that the prophecies of Psalm 2:1,2 are fulfilled; that is, that Herod and Pontius Pilate are the final fulfillment of the “kings of earth” and “rulers” of Psalm 2:2? Absolutely not. Psalm 2 is much more comprehensive and universal in its scope. It reaches far beyond Herod and Pilate to all the “kings of the earth”, to their final rebellion against God (led by the Antichrist), and to their demise under the triumphant return and rule of Jesus Christ.
The rebellion of Herod and Pilate against Messiah was a minor fulfillment of Psalm 2:1,2: Its major fulfillment is future. This is apparent by a simple reading of the Psalm.
Why did these early Christians so apply Psalm 2? Because they were seeking to explain their circumstance and experience in light of Old Testament revelation.
Conclusion
So also with Peter’s quote of Joel 2 in Acts 2. He quotes an Old Testament passage to explain the experience of tongues on the Day of Pentecost. He was in no way implying that the Day of the Lord had come or was even near.
http://www.duluthbible.org/
Let me also add that “this is that” is not the phraseology to be employed if this were a total fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. When a writer wishes to convey complete fulfillment, it seems that they say, “this was done that it might be fulfilled.” Or, “and so was fulfilled the prophecy...”
“This is that” may refer, as it obviously does from viewing what actually then transpired, on the Day of Pentecost, to either one aspect of the prophecy or several, namely to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and some show of fire or outward sign. Clearly that portion of the prophecy that was fulfilled that day, and subsequent days, about the outpouring of God’s Spirit, seeing visions and dreams, of prophesying, was fulfilled and will continue to be fulfilled until Christ has fully come.
Was the outpouring of the Spirit literally fulfilled? Yes, and no. Certainly it was not fulfilled figuratively! Literal flesh received the Spirit in miraculous manner. So far the literal interpretation holds, even granting complete fulfillment. Certainly the fire of the cloven tongues as real literal fire, correct? Certainly the seeing of dreams and visions, though not occurring that day, but later in the history of Acts, were literal occurrences. Young men means young men. Dreams mean dreams. Visions mean visions. Spirit means Spirit. Why is “vapor of smoke,” the “sun being turned to darkness,” and “the moon into blood,” not literal also? Where is the warrant to take part of the prophecy literally and the other not?
The thing I see Peter as showing is that the initial realization of Joel’s promise is beginning to occur. He knew that the complete fulfillment of it was far yet future.
Your next citation and commentary was:
“Another famous example is Matthew 2:15 which says Hosea 11:1 is fulfilled when Jesus returns with his parents from Egypt. But the passage in its original context is not supposed to be a prophecy about the messiah. Of course, Matthew is not denying the literal historical exodus of Israel that Hosea 11:1 talks about (just as Paul doesn't deny literal events of Abraham), but he is not interpreting the prophecy literally. In fact, Hosea 11:1 isn't even a prophecy in its original context! For Matthew, the passage MEANT something about the Messiah. But this meaning was not literally found in the words. This is significant because it shows that some prophecies about the first coming were taken figuratively.”
I take issue with your statement, “he is not interpreting the prophecy literally.” I think the issue turns on what is meant by “fulfilled.” Does this word imply that Hosea 11:1 was a prediction? I cite these words for they express my views.
As a side note, I want to say: If I find my views already well stated, on an issue, I am content to quote elsewhere rather than laboriously trying to put the same thought in my own words. That explains why I am citing more than creating my own wordy defense.
"Out of Egypt, I called My Son"
"Here follows the explanation of Matthew 2:15..."
Weeks ago the quote of Matthew, "Out of Egypt have I called my son", has been discussed here. It was stated here that Matthew turned the history of Hosea 11:1 into a prophecy, quoted in Matthew 2:15. You used this change as yet another proof for the quality of the authors of the New Testament. This was pointed out to me, and at the end of the discussion I was forced to say that, though I didn't understand what Matthew was doing in changing a history into a prophecy, I yet kept it with him through faith.
I was sure that Matthew had not wrested the words of Hosea, but didn't understand how he then was able to write down such things. After a long while, however, I found the solution, through the grace of God. It appears that sometimes matters are much simpler then one can think at the first glance. The solution is so simple, that I was amazed at it.
Before I will give you the solution, let me remind you of the problem.
The prophet Hosea wrote in chapter 11:1,2:
1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. 2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.
In verse one the prophet says that Israel is God's son, and that God called Israel out of Egypt. This is clearly a history, and not a prophecy. There is no doubt about this.
Matthew quotes this. When Jesus returned from His flight into Egypt, because Herod was dead, Matthew associates that with the history as rendered in Hosea 11:1. Matthew writes in chapter 2:15 (according to the KJV):
15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
It was stated by you that Matthew quotes the words as if they were a prophecy, being fulfilled in Jesus. But this statement is entirely wrong. There is nothing in the words of Matthew on the basis whereof one can decide that he sees it as a prophecy. He simply is quoting the history of the Jew's exit out of Egypt, and says that it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. But that doesn't make it a prophecy.
From nothing in the text of Matthew 2:15 appears that it is seen as a prophecy. One may object and say: Surely does Matthew see Hosea 11:1 as a prophecy, because he writes "that it might be fulfilled". The very word "fulfilled" is used of prophecies. So Matthew sees it as a prophecy. To this the answer is easy: The original language, the Greek, uses a word that has...besides "fulfilled" also other meanings; meanings that have nothing to do with prophecies. So, this objection is false. There is nothing in Matthew's words that make a prophecy of Hosea 11:1.
The Greek uses the word "plero-o". This word has to do with "becoming full", and the like meanings. "Fulfilled" is one of its meanings, but there are many others.
The Greek word "plero-o" has two chief meanings. The first one is:- To make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
The second one is:- To render full, i.e. to complete
The word is used by Matthew in the second sense. Different shades in meaning are:
- To fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim- To consummate: a number- To make complete in every particular, to render perfect- To carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)- To carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise- Of matters of duty: to perform, execute- Of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish- To fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) - To receive fulfilment.
In this list of meanings you can find also "to fulfil", namely of prophecies. But it takes up only a part of all the meanings. Another meaning is "to render perfect", or "to carry through to the end". It is in this sense that Matthew uses the word.
The verse then should be this:
And He was there until the death of Herod, in order that be perfected the thing spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called the son of Me.
Before anyone says that this all is invented, let me give the Greek text in transcription with the translation thereunder.
kai en ekei heos tes teleutes herodou
And He was there until the death of Herod
Hina plerote to reten in order that be perfected the thing spokenhupo tou kuriou dia tou profetou,
by the Lord through the prophetlegontos,
eks aiguptou ekalesa ton huion mou.
saying, Out of Egypt have I called the son of Me.
What Matthew then is saying is this: God first called His son out of Egypt. That was Israel. This we find in Hosea 11:1. But in the second verse of that same chapter, the prophet says, "[As] they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images." They were called out of Egypt, but as they called them, so they went from them. They served the Baalim and the graven images instead of the true God. In short: imperfection. Then Matthew continues with saying that in Jesus this history is perfected. The Israelites were called out of Egypt, but were imperfect in serving Baalim. But Jesus was called out of Egypt, and was perfect in His obedience towards God. The Israelites were the sons of God. But Jesus perfected this being the Son of God. For Jesus was the Son of God in a more perfect sense, namely directly born from the Spirit.
In short: What was done imperfect in the Israelites, was perfected in Jesus.”
The above is fromwww.iclnet.org
Jesus literally was called out of Egypt, Matthew. Israel literally also! So, where is there any non literal fulfillment? Your thesis, mentioned above, is not scriptural.
There are other OT verses that are quoted as prophecies in the NT where there is no indication in the OT itself of it being a prophecy. Psalms 22 is an example, together with Psalm 2. Many examples. Want more?
Finally, you bring up the misunderstanding of Nicodemus, saying:
“Finally, Nicodemus was actually rebuked because he took Jesus too literally when talking about being born again (John 3:4). This underscores the importance of recognizing symbolic scripture for what it is.”
No disagreement there. But, he was not condemning literal interpretation of the word of God, only the abuse of it. No person who believes in literal interpretation denies the use of metaphors, similes, and figurative expression, nor the fact that some take literally what was never intended to be taken so.
For instance, anthropomorphic language, mostly in the OT, is not to be taken literally, even though Mormons and others do so. You are a believer in the omniscience of God. Yet God says, to Abraham, “now I know that you fear me.” Other examples could be given.
Again, let me say that I hope we are mutually edifying each other. God speed as you seek to serve him in truth and righteousness.
Dear *****:
Thanks again for your return correspondence.
You write:
“I can see that you are well read on this topic (much more than I)! I still have some reservations, though. Mainly, I still don't see any compelling reason to adopt a "literal unless proven otherwise" rule. Your point that the apostles sometimes say specifically "this is a sign" is not decisive for me. There could be other reasons they point out something as a sign, e.g. to emphasize its importance.
If you do not have a rule that says, “interpret literally unless there is reason not to,” then you have no rules of hermeneutics. You interpret based on what? By the ordinary rules of grammar? How do you know when to interpret literally and when to interpret figuratively? Are you interpreting my words literally? Are you taking what I write figuratively?”
Matthew, the argument about the writer saying, “this is symbolic,” was said in regard to the Apocalypse. And, that argument, I believe, is still very weighty. I am sorry that you do not see just how weighty. What are those “other reasons” for John to stop and say, in the Apocalypse, that such and such was not literal but only symbolic?
You say,
“In fact, it seems to me that Jesus frequently used figurative language that the disciples (at first) did not understand because they took him too literally. Jesus did not specifically say "I was speaking figuratively" until someone asks him about it. (Again, back to Nicodemus.) Now I understand that everyone accepts some figurative language in the Bible, e.g. anthropomorphisms. But our question is how to know which is which. I don't think the Bible authors are required to tell us when they are speaking figuratively any more than any other author would be. Can you imagine if someone read Cyrano de Bergerac and drew wierd conclusions about the moon based on the fact that Cyrano does not tells us explicitly that he is speaking figuratively? It is not the way language works (i.e. to assume that someone will always tell you that they are speaking symbolically). So why assume the Bible works that way? But once you admit that common sense and genre can impact the interpretive decision, I think there is nothing wrong, in principle, with the possibility that cosmic language is symbolic.”
I have always maintained, even in our correspondence, that common sense and genre do help determine whether words are to be taken strictly literal or figurative.
Every writer wants to be understood. When a writer uses symbolic language, he does so knowing that the reader will know it is symbolic. Too, Bible writers, when using symbols, use symbols that are well understood and whose meanings are apparent. When Paul tells the early church to “beware of dogs,” I am sure that he knew that his readers would know that he was speaking of people, not animals. So too when Jesus says, about Herod, “go tell thatx fox,” the figure is understood. Sure, there were times when Jesus used figures, but those figures were for the purpose of conveying literal truth and were figures that had a clear meaning in scriptural and common usage.
You say,
“I do not acknowledge that in every case where NT writers say "such was done so that it might be fulfilled..." that the writer is taking the prophet literally. Matthew 2:15 is a case in point. You have a good point that Matthew 2:15 is probably not interpreting Hosea as a prophecy, but rather as a type. But typology is by definition non-literal. Yes, Christ comes out of Egypt (that part is literal), but it is not Christ that the OT passage is talking about. And this is an example where the writer says "This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet". You will have to give examples to establish the claim that in every case NT writers interpret literally.”
“But typology is by definition non-literal.” That is not true. Joseph’s life is, in many ways, a type of Christ’s life. Joseph’s life events, forming a parallel with those of Jesus, were literal events. So also those of Christ with whom they form a comparison.
All you have to do Matthew is look at every passage in the gospels where the writer says, “this was done that it might be fulfilled,” and you will see that all were fulfilled literally. You have brought up one possible exception, in Matt. 2:15 (which is really not an exception at all, but very literal), but do you have others? You do admit that Israel being called out of Egypt was literal. You admit that Christ coming out of Egypt is literal. Where is the figurative interpretation? Did Jesus and Israel not literally come out of Egypt? If it is all figurative, what does Egypt symbolize?
You say,
“Another decisive question for me is the nature of the genre of apocalyptic. Were books like Revelation meant to be taken literally? I would not call N. T. Wright's position "unlearned," since he is a recognized scholar in Jewish history and has spent his life studying it. I wish I had Wright's book with me. Then I could give you some examples in Jewish literature where apocalyptic language is taken non-literally. Also, I believe that Jeremiah's prophecy about the exile is not considered "apocalyptic." It is a prophecy. Apocalyptic is a different genre that invokes the use of fantastic symbols (frequently seen in visions) to describe future events. For example, the moon turning to blood, the sun darkening and billows of smoke coming from the earth. Do you have any evidence to show that the Jews took this kind of language literally? The reason Exodus is literal and Revelation is not is because the former is a historical genre and the latter is an apocalyptic genre.”
So, since Daniel and Revelation are, by you, classed as Apocalyptic, and since you define “apocalyptic” as non literal literature, then you take nothing in these books literally? Is this your rule for studying these books? Take them all non-literally?
I called Wright’s opinion unlearned because nearly all learned scholarship says just the opposite. The Jews interpreted very literally those writings in the Old Testament that were styled “apocalyptic.” There is all kinds of proof for this statement. Is apocalyptic literature not in the class of prophetic scripture? You are saying that prophecy can be literal but not apocalyptic. Apocalyptic is part of the genre of the prophetic. Where are you getting your definitions of “apocalyptic”? How are you coming up with the rule that says all apocalyptic writing is non literal?
You then write:
“One argument that Revelation is symbolic is that it is a vision. Visions in the Bible are mysterious because they are non-literal. That's also why Pharoah and Nebuchadnezzar needed an interpreter. Daniel needed the angel to explain his vision to him. Joseph's vision was not meant to say that stalks of corn would literally bow down to him. What makes us think John's vision is any different?”
If it is a vision, then it is non literal? Where did you come up with that? Many of the OT prophets spoke of their entire writings as being “visions.” So, you take all said in these prophet’s writings as therefore non literal. Nothing in Amos, for instance, is literal? It is all the result of vision! Your hermeneutic rule that says all visions and apocalyptic writings are non-literal simply will not work, as I am sure, upon deeper reflection, you will agree.
You next write:
“It seems to me that Peter in Acts 2:19-20 does not take cosmic language literally. He says that the prophecy in Joel is fulfilled in Pentecost, but the sun did not literally go out at that time. Now of course you can always appeal to a two-fold fulfillment, but I don't see that anywhere in the text. I don't think the article you quoted answers this. Your article claims that Peter quoted Joel to give OT precedent to what was going on. I agree. But why then did Peter quote the part about cosmic signs that was yet to be fulfilled? It seems confusing to say "This is what is going on now" and then quote a prophecy about the future. If the "vapor of smoke" or "darkening of sun" were understood in Jewish culture as a figure for something (like maybe judgment) then it would not bother me that the first part was literal and the second part figurative. It would not surprise me that many poems and other genre mix literal and figurative language in the same context.”
Then, you tell me what the “sun turning into darkness” and the “moon into blood” signifies if not the literal sun and moon. What is the sun a symbol of, if it is not the literal sun? What is the moon a figure of? What do we make out of “vapor of smoke” if it is not literal vapor and literal smoke? Can you tell me or is it just left up to your whim?
And, you never did see the weight of the argument on this passage that I presented. Why is the outpouring of the Spirit literal but the other parts not? Why is the receiving of visions and dreams literal, but the sun, moon, and vapor of smoke not? Your position on this passage says that part of it is literal and part figurative. Which parts are which? How did you determine which were which?
You then write:
“Similarly, I don't see a two-fold fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy in the Bible either. Jesus specifically says that John fulfilled the prophecy. I don't find Seiss's commentary on Matthew 17:10-13 very convincing, mainly because the summary statement in v. 13 that Jesus is talking about John the Baptist. To me Jesus seems to be saying, "I agree with the scribes that Elijah will come first, but I'm telling you he already has come." That being said, I do find the evidence you presented from the church fathers very challenging on this point. If there is no opposite testimony in the fathers, I'm inclined to lean toward a literal coming of Elijah based on patristic evidence.”
Well, I am sorry about that. So, John the Baptist restored all things? What about Peter placing the “restitution of all things” at the return of Jesus? (Acts 3) Did you not see the weight of that argumentation?
Why are you so hung up on finding authority in the church fathers? They were not infallible. Besides, the fathers disagreed on issues much the same way we do today.
I am also sorry that you did not see the weight of Seiss’s comments on Matt. 17. John the Baptist was dead at that time, yet Jesus says, “Elijah shall first come and restore all things.” Plus, the prophecy of Malachi shows that the coming of Elijah would usher in the “great and terrible day of the Lord,” which is the day of wrath, still future. Did you overlook this for any good reason?
Next you say,
“I am not stubbornly against a literal reading of apocalyptic texts. In fact, for many years I interpreted them this way and still am open to it. However, I think it is possible that they are not meant to be interpreted this way. I prefer a posteriori evidence like testimony from the church fathers over a priori evidence such as a certain interpretive method that determines the meaning.”
The rule is to interpret literally first, and if to do so is not possible, for whatever reason, then a figurative interpretation is then allowed. All the great leaders in the church have acknowledged this safe rule. For instance, Luther and Calvin and Gill all said this.
You next write:
“If you allow that there are some genres which are meant to be read with lots of symbolism, then we agree. In symbolic genres, the rule you advocate would not apply. So then the question becomes whether or not Revelation is a symbolic or a literal genre, and that is a historical question.”
I acknowledge that the whole Bible is to be taken at face value, literally, and that those times when symbolism and figurative language is used, it is evident and clear. Why not take Revelation literally (except where we are told not to do so)? We exclude the literal when to do so brings in absurdities and contradictions. My own view is that those who take Revelation figuratively have all kinds of problems.
Again, let me thank you for this little discussion. I am sorry I could not help you further. I was once, as I said, an Amillenialist and argued much the same way as you. But, I am now fully convinced of the hermeneutic rules of which I have written.
God bless as you seek to serve him and to know his will.
Steve
The following is the lastest correspondence from my friend. I will follow with my response to this letter.
Dear Stephen:
I think our disagreement stems from the fact that we apply different weights to certain arguments. If I found the arguments as convincing as you do, I would probably agree. I am not dogmatic that all apocalyptic is non-literal, and might I change my mind after more study.
I will, however, offer a few more thoughts.
I suppose I do have a rule that says "interpret literally unless there is reason not to", in the strictest sense of the word. I reason I shun that rule as stated is because it is typically associated with a more dogmatically literalistic tradition of interpretation than I am prepared to assert. It is like the phrase "once saved, always saved." As a Calvinist I agree that a person, if saved, is always saved, but I refrain from using that slogan because it has been championed by people like Zane Hodges in arguing for a view that Christians who apostasize are saved, a view which is heretical in my opinion.
"then you have no rules of hermeneutics. You interpret based on what? By the ordinary rules of grammar? How do you know when to interpret literally and when to interpret figuratively? Are you interpreting my words literally? Are you taking what I write figuratively?”
I don't think there is a line in the sand or specific criteria that work in all cases to determine literal vs. figurative. If I were to make a dogmatic judgment about apocalyptic language, I would do research into the genre of Jewish apocalyptic and try to see how it is supposed to be interpreted. Genre needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. Also, even if a genre is largely allegorical, it does not mean that every word in it is allegorical. I understand that you claim a study of history has already shown that the Jews interpreted the so-called apocalytpic language very literally.
I have always maintained, even in our correspondence, that common sense and genre do help determine whether words are to be taken strictly literal or figurative.
I know. One of the difficulties of argument is determining where we disagree and where we agree. I think this is an area of agreement. I sense that we agree theoretically--that when a person interprets figuratively, there is some reason for it. But I sense that in practice, I tend to be more open to a figurative view than you are. For example, to you discussion of the literal moon turning to blood have to be literal because you can't think of any other sense. I'm not so sure. What does it mean to interpret literally where possible? It is logically possible to imagine God turning the moon to blood. If by the rule you mean that everything written in Scripture that is logically possible (through miracle) must be interpreted interpreted literally, unless Scripture says it is a sign. Then I disagree with the rule. For example, I think (based on N. T. Wright) that the moon turning to blood could be a poetic figure describing a judgment. Or maybe it is a world-changing event. Or maybe it is literal. I'm not going to be dogmatic about which it is. I don't know enough about history to say. If I read the ancient Jews and they always took this kind of prophecy literally then I would be more sure that it was literal. However, you have not given an example from the Bible or other sources (or I don't remember it) that proves Jews took apocylaptic language to be literal. It also is common sense that these celestial sign imageries could be meant as a figure. In many Western works, for example, people use poetic words about the heavens to express what they are trying to say.
Every writer wants to be understood. When a writer uses symbolic language, he does so knowing that the reader will know it is symbolic. Too, Bible writers, when using symbols, use symbols that are well understood and whose meanings are apparent. When Paul tells the early church to “beware of dogs,” I am sure that he knew that his readers would know that he was speaking of people, not animals. So too when Jesus says, about Herod, “go tell that fox,” the figure is understood. Sure, there were times when Jesus used figures, but those figures were for the purpose of conveying literal truth and were figures that had a clear meaning in scriptural and common usage.
I am arguing that perhaps in the Jewish and early church societies it was clear that apocalyptic language of cosmic destruction was meant to be interpreted symbolically, but that in our modern culture we have lost that common assumption.
“But typology is by definition non-literal.” That is not true. Joseph’s life is, in many ways, a type of Christ’s life. Joseph’s life events, forming a parallel with those of Jesus, were literal events. So also those of Christ with whom they form a comparison. . . Where is the > figurative interpretation? Did Jesus and Israel not literally come out of Egypt? If it is all figurative, what does Egypt symbolize?
I belive that typology is non-literal because it applies a text that is literally referring to a specific historical event and says that it also refers to some other completely different event, even though there is no literal reference to the later event in the text. The Matthew example I maintain is non-literal despite the fact that Jesus literally came out of Egypt. This is because (as I said before) the Hosea text says nothing about Jesus. If a text is to be interpreted "literally," if has to be fully literal. If any regular person (not an inspired apostle) interpreted Hosea 11:1 that way without biblical support, you would accuse him of illegitmately reading into the text and not being able to support his exegesis with grammatico-historical method. That is a problem that scholars have been puzzled with over the GH method-- that the inspired apostles did not seem to use it. Also many of the church fathers didn't either. (However, some of the fathers were too allegorical in my opinion.)
I can know that a passage is symbolic without knowing what the symbol means. However, if I had to guess I believe that Matthew is asserting that Jesus "relives" the "life" of Israel because he is the "new" Israel. The fact that Jesus came out of Egypt just like Israel shows that he is the new Israel.
So, since Daniel and Revelation are, by you, classed as Apocalyptic, and since you define “apocalyptic” as non literal literature, then you take nothing in these books literally? Is this your rule for studying these books? Take them all non-literally?
I would admit that they are not apocalyptic if scholars showed they were not. I don't think the entire apocalyptic book must be interpreted figuratively. No genre is TOTALLY symbolic, because then you wouldn't be able to understand anything in it.
How are you coming up with the rule that says all apocalyptic writing is non literal?
Again, I am not dogmatic that this is the case, because I haven't read enough on this topic. But it seems most plausible to me at this point.
If it is a vision, then it is non literal? Where did you come up with that? Many of the OT prophets spoke of their entire writings as being “visions.” So, you take all said in these prophet’s writings as therefore non literal. Nothing in Amos, for instance, is literal? It is all the result of vision! Your hermeneutic rule that says all visions and apocalyptic writings are non-literal simply will not work, as I am sure, upon deeper reflection, you will agree.
Perhaps. Admittedly I am not very familiar with Amos.
Then, you tell me what the “sun turning into darkness” and the “moon into blood” signifies if not the literal sun and moon. What is the sun a symbol of, if it is not the literal sun? What is the moon a figure of? What do we make out of “vapor of smoke” if it is not literal vapor and literal smoke?
Again, I can understand that something is symbolic without knowing what it means. If I had to guess (and it is only a guess because for all I know it is literal), I would argue that it is language of cosmic destruction meant to imply that the old world (the Jewish system) is giving way to the in-breaking of the kingdom of God in Christ. Jesus inaugerated a new kingdom by giving the Holy Spirit. The old world is passing away and the new has come. So the "sun" of the old world is darkened and the "moon" is destroyed. I would quote N. T. Wright as support. But again, this is only a guess. It is possible that it is literal, but if I were to assert that, I would still only be guessing.
Can you tell me or is it just left up to your whim?
I think the reason people are attracted to literalistic interpretation is because without that rule, people are worried that biblical interpretation will run wildly into allegory and have no controls. Part of this is a product of the Reformation, I believe. When you say "scripture alone" you have to make sure that every ordinary reader will be able to come to the same conclusion about what the Bible says without any recourse to tradition.
Of course the meaning is not left up to my whim. There is an actual meaning to be found. It would be determined by looking at how Jews interpreted similar types of language. However they did it would give us the most likely rule for how we should do it (since it was Jews who were writing). On this point I am not yet convinced that Jews took all such language literally.
Why are you so hung up on finding authority in the church fathers? They were not infallible. Besides, the fathers disagreed on issues much the same way we do today.
The fathers are of course fallible. But they give us clues to what the apostles actually taught. Some of them actually heard people who spoke with the apostles. If all the church fathers say something, and none of them disagree, there is a high probability that they got this doctrine from the apostles. Where else would it come from? (And if we can see that it did not come from the apostles, then that is a different story.) So I think it is convincing that all the fathers believe in a literal return of Elijah and that none (presumably) deny it. Where else would they get this, if not from the apostles? The scriptural evidence is less convincing. It is based solely on a rigid interpretation of one statement of Christ saying that "Elijah will come and restore all things" and this statement occurs in a passage which explicitly says that Jesus was referring to John the Baptist (Mt 17:13). But what does "all things" mean? Not even the Mal passage literally asserted that Elijah would restore of "all things." (This case is similar to Rom 5-- I think-- where Paul says that "all men" will be saved in Christ.) Furthermore, if Matthew is defending a future return of Elijah, he does not make it clear because he states in summary that the disciples misunderstood that Jesus was talking about John the Baptist.
I think the church fathers can be critically examined to clear up many disputes that are not clear in Scripture.
Plus, the prophecy of Malachi shows that the coming of Elijah would usher in the “great and terrible day of the Lord,” which is the day of wrath, still future. Did you overlook this for any good reason?
It admit that it is a difficulty, but I don't think it is decisive. I think that time periods in the OT are do not always follow directly on one another. The day of the Lord may be still yet future, but Elijah has already come and Christ is ushering in that day already. I don't know what you think about Daniel 9, but if there is a literal 7-year tribulation it is clear that the 70th week does not follow directly on the 69th week. Similarly, Elijah can come and then the great and terrible day of the Lord happens thousands of years later. He has ushered it in, because he prepared the way for Christ, who then conquered sin and will judge the world. I also question when the day of the Lord is because Peter (in my opinion) says that Joal 2 is fulfilled in Pentecost, but Joel 2 says that the old men will see visions on the day of the Lord. However, Paul seems to refer to the day of the Lord as something yet future. Therefore, I wonder if the day of the Lord is part of the already/not yet tension. It has already come, but a part of it is yet future. (Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven was AT HAND back in his day). So in some sense Elijah=John did come in order to usher in the day of the Lord.
I acknowledge that the whole Bible is to be taken at face value, literally, and that those times when symbolism and figurative language is used, it is evident and clear. Why not take Revelation literally (except where we are told not to do so)? We exclude the literal when to do so brings in absurdities and contradictions. My own view is that those who take Revelation figuratively have all kinds of problems.
The problem is what is "absurd". Is there going to be a literal 10 headed beast walking about on the earth and trying to swallow a baby? (Sorry if I mix biblical metaphors in my unfamiliarity with the issues.) I don't think so. These are symbols. But it is just as possible for God to create such a beast as it is for him to turn the moon into blood. What exactly constitutes an "absurdity"?
I agree that the symbols would (probably) have been clear to the original audience. (Although even Daniel writes about visions with symbols that he does not understand himself.) But since I think clarity is culturally and linguistically relative (what's clear to you may not be clear to me), I accept that what was once clearly figurative may now be clearly literal (or vice versa, of course).
God bless!
Dear ******:
Thanks again for your latest correspondence. It is remarkable that you, as a busy physician (?), are taking time to converse with me on Bible doctrine.
I notice that you are living and working in ********.
I rejected Amillenialism because of its spiritualizing and allegorizing, often done on an individual whim. There is very little uniformity of opinion, among Amills, on prophecy, especially unfulfilled prophecy and the Book of Revelation. There were no rules of interpretation and the literal was often denied and replaced with far fetched ideas that have no foundation in scripture.
You write:
“I suppose I do have a rule that says "interpret literally unless there is reason not to", in the strictest sense of the word. I reason I shun that rule as stated is because it is typically associated with a more dogmatically literalistic tradition of interpretation than I am prepared to assert.”
You state that you accept the rule to interpret literally unless there is reason not to, but, then you turn around and say you “shun” the same rule. The reason? It leads to “a more dogmatically literalistic tradition of interpretation.” Give me some examples. I do not know the abuse that you are talking about. But, granting, for the sake of argument, that some do go too literal (I can think of the Mormons and how they take literally verses about God being a man and repenting) in interpretation of the Bible, would that prove that the literal method is unsound? Then, would the same logic not also say that since some are too allegorical then the allegorical method is false? You know that the abuse of a thing does not make the thing as being right or good.
Your instability, in regard to the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, is evident in your letters. At times you accept while at other times you reject the same proposition. Sometimes all apocalyptic writings are figurative, then, at other times, most of it is, etc.
You say you accept the rule, stated above, and then say,
“I don't think there is a line in the sand or specific criteria that work in all cases to determine literal vs. figurative.”
Is not “literal first unless reason not to” a criteria? Why will it not work in all cases? Can you give me an example?
You say, “I sense that we agree theoretically--that when a person interprets figuratively, there is some reason for it.”
If we agree on this, then why do you keep “shunning” it, and going back on it? What are the reasons, the criteria, that we have agreed on? What would justify taking a verse non-literally?
There are three basic views, with variations, of how the Bible is to be interpreted. One says, “all, or nearly all, of the Bible, is non-literal, myth, allegory, and symbolism.” Another, which is yours, says, “most of the Bible is literal except for the prophetic parts, especially unfulfilled prophecy, which are purely non-literal.” The third says “all, or mostly all, is literal, non-figurative.” I avow, with a long and notable list of holy men.
What we need to find out is how can we, as God’s people, know when to take the word of God literally and when to take it non-literally.
I am sure that you have run into those (Liberals) who seek to make everything in the Bible myth and allegory, that which never literally happened. The story of Adam and Eve, the Flood, Jonah, etc., you would argue, to these allegorizers, literally happened. Illustrations and allegories may be made from these literal stories, as Paul did in Galatians, but they always assume the literal to be true. The arguments you would use to establish the literalness of these stories are the same ones I will use against you in allegorizing the prophetic portions of the Bible.
Most conservatives, those who take the Bible at face value, are reluctant, as you, to say that the Bible is non-literal, as do the Liberals. And, I think it bothers you, due to the apparent inconsistency, that you are guilty of the same kind of interpretation as they. My dad is the same way. He interprets, like all Amills, the Bible literally except for those portions dealing with the coming of Christ, his kingdom, and the reign of saints on the earth.
In one of your recent e-mails, you say:
“One important distinction I would make is between a historical interpretation and literal interpretation. A Bible passage might be talking about a historical event without doing so literally.”
Can you name me one passage that does that? That is something I think a Liberal, who denies the literal Adam and Eve, the story of Jonah, would say. Genesis is history, right? So is Exodus, right? What historian writes figuratively? Did Gibbon? Did Josephus? Luke was an inspired Christian historian, as was Moses. Why would he, or Moses, want to write a history in symbolic language?
Again, I repeat what you said, –“I sense that we agree theoretically--that when a person interprets figuratively, there is some reason for it.”
What possible reason would anyone offer, as justification, for taking the entire Bible symbolically? Those who do so, the Liberals, do so because, to take it literally would overthrow their preconceived ideas about God and the world. If they make it all allegorical, then they can interpret anyway they want and make the Bible support their theories.
What possible reason would any Conservative Christian offer, as justification, for taking the prophetic or apocalyptic scriptures symbolically, as the Liberals do the whole of scripture?
Again, it is because he sees in the literal interpretation of prophetic and apocalyptic scripture teachings which overthrow, likewise, his preconceived view of things.
What is it about the literal interpretation of prophecy that has you “shunning” literal interpretation? You shun not from literal interpretation in some parts. When you read, “He died for our sins,” you interpret literally. Why? Why not say it was not literal physical death? When you read, Christ “was buried,” why do you interpret literal physical burial? Why could it not be a “burial in grief” or some other spiritual or figurative burial?
What prophecies, speaking of the first coming of Christ, were not literally fulfilled, but only fulfilled figuratively? Your argument on Matthew and Hosea is very weak. Surely you have more weight to your theory than that. Why don’t you produce a list of prophecies, concerning the first coming of Christ, that were not literally fulfilled?
Again, I ask you, what is it about interpreting the prophecies concerning Christ second coming, his reign on earth with the saints, the millennium, the new heavens and earth, that make you want to not believe it literally? Does it overthrow Calvinism? Calvinism takes the Bible literally, hence their Calvinism. Premillenialists take prophecy literally, as a rule, and hence charge Amillenial Calvinists with inconsistency.
You may say that it is a case of different kinds of genre. But, you have shown that is not so, for you aver that no genre is strictly literal or symbolic.
You are developing a criteria for interpretation. You are getting close to fully accepting the literal so long as no justifiable reason, like 1) common sense 2) context or direct statement of the writer 3) possible contradiction to other plain scriptures, dictates otherwise.
So, perhaps, you should start producing eschatological passages that, you think, proves that a literal interpretation is not justified and a figurative one is. Your reference to Acts to prove Joel was not literally fulfilled fell short. Let me recap that and add a little thereto.
You insist that Peter’s citation of Joel’s prophecy, wherein he says, in reference to the outpouring of the Spirit, speaking in tongues, the cloven fire and rushing mighty wind, on the day of Pentecost, “this is that,” then Peter was saying the whole of the prophecy was being fulfilled on that very day.
Since the sun did not turn to darkness nor the moon into blood, nor pillars of smoke appear, therefore, it must mean something else. Then, you try to make it mean something else! What you should do is realize that Peter was not saying the whole of the prophecy was being fulfilled that very day. He did see what was happening as an inauguration of the prophecy, but he never said the whole of it was taking place before them.
No one saw visions or dreamed dreams that day. Later on in Acts we see this literally happening, but not that day. But, “this is that” must refer to what was taking place that day, not weeks or years later. So, if you are going to say, “whatever of Joel’s prophecy did not literally happen that day figuratively happened that day,” then you must say that dreams and visions are not literal dreams and visions but are symbolic of something else other than dreams and visions.
Also, the prophecy of Joel says God will pour out his Spirit “upon all flesh.” Did that happen that day? No, only 120 were affected, those in the upper room. They were all Jews too. How could “all flesh” mean only 120 Jews on Pentecost? Yet, “all flesh” was the object of the outpouring of the Spirit! I guess “all flesh” somehow figuratively had the Spirit poured on them that day?
The Liberal says that the darkening of the sun, during the crucifixion, was not literal. How are you any different when you say the darkening of the sun, spoken of by Joel and Peter, is also not literal, without being obviously contradictory?
The Liberal says that the darkness plague of Egypt was a myth, an allegorical story with only a moral lesson. You would say it is literal. But, when you come to darkness on earth, during the Tribulation, in the Apocalypse, you take it not literally?
It will become important for you to define what you mean by “apocalyptic” scripture. Can you identify those parts for me? How is it different from prophetic?
You said, “If it is reasonable to interpret literally, then do so. But what reason is there to apply this rule?” Well, the Liberal, who takes all the Bible allegorically, would ask you the same question in relation to those places you do take the Bible literally.
It is reasonable to take histories literally. It is reasonable to take fulfilled prophecy literally for it was testified to be so in the New Testament. It is reasonable to take all the Bible literally except where obvious figures of speech are used, or where the writer says he is speaking symbolically, or where common sense dictates otherwise.
You say, “I tend to be more open to a figurative view than you are.” Well, the Liberal tends to be more open to a figurative view than are you. You interpret much, as I do, literally. I am just trying to get you to interpret unfulfilled prophecy, prophecies about the new heavens and new earth, of Christ’s coming kingdom, the same way you do the other portions of the Bible. I am trying to get you to be consistent.
Are you telling me that Peter, on the day of Pentecost, thought his hearers all understood Joel’s prophecy as figurative?
You write: “I think (based on N. T. Wright) that the moon turning to blood could be a poetic figure describing a judgment.”
I have heard all this before. Allegorizers can take lengthy descriptions of an event, in the Bible, and sum it all up in very vague and general terms. You take very specific descriptions, like the sun being darkened, the moon turning into blood, and such like, and say, “it speaks of judgment.” Of course it is judgment, but not just a vague and general judgment, but a specific judgment. Well might we just say of the whole book of Revelation, “it is all symbolic of judgment” and leave it at that?
As I asked you to define “apocalyptic” scripture, so I ask you also to define what you mean by “poetic figure describing judgment.” I have heard spiritualizers say “poetic expression,” it can’t be literal. Do poets not write in literally understood words and sentences? Yes, they use similes and metaphors, they use symbols and make allusions, but you cannot say “poetic expression” is by nature non literal. I could say, “her hair is like silk and she is a gem.” That is poetic, right? But, just because I use simile and metaphor in poetry, does that mean I am writing in a completely figurative genre?
You say that you do not know whether an expression predicting cataclysmic events are literal or symbolic. Then how can you argue to the Liberal that any of the cataclysms of the Bible are literal? How can you prove the flood was literal? The destruction of Sodom?
You also say that things can be symbolic, in the Bible, and yet we have no way of knowing for sure what the symbols refer to. You say, “I can know that a passage is symbolic without knowing what the symbol means.” How so? Can you say, conversely, that you can know that a passage is literal without knowing what it literally means?
Symbols used in the Bible can be found used in more than one place and in such a way that a clear understanding of the signification of the symbol is known. Where did any NT writer ever interpret an OT passage non-literally? Words are often expanded in their use, in the progressive revelation of God, and will often carry extended connotations. “Abraham’s seed” thus may refer to any of the physical descendants, individually or collectively, or it may refer to Christians who are his seed as they are in Christ by faith.
Something can actually be both symbolic and literal. I believe I am promised a crown, for instance. I believe it to be literal, to be worn on my head, in my glorified body. But, does it not also symbolize authority and power? Royalty?
You say, “However, you have not given an example from the Bible or other sources (or I don't remember it) that proves Jews took apocalyptic language to be literal.”
I have shown that Matthew took prophecy literally. Every prophecy that he says was fulfilled, in his gospel, was literally fulfilled. He was Jewish. I have shown that the Jews who came to John the Baptist, asking, “are you Elias,” believed that the coming of Elias would be literal. You think that Christ was teaching them non literal interpretation by referring the whole of the prophecy to John and to his first coming.
Jesus’s teaching about John being Elias was first taught to his disciples in Matthew 11. Why then, after John’s death, in Matthew 17, do these same disciples come asking him questions about the coming of Elias? They must still be looking for him or else forgot what Christ taught them. This all occurred on the holy mount, when Christ appeared glorious, and Moses and Elias was with him in the same. Peter later writes about this experience on the mount (II Peter 1). He says that this mount experience was connected with Christ’s parousia and coming glory. If so, then Elias is connected with it. Besides, as I have said, and which you have overlooked, is that Peter puts the “restoration of all things” at the second coming in Acts 3. The restoration of all things is connected with the coming of both Elias and Christ. All things are not restored. Eden is still lost. Death reigns and the curses abound. One day all will be restored.
You further write: “It also is common sense that these celestial sign imageries could be meant as a figure. In many Western works, for example, people use poetic words about the heavens to express what they are trying to say.”
You think Joel’s prophecy was understood by those present, on Pentecost, as poetic language that meant the old covenant was being abolished and the new being instituted? You think they understood that “moon turning into blood” meant simply some kind of vague general judgment, upon who knows who?
So, in that day, one could say to another, “the moon turned into blood today,” and another know that he meant “judgment was rendered today”? What is “celestial sign imageries” that are figurative of something else? Give me some examples from the Bible where such celestial movements are referred to and yet mean something else, like the fall of a person.
You say, “I am arguing that perhaps in the Jewish and early church societies it was clear that apocalyptic language of cosmic destruction was meant to be interpreted symbolically.”
Give me an example. What is such prophetic language symbolic of? If earthquakes do not mean earthquakes, but something else, then what? If the destruction of the Jewish temple, where one stone is not left upon another, is not literal destruction, then what is it symbolic of? If “stars (meteors) falling to the earth” does not mean literal stars and earth, then what do the stars and earth represent? What kind of falling is it then? If you have no other Bible passages that use these figures in apparently figurative ways, then you are at a loss and it is no wonder you say you cannot know what the symbols mean, in symbolic books, only that they are symbols. But, how do you know they are symbols if you cannot discern their signification?
You say, “No genre is TOTALLY symbolic, because then you wouldn't be able to understand anything in it.” But, you say that without remembering, it seems, that you were willing to grant that genre, like common sense, was a valid rule or criteria. But, if genre can be either or, then it cannot be a criteria.
You say further:
“I would argue that it is language of cosmic destruction meant to imply that the old world (the Jewish system) is giving way to the in-breaking of the kingdom of God in Christ. Jesus inaugurated a new kingdom by giving the Holy Spirit. The old world is passing away and the new has come. So the "sun" of the old world is darkened and the "moon" is destroyed. I would quote N. T. Wright as support.”
The problem with this? You have already said that Peter was using figurative language that the Jews, to whom he was preaching, had a clear understanding of the meaning. Then they already understood it before he preached it to them, right? They understood that “sun” meant “old world” of the Jewish law covenant? They understood that the “turning of moon into blood” meant a new kingdom was being established? Talking about weak or weighty arguments, I would have to classify that as very menial.
You write further:
“Of course the meaning is not left up to my whim. There is an actual meaning to be found. It would be determined by looking at how Jews interpreted similar types of language. However they did it would give us the most likely rule for how we should do it (since it was Jews who were writing). On this point I am not yet convinced that Jews took all such language literally.”
The important point is not how any particular Jew interpreted the OT scriptures, but how Jesus and the NT writers, who were Jews (except Luke), interpreted. Show me where any NT writer took an OT prophecy and interpreted it non literally. Can you do it? Can you show this to be the predominant method? For, whatever is predominant is the rule. The exception is never the rule. You seem, like all Amills, want to make an exception, a rule.
You say,
“Is there going to be a literal 10 headed beast walking about on the earth and trying to swallow a baby? (Sorry if I mix biblical metaphors in my unfamiliarity with the issues.) I don't think so. These are symbols.”
Again, if you will read the passages dealing with the beast, you will see our rule at work in the hands of the Apostle. John tells us that the seven heads are symbols. “They are seven kings”! What do the “ten horns” represent? John tells us that they “are ten kings.” You seem to imply that we must interpret the beast all literally. Yet, the rule is still there, for we interpret literally unless we are told not to, which we are, in the passages dealing with the beast!
You say, “Daniel writes about visions with symbols that he does not understand himself.”
I do not think that is wholly true. How could it be so when most of his symbols were interpreted for him by the angel? The “head of gold,” on the figurative image, was interpreted as representing the Babylonian kingdom. There is that rule again, the writer telling us what is symbolic and what the symbol means.
Well, this is long, and I probably left out several things I wanted to say. If I think of them, and judge them weighty, I will forward them on.
God bless
Stephen
Here is the latest reply from Matthew followed by my reply.
Dear Stephen:
I have been a bit busier lately, so I haven't had a chance to sit down and read your email. I would love to have you (and your family) over for dinner sometime with **** (my fiance) and I.
Let me clarify a few things. I disagree that my previous emails have been "unstable." Rather, I would describe my positions with the word "tentative." I am hesitant to say whether a given passage is literal or figurative because I have not studied the matter thoroughly (which is precisely why I don't want to write about it publicly). I can see how this could be seen as unstable vacilating. The rule says: "interpret literally unless there's a reason not to." My argument is that there is a plausible reason not to interpret some apocalyptic passages literally. Not definitive, but plausible. So I do not rule out a figurative interpretation, although I may not dogmaticly accept it yet. But I have not, to my knowledge, asserted a proposition and its opposite. If so, then it came out wrong.
I shun the rule because most people who advocate the rule do so in order to assert that all cosmic language ought to be taken literally. I do not share that belief as of yet. Therefore, I don't want to be misunderstood as advocating that belief by advocating the rule (guilty by association). I also think the rule is looser than you might (allowing a wider range of passages to be figurative). Also, thinking more about it, I might reword the rule like this: "interpret figuratively when there is reason to believe the writer cannot be speaking literally." The previous wording seems to say that literal reading is the default and the burden of proof is put on the figurative interpreter. I don't know if I would commit to that.
The crucial point in our debate is what the Jews thought about apocalyptic.
I do not commit to the position that everything in apocalyptic is figurative, but that much more of it is than in other genres.
The difference between Genesis and Revelation is that one is meant to be historical and the other is meant to be an apocalyptic vision. So I don't think taking Genesis literally is inconsistent with taking Revelation figuratively.
I previous proposed a reason that a conservative might take the apocalytpic passages figuratively: because that's (maybe) how they were meant to be taken by the Jewish authors of the time.
My distinction between historical and literal was meant to be a theoretical distinction. No actual historian that I know of writes history using allegory. But I think it is common for prophets to use allegory, even though they are talking about the future. For example, Daniel's vision talks about beasts, but it really refers to actual events in history.
You wrote: "Again, it is because he sees in the literal interpretation of prophetic and apocalyptic scripture teachings which overthrow, likewise, his preconceived view of things."
In some sense this is true. This is a phenomonen that Nicholas Wolterstorff called the "wax nose" phenomenon. He is a Christian philosopher who wrote a book called DIVINE DISCOURSE in which he argues that the way you know something is figurative is that it is not probably literal in the context given. He brought the case of my best friend saying, "Here comes Ronald Reagan." I have to know certain things in order to interpret this statement, i.e. that Ronald Reagan is dead, that he was a conservative politician, that he was President and most of my friends don't know the President, etc. Since these things make it probable (in this case, impossible) that I could be speaking literally, I interpret it figuratively to mean that someone with the same political views as Ronald Reagan is approaching. Of course, this rule makes interpretation culturally relative. The problem is that this supposedly turns scripture into a "wax nose." That is, you have to know something about God (e.g. that he is a spirit) before you can interpret the Bible (that certain passages are anthropomorphic). Everyone has to interpret through the lens of their perconceived ideas. If these preconceived ideas happen to be wrong, the interpretation will be wrong, and it will take a much larger argument (a broader cumulative case) in order to convince the person to change his mind. Wolterstorff could not answer the wax nose objection (the same that you are presenting to me) except to point out that it is the only way we CAN go about interpreting literary statements. It's what we have always done since birth. When a statement doesn't make sense literally, but we know it is true, then it must have some figurative meaning that we are missing (as in the above example). I think this latter point is decisivie.
I do not shun literal interpretation. I only shun the slogan "interpret literally unless there is reason not to."
I think a good case can be make that Paul meant "Christ was buried" to be taken literally, but such a case for Revelation is much weaker.
I do not think my case of Matthew is a weak example. However, I would not limit my understanding of Jewish apocalyptic to the Bible. I would also study the cultural context in which the Bible writers lived. I have not done the research, but I bet there are examples of apocalyptic langauge being meant as figurative by its authors.
I also do not think that my interpretation of Elijah "overlooks" anything. I see the weight of it differently than you. I concede that restores "all things" is a difficulty, but I have seen other places in the biblical where "all" is not meant literally (such as Romans 5 talking about the salvation of all men).
Furthermore, the Malachi prophecy does not mention "all things." That implies Jesus read more into Malachi than was there.
Figurative interpretation does not overthrow Calvinism because the theological statements that teach Calvinism are meant to be taken literally, but in the case of apocalyptic it is not so clearly literal.
Like I said, I think we need to take each type of genre or even each individual passage and determine its context to decide if it is literal or figurative.
What you should do is realize that Peter was not saying the whole of the prophecy was being fulfilled that very day. He did see what was
I must admit you are right that even the visions and dreams were not literally fulfilled on the very day of Pentecost (at least not that we know of). This undercuts my argument, but does not prove that the passage is literal. It remains possible (based on other data) that the cosmic imagery is a figurative description of something that will happen in the future (but even that was in some sense present as "the last day").
The Liberal says that the darkening of the sun, during the crucifixion, was not literal. How are you any different when you say the darkening of the sun, spoken of by Joel and Peter, is also not literal, without being obviously contradictory?
Incidentally, I accept the darkening of the sun at the cross as figurative because Eusebius talked about a pagan philosopher he also attested to a literal darkening that he tried to explain by an eclipse (although the pagan may have been answering a Christian argument without actually believing that the darkening occurred).
A darkening at the end times may also be possible, but what does the moon turning to blood mean? Does it turn red or or does it literally turn to blood? How literal do you want to be?
It will become important for you to define what you mean by “apocalyptic” scripture. Can you identify those parts for me? How is it different from prophetic?
I will have to research it before I can answer this definitively. A rough definition of apocalyptic might be "a prophetic vision pertaining to events of the future which is frequently describes using cosmic imagery."
You said, “If it is reasonable to interpret literally, then do so. But what reason is there to apply this rule?” Well, the Liberal, who takes all the Bible allegorically, would ask you the same question in relation to those places you do take the Bible literally.
And I would be obliged to answer him (e.g. with Burridge's book on the gospel as Greco-Roman biography).
Testament. It is reasonable to take all the Bible literally except where obvious figures of speech are used, or where the writer says he is speaking symbolically, or where common sense dictates otherwise.
The problem is what were obviously figures of speech or what was symbolic language to ancient Jews may not be figures too us. I do not have the knowledge now to defend this claim, but since I have heard experts assert it, I am open to it until I learn more.
You interpret much, as I do, literally. I am just trying to get you to interpret unfulfilled prophecy, prophecies about the new heavens and new earth, of Christ’s coming kingdom, the same way you do the other portions of the Bible. I am trying to get you to be consistent.
You see this as inconsistency, but remember that in my view there is a difference (even if I cannot now define it precisely) between the apocalyptic prophecies and other parts of the Bible. So it is not inconsistent.
Are you telling me that Peter, on the day of Pentecost, thought his hearers all understood Joel’s prophecy as figurative?
Yes, if they understood him correctly (and if it really was figurative). I don't assert (contrary to what you seemed to think) that all of Peter's hearers understood exactly what he was saying any more than they understood what Christ was saying.
just because I use simile and metaphor in poetry, does that mean I am writing in a completely figurative genre?
I do not think any genre is completely figurative. But I have seen in poetry cosmic language being used to describe world-changing events.
You say that you do not know whether an expression predicting cataclysmic events are literal or symbolic. Then how can you argue to the Liberal that any of the cataclysms of the Bible are literal? How can you prove the flood was literal? The destruction of Sodom?
I would have to research this more. I would start by looking at the differences in genre (and how they were interpreted by the early church) and then I would look for scientific evidence. It may be that I could not convince the liberal.
You also say that things can be symbolic, in the Bible, and yet we have no way of knowing for sure what the symbols refer to. You say, “I can know that a passage is symbolic without knowing what the symbol means.” How so? Can you say, conversely, that you can know that a passage is literal without knowing what it literally means?
Suppose a Republican friend of mine is approaching. If I say to a foreigner "here comes Ronald Reagan" and he knows Ronald Reagan is dead, but not that he was a political figure, then the foreigner would know that I am not speaking literally (because RR is dead) but he might not understand the figure--that I was making a political statement about my friend. Similarly, Daniel's vision was obviously symbolic and he did not take it literally. But he did not understand it until the angel revealed what it meant.
It is also (surprisingly) possible for a statement to be literal and not know what it means. If Paul says "the thing that restraineth" is now in the world but will someday be taken away, the Thessalonians know exactly what he is talking about but we are left to speculate (even though Paul is probably speaking literally).
The fact that no genre is completely symbolic does not rule genre out as a criteria for determining literalness. I think my criteria are probabilistic. If a genre is 80% figurative, then it is 80% probably that any given statement in it is figurative. That helps swing the argument in one way or the other. It does not have to be 100% figurative. If a genre is 50% figurative, then it leaves us with doubt about how to interpret, although other clues could easily give the answer.
Something can actually be both symbolic and literal. I believe I am promised a crown, for instance. I believe it to be literal, to be worn on my head, in my glorified body. But, does it not also symbolize authority and power? Royalty?
This certainly complicates matters, although I would not commit to the literal crown, I admit it is possible.
How do you interpret Revelation 5? To me it seems like some of it is literal and some of it is figurative, but the author does not explicitly say it is figurative. Do you think there will be a literal lamb before God? (The elders identify him as a Lion actually.) I guess to me the whole of Revelation is so obviously figurative it is hard to take seriously the idea that it is literal unless the author explains it as a symbol. If the apostles had to explain every symbol, why not just write literally?
You have certainly presented a formidable argument and I will have to think about it some more. There are some more comments I have, but I will have to think about how to explain them clearly.
Sincerely,
******
Dear *****:
I again thank you for your recent correspondence. I do hope you are still enjoying our little discussion. I do believe it has been thus far in the Spirit of Christ and that God has been pleased with us in our attempts to clearly understand his word.
Generally I am busy but lately my work has slowed down and this has allowed me more time to reflect and study. Are you a doctor? If so, what specialty? I have several doctor friends here. One is a pathologist. I noticed you had your undergrad degree in microbiology. I can understand therefore your busy schedule and can only feel humbled that you feel time with me is worthwhile.
I appreciate too the invitation and will let you know when and my wife and I might be taking a trip to Ohio. My youngest brother is needing to go there over the next couple weeks and I do not know if I will take him or he goes on a bus. I may be without my wife however.
Take your time on reading my e-mails. I hope I have not been too verbose.
Congratulations on your impending marriage. I pray the Lord blesses you both exceedingly.
I have to wonder why you attend the Reformed Episcopal church. Did you not write against infant baptism and in favor of believer’s baptism? Do you support their church form of government? Are they predestinarian?
Brother *****, you write:
“Let me clarify a few things. I disagree that my previous emails have been "unstable." Rather, I would describe my positions with the word "tentative." I am hesitant to say whether a given passage is literal or figurative because I have not studied the matter thoroughly (which is precisely why I don't want to write about it publicly). I can see how this could be seen as unstable vacilating.”
Perhaps “unstable” was not the preferred word. Still, you acknowledge being hesitant and tentative. About making our correspondence public, I have copied our previous e-mails in my Apologetics journal but will not do so any longer. I am taking any reference to you out of the previous entries.
You next say,
“The rule says: "interpret literally unless there's a reason not to." My argument is that there is a plausible reason not to interpret some apocalyptic passages literally. Not definitive, but plausible. So I do not rule out a figurative interpretation, although I may not dogmaticly accept it yet.”
I think we are in agreement here. No person who accepts the Bible for what it says excludes interpreting figures of speech figuratively. All those who accept the literal interpretation of the Bible realize that figurative language is used in the Bible. But, they also assert that any symbolic or allegorical language is easily understood and explained by how the language is used throughout the Bible. We are not at a loss to know the meaning of prophetic symbols but can know their literal import and interpretation from Biblical usage.
You next write:
“I shun the rule because most people who advocate the rule do so in order to assert that all cosmic language ought to be taken literally.”
I must insist that you define “cosmic language.” You use this term like you do “apocalyptic language” and “apocalyptic prophecy.” As of yet you have yet to precisely define these terms so that a person could identify each part of the Bible as such. Are you saying that only prophecy predicting cosmic cataclysms are non-literal? II Peter chapter 3 is all non-literal? All the cosmic destruction delineated by Christ in his Olivet discourse and John in the Apocalypse?
I am amazed that you do not interpret “the sky turning to darkness” during the crucifixion as literal. Do the other writers in Christian-Truth share your views? Was the earthquake also not literal? Then what was the Roman soldier reacting to when he said, “surely this man was the Son of God”? When the text also says, “many of the bodies of the saints which slept arose and went into the holy city,” is this figurative too? If so, how can you say the resurrection of Jesus was literal?
It seems like you try to define words by using tautologies.
You next write:
“Also, thinking more about it, I might reword the rule like this: "interpret figuratively when there is reason to believe the writer cannot be speaking literally."
Well, that is all I affirm by interpreting the entirety of the Bible. We are agreed then? We take Jonah literally, as did Jesus, unless we are given solid reasons for not doing so? We take the destruction of Sodom literally, as did the subsequent inspired writers who commented upon it? We take the deluge under Noah literally too then? What reason have we for not doing so?
You next say:
“The previous wording seems to say that literal reading is the default and the burden of proof is put on the figurative interpreter. I don't know if I would commit to that.”
Is it not the default for the Bible as a whole? Why do you want to take most fulfilled prophecy literally, by default? Why do you by default see past miracles and cataclysms as literal (except for that which occurred when Jesus died) If you do not take the literal first method a priori, then you cannot defend taking any of the Bible literally and you, admittedly, cannot convert any who say the whole is figurative and allegorical.
You next affirm:
“The crucial point in our debate is what the Jews thought about apocalyptic.”
I do not agree with that. Anyone who knows anything about Jewish history, especially at the time of Christ’s birth and ministry, realizes that there was not uniformity of opinion about anything. You had sects then, among the Jews, some who interpreted literally and some not. We need not study books written by Jewish historians to understand the Bible. The Bible was written so that the common man could read and understand it. Studies of history can only augment that study. But, they are not necessary to understand it. Amillenialists cannot interpret Revelation and Daniel without knowing Maccabees, Josephus and Gibbon! You think the Lord sent us prophecies that we cannot understand without these man-made books?
No, the crucial point in our debate is what the Jews, to whom Jesus and the apostles actually conversed with, thought about the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. It is clear, if you look at the questions asked Jesus by the Jews, that they nearly all interpreted literally. Did they not look for a literal Elijah? Even if you say that Christ was showing them a non-literal fulfillment in John the Baptist, you are still affirming that the Jewish disciples were looking for a literal fulfillment (but that Christ was not).
Your crucial point would have more weight if you had said, “the crucial point is what Christ thought about the apocalyptic.”
You next write:
“I do not commit to the position that everything in apocalyptic is figurative, but that much more of it is than in other genres.”
But, you have no rule to help guide Ethiopian Christian type questions. They want to know which parts are literal and which not? Would the average person today, reading Acts, not be able to know which part of Joel’s prophecy was literal and which was not?
Actually, you should apply your rule to the whole of the Bible and not to just those parts that you call apocalyptic. You do not take the cosmic events connected with the crucifixion literally.
You next say:
“The difference between Genesis and Revelation is that one is meant to be historical and the other is meant to be an apocalyptic vision. So I don't think taking Genesis literally is inconsistent with taking Revelation figuratively.”
There are no prophecies in Genesis? Genesis has several prophecies. The first was given by God himself. It was literal even though he used figures of speech. The “seed of the woman” was literally fulfilled in Jesus being the seed of Eve. The “seed of the serpent” is literally fulfilled in the Anti-Christ. There are symbolic meanings connected with the literal, to be sure. Spiritually, the “seed of the woman” includes the elect. And, spiritually, the “seed of the serpent” signifies the reprobate. This is partially shown in the parable of the good and bad seed in Matthew 13.
Noah prophesied of a coming deluge to the antediluvians. Was he talking about future cosmic events? Was he not talking about a literal flood and a literal destruction?
In Genesis God told Moses that the Israelites would end up spending 400 years in Egypt. That was a prophecy. It was literally fulfilled. Now, Joseph was given a prophecy in a dream and it is clear that the imagery was not to be taken literally. As I said, we interpret literally unless reason forbids it, which it does in the dream prophecy of Joseph.
But, Joseph himself, while he is on his death bed, gives out startling prophecies for each of the tribes. And, even though he used figures of speech, he was talking about literal events in the lives of his descendants.
So, you agree then that histories are written in literal language. You even are willing to agree that many prophecies are but histories written in advance and are willing to take them literally. This is good.
You next write:
“I previous proposed a reason that a conservative might take the apocalytpic passages figuratively: because that's (maybe) how they were meant to be taken by the Jewish authors of the time.”
Would a person picking up the Bible today know that? Here again, you are affirming that the Bible cannot be understood by the average man today without a knowledge of the history of Jewish hermeneutics. That is just not tenable to conservative Christians who take the Bible at fact value.
You say next:
“But I think it is common for prophets to use allegory, even though they are talking about the future. For example, Daniel's vision talks about beasts, but it really refers to actual events in history.”
Common? How common? I have already challenged you to prove that. I have already asserted the opposite and believe it is so evident that you must be ignoring it. All, if not nearly all, of the prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ was literally fulfilled. You have not shown otherwise. I contend that, for instance, the prophecy of Zechariah that says, to Jerusalem, “thy king comes unto you, meek and lowly, and riding upon a colt, the foal of an ass,” was literally fulfilled.
Why did you overlook my point on the prophecies of Daniel? I think it is evident that Daniel believed in the rule to interpret literally unless he is told not to. He was told not to! He was told that the dream was all symbolic! If the norm was to do that anyway, why tell him? And, here is another very important point–even though symbolic language was used in his prophecies, they were not fulfilled symbolically but literally. Real empires were depicted by the head of gold, the arms of silver, the thighs of brass, the legs of iron. Literal kingdoms were symbolized by beasts. The lion was Babylon, as we are told! The bear corresponded to the two arms of the previous prophecy, being the dual Medo-Persian empire, etc.
Jesus said, about Daniel and his prophecies, “when you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place...” Was he not referring to a future historic event, something literal that their physical eyes could behold?
Did not Daniel interpret the prophecy of Jeremiah literally? Did Jeremiah not say that Israel would be held captive in Babylon for 70 years? Was it not as literally fulfilled as that of the 400 years that God told Moses the Israelites would be in Egypt? When God, during that long time, promised them a deliverer, did he not literally send Moses, who is a type of Christ?
I do not fully understand your “wax nose” discussion. I understand how “here comes Ronald Reagan” could be interpreted non-literally. But, it could only be understood as being non-literal by those who, as you say, knew beforehand 1) who he was, 2) that he was dead, and 3) that contextually the speaker discussing politics.
You think that the average Joe who picks up the Bible to read is reading statements after that manner? Getting away from the hypothetical, let us come down to reality and common sense. Do the average readers today need have all such information to interpret the Bible?
You then write:
“I do not shun literal interpretation. I only shun the slogan "interpret literally unless there is reason not to."
Then what is your rule? I still have no idea what it is.
You then write:
“I think a good case can be make that Paul meant "Christ was buried" to be taken literally, but such a case for Revelation is much weaker.”
Give me the facts of this “good case.” I am sure that the rules you use to prove literal interpretation of the prophecies that say Christ would be killed are just the one you are now rejecting. You do not show why a case for interpreting Revelation literally, unless we are given reasons not, from context and common sense, is weak.
You then say,
“I bet there are examples of apocalyptic langauge being meant as figurative by its authors.”
But, what would that prove? It would simply prove that there were differences of opinion on interpretation just as there are now. Your examples for interpreting prophecy, cosmic language, and apocalyptic writing, should not come from a Jewish sect but from the Jewish Christ and apostles. It should come from your study of the gospels and of the interactions recorded between Christ and the religious leaders recorded therein.
You then write:
“I concede that restores "all things" is a difficulty, but I have seen other places in the biblical where "all" is not meant literally (such as Romans 5 talking about the salvation of all men). Furthermore, the Malachi prophecy does not mention "all things." That implies Jesus read more into Malachi than was there.” But, Jesus and the apostles had the authority and inspiration to enlarge upon the original prophecies. I am surprised at you for finding some kind of argument in that for your case.
Two things, from the prophecy of Malachi and of Christ’s enlargement of it, are evident: 1) The coming of Elijah ushers in the “great and terrible day of the Lord” and the “time of the restitution of all things.” Neither of these occurred when John the Baptist appeared and partially fulfilled the prophecy.
Why would not full redemption involve restoring ALL that had been lost by sin and the fall? You believe that we will only be partially restored? What adjective would you place in between the words “all” and “things” that would serve to restrict it?
You then say,
“Figurative interpretation does not overthrow Calvinism because the theological statements that teach Calvinism are meant to be taken literally, but in the case of apocalyptic it is not so clearly literal.”
But, you gave no reasoned proof for this assertion. Those who deny the literalness of the Bible would make you prove it. How do you know that theological statements are “meant to be taken literally?” If it is not from how the apostles and prophets interpreted previous revelations, then from what? Did not Jesus, the prophets and apostles, as I have shown, not take the prophecies literally unless told not to or else it was self evident?
You then ask:
“A darkening at the end times may also be possible, but what does the moon turning to blood mean? Does it turn red or does it literally turn to blood? How literal do you want to be?”
Don’t know for sure. I would tend to think that since color is what was the object intended to convey, from the reference to the “sun be darkened,” then color too is the thing intimated by “moon being turned into blood.” Again, context leads me to think of blood as color or hue, not of literal blood.
Then you next argue, saying,
“A rough definition of apocalyptic might be "a prophetic vision pertaining to events of the future which is frequently describes using cosmic imagery."
That is almost a tautology. It is really not a clear definition. You use “apocalyptic” in a sense that is unique to yourself, it seems. You have limited figurative interpretation to those prophecies that deal with stars, earth, sun, moon, heavens, etc. So, if God wanted to speak of coming changes to the literal heavens, he could not do it? I bet you will revise your definition to say, “some prophecies dealing with the cosmos are non literal.” I bet these examples will turn out, upon further examination, to be very few, if any. So, you would still have to acknowledge, at that point, that the rule is secure. You interpret literally most of the time. Whatever you do most of the time is the norm or rule.
You then write:
“The problem is what were obviously figures of speech or what was symbolic language to ancient Jews may not be figures too us. I do not have the knowledge now to defend this claim, but since I have heard experts assert it, I am open to it until I learn more.”
I think the differences, culturally speaking, would be minute. God has, in his decision to use figures of speech, used such as the common man may know their significance. God would not be making his word plain for later generations did he use rare obscure symbols that only a small culture had any knowledge of. If he uses the figure of a sheep, for instance, I think most men will be able to grasp the significance. “All we like sheep have gone astray.” The word “like” tips us off to non literal interpretation. It is simile. But, you do not have to be Jewish to know something about sheep getting lost and going astray.
You then write:
“I don't assert (contrary to what you seemed to think) that all of Peter's hearers understood exactly what he was saying any more than they understood what Christ was saying.”
But, you should be asserting that to be consistent. You are telling me that Peter used symbolism that the Jews, at least since the days of Joel the prophet, knew was non-literal. If he used commonly understood Jewish symbolism, then they would have known exactly what was being taught by the symbols. So, my argument stands, for your position is, reductio ad absurdum, that the Jewish hearers on Pentecost knew Peter was talking about a new kingdom being set up by saying “the sun will be darkened and the moon turned into blood..” But, you must admit that the average Joe today would read those words and not come up with that interpretation. So, you make his understanding of the true interpretation absolutely dependent upon a knowledge of Jewish history. The average man might as well give it up or simply put his trust in some Jewish historical scholar.
You then say,
“I do not think any genre is completely figurative.”
But, you have forgotten that you said “theological genre” is all literal! You believe Bible histories are all literal, right? Plus, you have said that you DO believe that “prophecy dealing with cosmic things” are all figurative, right? Which is it then?
You then write:
“It is also (surprisingly) possible for a statement to be literal and not know what it means. If Paul says "the thing that restraineth" is now in the world but will someday be taken away, the Thessalonians know exactly what he is talking about but we are left to speculate (even though Paul is probably speaking literally).”
I just simply do not agree with that.
You then write:
“How do you interpret Revelation 5? To me it seems like some of it is literal and some of it is figurative, but the author does not explicitly say it is figurative. Do you think there will be a literal lamb before God? (The elders identify him as a Lion actually.) I guess to me the whole of Revelation is so obviously figurative it is hard to take seriously the idea that it is literal unless the author explains it as a symbol. If the apostles had to explain every symbol, why not just write literally?”
Well, now we are getting somewhere. If we are going to continue this friendly Bible study and discussion, then we need to get into some prophecy at some point. Since you have identified the Book of Revelation and of Daniel as being mostly “apocalyptic” (and so do many others), then we ought to begin there. So, I see no reason why the beginning of the Apocalypse proper should not be a good place to begin. First, I would ask you if you have access to the book by Seiss, called “The Apocalypse.” If so, then I would ask you to read him on chapter five. I adopt his views wholeheartedly on the significance of this seven sealed book. If you do not have access to it, then let me know and I will copy it from my copy of the book. Then, once we have that before us, we can begin to see how to interpret Revelation. Okay? I will save my answers to your questions on this chapter till Seiss' comments on chpt. 5 has been read by you.
You then conclude by writing:
“You have certainly presented a formidable argument and I will have to think about it some more. There are some more comments I have, but I will have to think about how to explain them clearly.”
It is my belief that what I am writing is much needed today in the Christian world. I am not saying anything but what fathers in the church have been saying since the days of the apostles. I believe that Jesus, together with the other inspired writers, interpreted the Bible literally as a rule.
Again, I want to say that I appreciate your spirit and willingness to learn and discuss. I look forward to hearing from you again.
May God richly bless you and yours.
Stephen
Recently I wrote to a Christian website about some things. This is an excellent web site and full of good teaching. I wrote the following recently:
Here is my first letter:
"I would like to see more articles on eschatology. Not many Calvinists are premillenial and pre-Trib. That is strange to me. I do believe in the literal historical method in hermenuetics."
I got the following correspondence from a writer there.
"I don't know much about eschatology. I used to be pre-mil pre-trib but interacting with others of different views has made me believe that the issue is actually quite complex. (I do not always adhere to a literal historical method in interpretation.) As of now I am pre-mil post-trib but this could change in the future. Roughly here is why.
I take this position because this seems to be the view of the earliest churches. For example, against our postmil/theonomy friends is the testimony of Eusebius who describes how grandsons of Jesus' brother Jude were taken before the emporer and questioned about Christ's kingdom. They said it is not of this world or anywhere on earth but angelic and in heaven, established at the end of the world. (This doesn't fit with the postmil argument the kingdom is earthly and continuing to advance so that the whole world will be governed by Christianity when Christ returns.) I think this tradition is accurate because Eusebius himself would biased AGAINST reporting it. Eusebius clearly did not believe in a literal thousand year reign because he chides Papias (and others) for believing it. Papias was someone who learned from people who knew the apostles themselves, and he believed in a literal millenium. Also, I can see how the millenium would be spiritualized later in church history as allegorical exegesis (which I think can be legitimate sometimes) became more prominent.
As to interpretive method, I don't adhere to a strict literal method because I think Paul uses allegory/typology to interpret the Old Testament (not taking it literally) and the genre of acopalypse and prophecy was meant to be interpreted figuratively (I've heard). Nobody interprets Revelation strictly literally (i.e. that there will be literal beasts swallowing each other). It's just a question of HOW literal its supposed to be I guess.
The literalness of interpretation is a matter of what genre the work belongs to. No one interprets poems (i.e. psalms) literally because it is understood by everything that the genre contains all kinds of metaphors and figures of speech. Similarly with apocalyptic.
I also see evidence in the Bible of an imminent return of Christ (also against postmil and possibly amil). I do not however see evidence for "two" comings of Christ, one in secret for the elect and one publicly.
Against amil (and postmil) I don't see strong evidence that Satan is bound presently, although of course Christ did win the victory at Calvary against Satan (and we have to make sense of what that means).
As for Mt 24, I think it's a big puzzle. I am open to the idea that it is solely referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (NT Wright and others argue this). However, it seems like at least some of it is talking about end times, because Paul alludes to the same traditions in 1 Th 4 and there Paul is clearly talking about the end times.
Anyway, there are some thoughts. But in short it's a complex issue and I haven't studied it enough yet.
Sincerely, ********
I then wrote the following in return.
Dear Brother *******:
I was taught Amillenialism and only got rid of it by personal Bible study. I also am post trib premillenial. I have posted some writings on this in http://www.apologetics.deardiary.net/ that you might want to see.
About the literal method; I believe that we have this rule given to us in the Scriptures and in the Apocalypse. We are to take the Scriptures literally unless told to do otherwise. For instance; in the Apocalypse the writer will stop and say, "this is a sign," showing that the norm is to interpret literally unless context or common sense tells us differently.
I do not see how Paul deviates from the literal method by his use of allegory in Galatians, no more than the use of metaphors does. Paul is not denying the literalness of the events regarding Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Hargar, Sarah, etc. Plus, the exception does not eliminate the rule, right?
People do take the Apocalypse literally except in those cases where the writer says not to. It is clear, even by the most ardent spiritualizer, that some things in the Apocalypse are literal. Is there then no rule to discern where to interpret literally and where not to? Is the rule not to first interpret literally unless the context or common sense indicate otherwise?
I must disagree on the idea of "imminency" in relation to Christ's return. I think this has led many into dividing the coming of Christ into two stages. I have posted some good writings on this in my Apologetics journal.
God bless my brother and thanks for taking the time to write back. Again, I want to say that I appreciate your spirit and work in the Lord.
Stephen
The following is another good e-mail from the brother with whom I have been carrying on a discussion in hermeneutics. He sent me this addition.
He writes:
"Dear Stephen:
Thanks for the thoughts on interpretation. I'm still working out kinks in my view on interpretation.
One important distinction I would make is between a historical interpretation and literal interpretation. A Bible passage might be talking about a historical event without doing so literally. (Just as some types of fiction might be meant to be understood literally even though it does not describe an actual historical event.) So I could take Revelation to describe some events that will or have occurred in history, but it may do so in a non-literal way. Another example might be Genesis. I personally believe that the day is a figure for a period of time. But I also believe it is referring to an actual, historical act of creation by God.
I agree that context and common sense determine when a passage ought to be taken literally, as in your example "he is a dog." If you are pointing to a person, then I know you are not speaking literally. I would simply include "genre" in the category of "common sense" or "context." The problem is that both common sense and context are culturally relative. What is common sense to us might not be to early Christians, or vice versa. For example, N. T. Wright argues that no Jew would take the apocalyptic language literally. They were used to hearing about the stars falling from the sky and the moon turning to blood (so says Wright). In their culture, that was known to be poetic language and it would bring up certainly meanings and images in their minds, and it may even be taken as a reference to something that will really happen, but it would have been literal to them. If you grow up in a fundamentalist evangelical church, however, it might be obvious that literal stars will fall from the sky at the end times. At least, that's what I was taught and used to believe, and it seemed axiomatic to me. So common sense is indexed to culture. I'm not saying Wright is right. Only a thorough study of history and Jewish culture and literature could answer the question of how they interpreted the apocalyptic. Who knows? Ancient Jews might say, "Well, of course stars don't fall from the sky. That's common sense. The prophecy is a figure of speech for judgment."
So I agree that literal vs. figurative interpretation requires application of common sense, context and knowledge of genre. But this is different than saying: We must interpret literally unless the Bible tells us otherwise. I don't see any support for the latter stronger claim. Just because the Bible sometimes says "this is a sign" does not mean that it will always do so. Another way to phrase the hermeneutical rule is: If it is reasonable to interpret literally, then do so. But what reason is there to apply this this rule (sic)?
I've heard some premillenialists argue that the Bible itself interprets its own prophecies literally. For example, I heard that Daniel interpreted some prophecy in Jeremiah about a 70-year exile as a literal 70-year period (I think that's the example that was given). But I think we evidence that Jesus (and the Jews of his day) did not interpret O.T. prophesies literally, or at least not all of them. Mal. 4:5 reads:
"Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord."
A literal interpretation of this prophecy is reasonable, given a supernatural God and the fact that Elijah was taken up to heaven and did not die. It is certainly conceivable, within a world of the miraculous, that the literal Elijah could be sent back to earth to preach again. But Jesus did not interpret the passage literally, even though this would be reasonable.
Jesus says, "If you are willing to accept it, John [the Baptist] himself is Elijah who was to come" (Matthew 11:14).
In Acts 2:17-21 Peter quotes the prophecy of Joel which says that in the last days there will be supernatural wonders such as the sun turning black with blood, fire and billows of smoke fuming from Earth. But Peter claims that this prophecy was already fulfilled (Acts 2:16). He did not seem to interpret the wonders literally.
Another famous example is Matthew 2:15 which says Hosea 11:1 is fulfilled when Jesus returns with his parents from Egypt. But the passage in its original context is not supposed to be a prophecy about the messiah. Of course, Matthew is not denying the literal historical exodus of Israel that Hosea 11:1 talks about (just as Paul doesn't deny literal events of Abaraham), but he is not interpreting the prophecy literally. In fact, Hosea 11:1 isn't even a prophecy in its original context! For Matthew, the passage MEANT something about the Messiah. But this meaning was not literally found in the words. This is significant because it shows that some prophecies about the first coming were taken figuratively.
Finally, Nicodemus was actually rebuked because he took Jesus too literally when talking about being born again (John 3:4). This underscores the importance of recognizing symbolic scripture for what it is. I'm not arguing that the rule is to interpret symbolically. I don't think there is an easy rule that says: Do X unles Y1..Yn. It seems more like each passage ought to be examined on a case by case basis and it would be difficult to codify exact criteria.
This is an interesting discussion. I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am.
May God bless you.
In Him, ********
Here is my return correspondence.
Dear Brother *******:
Thanks for the return correspondence. I want to look at what you have written and trust what I return will be for your edification.
You first write, saying:
“One important distinction I would make is between a historical interpretation and literal interpretation. A Bible passage might be talking about a historical event without doing so literally.”
I am not able to accept your distinction. In hermeneutic science the method I accept is styled literal grammatical-historical. It is defined thus:
“This is sometimes called the principle of grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.” (Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pp. 86-87)
J. Dwight Pentecost, in his book, “Things To Come,” has defined and defended this method very well. I am not Dispensationalist, although I share their hermeneutic rule, as do all Premillenialists. I found the above quotation by Ryrie on the internet (it was easier than getting out my copy of Pentecost’s book and typing).
It is not the common practice of historians, especially inspired ones, to veil their histories in symbols. That would defeat the purpose of the writing. Also, as I stated previously, EVERY TIME the gospel writers say, “such was done that it might be fulfilled by the prophet,” shows the fulfillment to be literal.
But, you did give a couple possible exceptions to this seeming rule. You did not dispute the rule. You seem to acknowledge it. Prophecies that refer to the first coming of Jesus were fulfilled literally. Your bringing up of possible examples, if true, would only show that there are exceptions to the rule. Again, this would augment the arguments already presented, showing that when the literal is dispensed with, by a prophetic writer or interpreter, historian, if you please, then the writer lets you know.
What you say about “common sense” being culturally defined, I might agree with you to some extent, but generally, “common sense” means what is common to all men.
Let me quote two interesting observations by Seiss on this matter. He writes:
“You will notice also that there is nothing in this vision to which the word MYSTERY is applied, but the stars and the candlesticks. Everything else is its own explanation; that is, it is literal and to be taken as it is written. The stars and candlesticks are symbolic, and stand for something which could not otherwise so well be fitted to the picture; but only these. We are thus furnished with several very important hints of interpretation. One is, that when the Scriptures employ symbols they tell you so. Another is, that where no indication to the contrary is given, we must interpret according to the letter...This book (Apocalypse), then, is not a book of symbols, as some speak...We find mysteries or symbols in this book, but only exceptionally, and always accompanied with the proper note of indication, and the necessary apocalupsis, or unveiling of what is meant.” (The Apocalypse, page51)
Then, in commenting upon the beginning of Rev. chpt. 12, he writes:
“This, the apostle tells us is A SIGN, semeion, a word which he here uses for the first time in the Apocalypse, and which serves to show that the apparition is not simply a ‘wonder,’ as our version has it, but a wonder intended to bring before us something beyond itself. I have repeatedly remarked, that when the Scriptures use figures or symbols, or speak in a way not intended to be taken literally, like all serious writings they always give some intimation of it, in one way or another. The text is a case in point. What is described, is said to be A SIGN, a representation or picture of something else–a symbol. And the fact that we are here told that this is A SIGN, goes far to prove that the Apocalypse in general is to be taken literally, except where indication to the contrary is given. It would be quite superfluous to tell us that this thing is a sign, and that certain things mean certain other things, except upon the assumption that whatever is not so labelled is to be taken just as it reads, a woman for a woman, a star for a star, a mountain for a mountain, and so on.” (Page 278)
You say, “So I could take Revelation to describe some events that will or have occurred in history, but it may do so in a non-literal way.”
But, I think Seiss has answered that very well. Let me add this thought. It is obvious that there is a correlation between Genesis and Exodus with the Apocalypse. We see the same plagues and judgments upon the world as occurred in Egypt by the hand of Moses. Why do we think the plagues in Exodus is literal but the plagues in Revelation are not?
You say further: “Another example might be Genesis. I personally believe that the day is a figure for a period of time. But I also believe it is referring to an actual, historical act of creation by God.”
I do not take the Genesis day other than literal. Day sometimes does mean a “period of time,” but I do not believe so in Genesis. But, I see that as a separate discussion issue and not appropriate for our present discussion. One question should be pertinent, however–How did Jesus and the later inspired writers interpret the days of creation?
You next write: “N. T. Wright argues that no Jew would take the apocalyptic language literally.”
I am not familiar with his writings but I would disagree with his thesis that “no Jew would take the apocalyptic language literally.” Daniel was a Jew and he interpreted the prophecies of Jeremiah literally. Jesus and the apostles were Jews and they all interpreted literally. Also, the fact that Jews have historically “left the door open for Elijah,” in their religious feasts, show this was not for a symbolic return of the prophet but for the literal.
So, I think it is an unlearned opinion and an erroneous thesis to say “no Jew would take apocalyptic language literally.” Certainly the question of the apostles in Acts one, about the restoration of Israel, shows they are looking for literal fulfillment.
You do say,“I'm not saying Wright is right. Only a thorough study of history and Jewish culture and literature could answer the question of how they interpreted the apocalyptic.”
Well, I am sure that the outcome, of such a study, is to show that most Jews were looking for literal fulfillment, not vice versa. And, if we could find some Jewish sects who interpret non-literally, only shows that times in the Old Testament are not different from today. People have been erring in interpretation from the beginning of written revelation.
You say, “Ancient Jews might say, "Well, of course stars don't fall from the sky. That's common sense. The prophecy is a figure of speech for judgment."”
But stars do fall to the earth! Stars, as they are often used in the Apocalypse, denote either meteors or comets. We even refer to such as “falling stars.” Also, if we are to interpret language first literally and only figuratively when there is reason to do so, then we should try to see if it is possible for a literal fulfillment. Is it possible that “stars falling from the sky” be literal? Yes, as I have just shown.
You then write:
“So I agree that literal vs. figurative interpretation requires application of common sense, context and knowledge of genre. But this is different than saying: We must interpret literally unless the Bible tells us otherwise. I don't see any support for the latter stronger claim. Just because the Bible sometimes says "this is a sign" does not mean that it will always do so. Another way to phrase the hermeneutical rule is: If it is reasonable to interpret literally, then do so. But what reason is there to apply this rule?”
I have already partially addressed your concerns here. Why stop, in the midst of a writing, and say, “now this is not to be taken literally, but symbolically,” if the norm has not been to take the writer literally? Surely you see the point.
I think we can agree that we interpret literally first and symbolically when
1) The context/writer indicates otherwise, in one manner or another.
2) Common sense dictates otherwise.
You then write:
“I've heard some premillenialists argue that the Bible itself interprets its own prophecies literally. For example, I heard that Daniel interpreted some prophecy in Jeremiah about a 70-year exile as a literal 70-year period (I think that's the example that was given).”
I agree with that statement and believe it can be defended. How? Look at how fulfilled prophecy has been fulfilled. Was it not always, or at least nearly always, literal? Did Daniel not believe that the seventy years was seventy literal years? If time periods are symbolic of other non-apparent periods of time, then we are all at a loss. If seventy years means ninety years, how do we know?
You next write:
“But I think we evidence that Jesus (and the Jews of his day) did not interpret O.T. prophesies literally, or at least not all of them. Mal. 4:5 reads: "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord." A literal interpretation of this prophecy is reasonable, given a supernatural God and the fact that Elijah was taken up to heaven and did not die. It is certainly conceivable, within a world of the miraculous, that the literal Elijah could be sent back to earth to preach again. But Jesus did not interpret the passage literally, even though this would be reasonable. Jesus says, "If you are willing to accept it, John [the Baptist] himself is Elijah who was to come" (Matthew 11:14).”
“But Jesus did not interpret the passage literally.” Oh, but he did! The prophecy of the coming again of Elijah, though fulfilled partially in the coming of John the Baptist, did not completely fulfill the ancient prophecy from Malachi. Let me cite some things again from Seiss on this point.
“Turning back to the ancient prophets, we find this word: “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom you seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom you delight in: behold he shall come, says the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of His coming? And who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap: and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years. And I will come near to you in judgment...For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, says the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch...BEHOLD, I WILL SEND YOU ELIJAH THE PROPHET {the Septuagint, Arabic, and old Latin versions read “ELIJAH THE TISHBITE”} before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” (Mal. 3,4)
This is God’s own word–the closing word of the Old Testament. It names Elijah the prophet, even Elijah the Tishbite, and says that God will sen HIM again upon earth, to minister among men as the forerunner of the great and terrible day of the Lord–the day of the final overthrow of all the hosts of the wicked.Here, then, we would seem to come upon solid Scriptural ground. If Elijah means Elijah, and the great and terrible day of the Lord is the day of Christ’s final coming in judicial majesty to crush out Satan and his seed, there is no alternative left to believers in God’s word, but to receive the doctrine that Elijah is to come again to prophesy and execute works of judgment upon earth, and just in that period of time to which the Apocalypse assigns these Two Witnesses. Whatever else may be compassed by the prediction, and in whatever narrower circles it may have been fulfilled, if words are not utterly deceitful, and certainty can at all be predicated of God’s very specific promises, this prophecy cannot be considered fulfilled or accomplished in the past, nor until Elijah the Tishbite, IN PROPRIA PERSONA, returns again to the earth.We accordingly find that the book of Ecclesiasticus (which the Roman Catholic Church receives as inspired, which the fathers and Reformers highly honored, and which Protestants often have bound in their Bibles between the Old and New Testaments), eulogizes Elijah and says, that he is anointed by God’s order to appear again in the world, to rebuke evil, declare the impending judgment, reconcile the children of Jacob, rescue many, and make the way for the great and terrible day then about to break. (Chap. 48:1-11) Hence also the ancient Jewish believers up to the time of Christ, as all strict Jews since, looked for the reappearance of Elijah in the flesh as the herald of the victorious Messiah. Arnold (in Ecclesiasticus 48:10) says: “It was the unanimous sense of the Jews, that Elias should first come himself in person before the Messiah, and restore all things” Their old Litany of the Hosannas celebrates this anticipation. Their most honored writers constantly refer to it.* Hence, too, the deputation to John the Baptist with the question: “Art thou Elias?” (John 1:19,20) And hence the remark of the disciples to Christ: “The Scribes say that Elias must first come.” (Matt. 17:10)”
Seiss’s footnote is also worthy of citing.
“Indeed, the Jewish belief in the literal appearance of Elias as the herald of the Messiah was universal, and so universal does it continue to this hour, even after the lapse of eighteen centuries, that the Jews at their marriage feasts always place a chair and knife and fork for Elijah. They also set a chair for him at their passover feast, at which time they more especially look for him.”–Armageddon, vol. i, p. 131.
And another footnote:
“In the celebration of the Passover two large cups are filled with wine. One of these is taken by the master of the house, and a blessing pronounced. After this blessing the head of the family gives the cup to all those sitting around. He then brings forth the hidden cake, and distributes a piece to each. The second cup of wine, called ‘Elijah’s cup,’ is then placed before him; the door is opened, and a solemn pause of expectation ensues. It is at this moment that the Jews expect that the coming of Elijah will take place to announce the glad tidings that the Messiah is at hand. Well do I remember the interest with which, when a boy, I looked towards the door, hoping that Elijah might really enter; for, notwithstanding the disappointment year after year, his arrival is still confidently expected.”–Herschell’s Brief Sketch, p. 61
Back to Seiss.
“Some teach that this was a mistake–a mere Jewish notion. If so, it was a most extraordinary mistake. What was so devoutly accepted, taught, and believed by the holiest saints from Malachi to Christ, the theme of so many holy prayers and songs, and given out for the truth of God by the most eminent Christian fathers down to and inclusive of Jerome and Augustine, cannot safely be set down as a groundless conceit. We also have the highest Scriptural reasons for believing that it was not an empty notion, but a part of the true and abiding Revelation of God. Jesus Himself has affixed His own infallible authentication to it, and in such explicit terms that we can only wonder how people can speak so contemptuously of it as some writers who call themselves Christians.
On the mount of Christ’s glorious Transfiguration Elijah appeared. The disciples saw him and knew him. And, as they were coming down form the mount, they asked the Master about this very point, alleging the doctrine of the scribes that “Elias must first come.” And He answered and said unto them: “ELIAS TRULY SHALL FIRST COME, AND RESTORE ALL THINGS.” (Matt. 17:11) This passage is decisive. “The great Interpreter of prophecy gives right to that interpretation of the prophetic word which the scribes maintained,” says Trench. It cannot refer to John the Baptist, for John was then dead, while every part of it specifically relates to THE FUTURE. “Elias truly SHALL come, and SHALL restore all things.” Besides, the restoration or “restitution of all things” (apokatastais panton), in the which it is affirmed that the coming of Elias is to take part, is specifically referred by the Apostle Peter to the time of Christ’s second coming. (Acts 3:19) In all its terms and relations, therefore, we are compelled to accept this solemn declaration of the Savior as looking to the future, and meant to set forth what yet awaited fulfilment.
Dr. Stier has rightly said: “Whoever, in this answer of Christ, would explain away the manifest and striking confirmation of the fact that a coming of Elias was yet to take place, must do great violence to the words, and will never be able to restrain the future of their form and import so as to be applicable to John the Baptist.” But, it may be asked, Did not Christ say in the same connection, that Elias had come already, leaving it to be understood that He spoke of John the Baptist? The answer is, Yes; but in a way entirely distinct from the declaration we have just been considering. Elsewhere also he says of John: “If you will receive {it, him, or something else} this is Elias, which was for to come.” (Matt. 11:14) This proves that there is a sense in which John the Baptist was Elias, but certainly not such a sense as that in which the Jews were expecting Elias, nor yet such a sense as that in which He declared, after John was dead: “ELIAS TRULY SHALL FIRST COME AND RESTORE ALL THINGS.” John was not the literal Elias. This we are compelled to admit, or else he did not tell the truth; for when the priest and Levites asked him, “Are you Elias?” he answered, “I am not.” (John 1:21) And this clear and positive denial is further sustained by the facts (1) that he did not restore all things as was predicted of Elias, and (2) that the great and terrible day, which was to be ushered in immediately upon the finishing of the Elijah ministry, did not succeed the ministry of John, but is even yet future. Whilst, therefore, there is a sense of much importance in which John WAS Elias, there is another, more literal, and equally important sense, in which he was NOT Elias, and in which Elias is still to be expected, according to the Savior’s own word.
There was a twofold ministry embraced in the ancient promise to send Elijah, just as there was a twofold advent in the predictions concerning the Messiah. In neither case did the Old Testament clearly distinguish between these two, but viewed them both as if they were but one.
And as the two Messiah-comings are widely separated in time, though belonging to one and the same work; so there are two Elijah-comings, equally separated in time, and equally comprehended in the predictions.
Hence, John, as the forerunner of Christ in the first advent, was Elias; that is, he filled the Elijah place, operated in the Elijah spirit and energy, did for that occasion the Elijah work, and so far fulfilled the Elijah promise. As the angel said of him before he was born, he went before Christ “in the spirit and power of Elias” (Luke 1:15-17); which implies that he was not Elias himself. The Savior could, therefore, truly say of him while living, “If you will recieve it, this is Elias which was for to come;” and so likewise after he was dead, “Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.” John the Baptist operated in the spirit and energy of Elias, and performed the Elijah mission for the first advent, and so far “WAS ELIAS,” but, according to the word of the angel, only the VIRTUAL, and not the LITERAL Elias. He could accordingly answer the Jews, who had in mind the literal Elias, that he was NOT Elias, while yet, in another respect, he WAS Elias. In him the prediction in Malachi concerning the sending of Elijah had a true and real fulfilment, but only a partial, germinant, preliminary fulfilment, whilst the highest and ultimate fulfilment respects another advent of the Messiah, and the coming of the literal Elijah as the herald of it.
Such also is the view which the fathers took of the matter; and so they held and taught on the subject with great unanimity.
Justin Martyr says, “If Scripture compels you to admit two advents, shall we not allow that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent? Accordingly our Lord in His teachings proclaimed that this very thing would take place, saying, that Elijah would also come. And we know that this shall take place when our Lord Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven; whose first manifestation the Spirit of God who was in Elijah preceded as herald in John.”
Hippolytus says, “As two advents of our Lord are indicated in the Scriptures, also two forerunners are indicated, the first was John, the son of Zacharias. He first fulfilled the course of forerunner. But since the Savior is to be manifested again at the end of the world, it is matter of course that His forerunners must appear first, as He says by Malachi, I will send to you Elias the Tishbite before the day of the Lord, who shall come and proclaim the manifestation of Christ that is to be from heaven, and perform signs and wonders.”
So too Origen: “The vision upon the mountain in which Elias was seen, did not appear to agree with what the scribes had said: for it seemed Elias came not before Jesus, but after Him. They asked the question, therefore, supposing that the scribes had misled them. But to this the Savior answers, NOT CONTRADICTING THE TRADITION ABOUT ELIAS, but declaring that there was another coming of Elias before Christ, which had been unknown to the scribes.”
Chrysostom says, “As John was the forerunner of the first coming so will Elias be the forerunner of the second coming”–“Christ called John Elias on account of his performing the same office.”
Jerome writes, “Elias himself, who will truly come IN THE BODY at the second coming of Christ, has now come IN THE SPIRIT through the medium of John the Baptist.”
And so the great Augustine: “It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias, who shall expound the law to them. For not without reason do we hope that before the coming of our Judge and Savior Elias shall come.”
These quotations are from pages 245-248. They are worth considering.
You next write:
In Acts 2:17-21 Peter quotes the prophecy of Joel which says that in the last days there will be supernatural wonders such as the sun turning black with blood, fire and billows of smoke fuming from Earth. But Peter claims that this prophecy was already fulfilled (Acts 2:16). He did not seem to interpret the wonders literally.
Another famous example is Matthew 2:15 which says Hosea 11:1 is fulfilled when Jesus returns with his parents from Egypt. But the passage in its original context is not supposed to be a prophecy about the messiah. Of course, Matthew is not denying the literal historical exodus of Israel that Hosea 11:1 talks about (just as Paul doesn't deny literal events of Abaraham), but he is not interpreting the prophecy literally. In fact, Hosea 11:1 isn't even a prophecy in its original context! For Matthew, the passage MEANT something about the Messiah. But this meaning was not literally found in the words. This is significant because it shows that some prophecies about the first coming were taken figuratively.”
Now, seeing that this e-mail is already long, let me say that I will work on responding to these last two paragraphs of yours, in another e-mail. But, let me say, again, with full heart, that I admire your web site. I too enjoy Piper and other strong Calvinists. Have you ever read any of the late Gordon Clark’s writings?
I see that you are interested in theodicy, free will, predestination, and related topics. Care to look over my notes and writings in my two journals and offer some comments and additional sources for citations?
God bless and hope to hear from you again. I too enjoy good discussion where the aim is to please the Father in finding his will.
And then here is my next return correspondence.
Dear ******:
As promised I am finishing my reply to your recent e-mail. I want to deal with the last three issues in hermeneutics that you raise and I left off commenting upon.
You wrote:
In Acts 2:17-21 Peter quotes the prophecy of Joel which says that in the last days there will be supernatural wonders such as the sun turning black with blood, fire and billows of smoke fuming from Earth. But Peter claims that this prophecy was already fulfilled (Acts 2:16). He did not seem to interpret the wonders literally.
First, let me cite this article, taken from the internet, that briefly expresses my views, views which I believe are correct, being in accordance with Scripture and the teachings of the fathers and of historic orthodox Christianity.
THE DAY OF THE LORD IN ACTS 2:16-21
by Ron Merryman
"The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come." (Acts 2:20)
The Day of the Lord, mentioned by Peter in Acts 2:20, requires special attention particularly in view of its many misapplications.
Peter in Acts 2:15ff is seeking to explain the amazing miracle of speaking in tongues that had just occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13). His explanation begins, “These are not drunken as you suppose…… but this is that spoken by the prophet Joel……;” that is, “This tongues-language-phenomena that we have all just experienced is clear evidence of the power and special ministry of the Holy Spirit spoken of by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16,17).
Peter is not indicating that the Day of the Lord so predominant in the prophecies of Joel had arrived. He is merely interpreting and explaining the tongues’’ experience in the light of an Old Testament passage that spoke of special ministries of the Holy Spirit manifested in human communication. Peter well knew that Joel’s words not only included special revelation (prophecies, visions, dreams) from the Holy Spirit, but also seismic and astral catastrophes –– “wonders in the heavens above and signs in the earth below ……the sun turned to darkness, the moon to blood before the great and notable Day of the Lord comes” (Acts 2:19-21).
Peter also knew and wrote that the Day of the Lord is to be associated with the Second Advent of Christ and the events surrounding it (II Peter 3:1-13). Obviously, none of these occurred on the Day of Pentecost.
So why did Peter quote Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2? Simply to help his Jewish listeners perceive that what they had just heard and experienced (tongues/languages miraculously spoken) had precedent in Old Testament prophecy.
Using O. T. Scripture to Explain N. T. Phenomena
He along with the leaders in the early church on a number of occasions sought to explain what they experienced by referring to holy Scripture. A clear example is found in Acts 4:23-27. There, in an effort to explain the persecution that they were experiencing and that Christ had suffered, the Christians quote Psalm 2:1,2:
"Who by the mouth of thy servant David has said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ (Messiah, the Anointed One)."
They follow this by a direct application of the passage to the ruling authorities responsible for the crucifixion of Christ (Acts 4:27). "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together." Does this mean that the prophecies of Psalm 2:1,2 are fulfilled; that is, that Herod and Pontius Pilate are the final fulfillment of the “kings of earth” and “rulers” of Psalm 2:2? Absolutely not. Psalm 2 is much more comprehensive and universal in its scope. It reaches far beyond Herod and Pilate to all the “kings of the earth”, to their final rebellion against God (led by the Antichrist), and to their demise under the triumphant return and rule of Jesus Christ.
The rebellion of Herod and Pilate against Messiah was a minor fulfillment of Psalm 2:1,2: Its major fulfillment is future. This is apparent by a simple reading of the Psalm.
Why did these early Christians so apply Psalm 2? Because they were seeking to explain their circumstance and experience in light of Old Testament revelation.
Conclusion
So also with Peter’s quote of Joel 2 in Acts 2. He quotes an Old Testament passage to explain the experience of tongues on the Day of Pentecost. He was in no way implying that the Day of the Lord had come or was even near.
http://www.duluthbible.org/
Let me also add that “this is that” is not the phraseology to be employed if this were a total fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. When a writer wishes to convey complete fulfillment, it seems that they say, “this was done that it might be fulfilled.” Or, “and so was fulfilled the prophecy...”
“This is that” may refer, as it obviously does from viewing what actually then transpired, on the Day of Pentecost, to either one aspect of the prophecy or several, namely to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and some show of fire or outward sign. Clearly that portion of the prophecy that was fulfilled that day, and subsequent days, about the outpouring of God’s Spirit, seeing visions and dreams, of prophesying, was fulfilled and will continue to be fulfilled until Christ has fully come.
Was the outpouring of the Spirit literally fulfilled? Yes, and no. Certainly it was not fulfilled figuratively! Literal flesh received the Spirit in miraculous manner. So far the literal interpretation holds, even granting complete fulfillment. Certainly the fire of the cloven tongues as real literal fire, correct? Certainly the seeing of dreams and visions, though not occurring that day, but later in the history of Acts, were literal occurrences. Young men means young men. Dreams mean dreams. Visions mean visions. Spirit means Spirit. Why is “vapor of smoke,” the “sun being turned to darkness,” and “the moon into blood,” not literal also? Where is the warrant to take part of the prophecy literally and the other not?
The thing I see Peter as showing is that the initial realization of Joel’s promise is beginning to occur. He knew that the complete fulfillment of it was far yet future.
Your next citation and commentary was:
“Another famous example is Matthew 2:15 which says Hosea 11:1 is fulfilled when Jesus returns with his parents from Egypt. But the passage in its original context is not supposed to be a prophecy about the messiah. Of course, Matthew is not denying the literal historical exodus of Israel that Hosea 11:1 talks about (just as Paul doesn't deny literal events of Abraham), but he is not interpreting the prophecy literally. In fact, Hosea 11:1 isn't even a prophecy in its original context! For Matthew, the passage MEANT something about the Messiah. But this meaning was not literally found in the words. This is significant because it shows that some prophecies about the first coming were taken figuratively.”
I take issue with your statement, “he is not interpreting the prophecy literally.” I think the issue turns on what is meant by “fulfilled.” Does this word imply that Hosea 11:1 was a prediction? I cite these words for they express my views.
As a side note, I want to say: If I find my views already well stated, on an issue, I am content to quote elsewhere rather than laboriously trying to put the same thought in my own words. That explains why I am citing more than creating my own wordy defense.
"Out of Egypt, I called My Son"
"Here follows the explanation of Matthew 2:15..."
Weeks ago the quote of Matthew, "Out of Egypt have I called my son", has been discussed here. It was stated here that Matthew turned the history of Hosea 11:1 into a prophecy, quoted in Matthew 2:15. You used this change as yet another proof for the quality of the authors of the New Testament. This was pointed out to me, and at the end of the discussion I was forced to say that, though I didn't understand what Matthew was doing in changing a history into a prophecy, I yet kept it with him through faith.
I was sure that Matthew had not wrested the words of Hosea, but didn't understand how he then was able to write down such things. After a long while, however, I found the solution, through the grace of God. It appears that sometimes matters are much simpler then one can think at the first glance. The solution is so simple, that I was amazed at it.
Before I will give you the solution, let me remind you of the problem.
The prophet Hosea wrote in chapter 11:1,2:
1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. 2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.
In verse one the prophet says that Israel is God's son, and that God called Israel out of Egypt. This is clearly a history, and not a prophecy. There is no doubt about this.
Matthew quotes this. When Jesus returned from His flight into Egypt, because Herod was dead, Matthew associates that with the history as rendered in Hosea 11:1. Matthew writes in chapter 2:15 (according to the KJV):
15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
It was stated by you that Matthew quotes the words as if they were a prophecy, being fulfilled in Jesus. But this statement is entirely wrong. There is nothing in the words of Matthew on the basis whereof one can decide that he sees it as a prophecy. He simply is quoting the history of the Jew's exit out of Egypt, and says that it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. But that doesn't make it a prophecy.
From nothing in the text of Matthew 2:15 appears that it is seen as a prophecy. One may object and say: Surely does Matthew see Hosea 11:1 as a prophecy, because he writes "that it might be fulfilled". The very word "fulfilled" is used of prophecies. So Matthew sees it as a prophecy. To this the answer is easy: The original language, the Greek, uses a word that has...besides "fulfilled" also other meanings; meanings that have nothing to do with prophecies. So, this objection is false. There is nothing in Matthew's words that make a prophecy of Hosea 11:1.
The Greek uses the word "plero-o". This word has to do with "becoming full", and the like meanings. "Fulfilled" is one of its meanings, but there are many others.
The Greek word "plero-o" has two chief meanings. The first one is:- To make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
The second one is:- To render full, i.e. to complete
The word is used by Matthew in the second sense. Different shades in meaning are:
- To fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim- To consummate: a number- To make complete in every particular, to render perfect- To carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)- To carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise- Of matters of duty: to perform, execute- Of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish- To fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) - To receive fulfilment.
In this list of meanings you can find also "to fulfil", namely of prophecies. But it takes up only a part of all the meanings. Another meaning is "to render perfect", or "to carry through to the end". It is in this sense that Matthew uses the word.
The verse then should be this:
And He was there until the death of Herod, in order that be perfected the thing spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called the son of Me.
Before anyone says that this all is invented, let me give the Greek text in transcription with the translation thereunder.
kai en ekei heos tes teleutes herodou
And He was there until the death of Herod
Hina plerote to reten in order that be perfected the thing spokenhupo tou kuriou dia tou profetou,
by the Lord through the prophetlegontos,
eks aiguptou ekalesa ton huion mou.
saying, Out of Egypt have I called the son of Me.
What Matthew then is saying is this: God first called His son out of Egypt. That was Israel. This we find in Hosea 11:1. But in the second verse of that same chapter, the prophet says, "[As] they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images." They were called out of Egypt, but as they called them, so they went from them. They served the Baalim and the graven images instead of the true God. In short: imperfection. Then Matthew continues with saying that in Jesus this history is perfected. The Israelites were called out of Egypt, but were imperfect in serving Baalim. But Jesus was called out of Egypt, and was perfect in His obedience towards God. The Israelites were the sons of God. But Jesus perfected this being the Son of God. For Jesus was the Son of God in a more perfect sense, namely directly born from the Spirit.
In short: What was done imperfect in the Israelites, was perfected in Jesus.”
The above is fromwww.iclnet.org
Jesus literally was called out of Egypt, Matthew. Israel literally also! So, where is there any non literal fulfillment? Your thesis, mentioned above, is not scriptural.
There are other OT verses that are quoted as prophecies in the NT where there is no indication in the OT itself of it being a prophecy. Psalms 22 is an example, together with Psalm 2. Many examples. Want more?
Finally, you bring up the misunderstanding of Nicodemus, saying:
“Finally, Nicodemus was actually rebuked because he took Jesus too literally when talking about being born again (John 3:4). This underscores the importance of recognizing symbolic scripture for what it is.”
No disagreement there. But, he was not condemning literal interpretation of the word of God, only the abuse of it. No person who believes in literal interpretation denies the use of metaphors, similes, and figurative expression, nor the fact that some take literally what was never intended to be taken so.
For instance, anthropomorphic language, mostly in the OT, is not to be taken literally, even though Mormons and others do so. You are a believer in the omniscience of God. Yet God says, to Abraham, “now I know that you fear me.” Other examples could be given.
Again, let me say that I hope we are mutually edifying each other. God speed as you seek to serve him in truth and righteousness.
Dear *****:
Thanks again for your return correspondence.
You write:
“I can see that you are well read on this topic (much more than I)! I still have some reservations, though. Mainly, I still don't see any compelling reason to adopt a "literal unless proven otherwise" rule. Your point that the apostles sometimes say specifically "this is a sign" is not decisive for me. There could be other reasons they point out something as a sign, e.g. to emphasize its importance.
If you do not have a rule that says, “interpret literally unless there is reason not to,” then you have no rules of hermeneutics. You interpret based on what? By the ordinary rules of grammar? How do you know when to interpret literally and when to interpret figuratively? Are you interpreting my words literally? Are you taking what I write figuratively?”
Matthew, the argument about the writer saying, “this is symbolic,” was said in regard to the Apocalypse. And, that argument, I believe, is still very weighty. I am sorry that you do not see just how weighty. What are those “other reasons” for John to stop and say, in the Apocalypse, that such and such was not literal but only symbolic?
You say,
“In fact, it seems to me that Jesus frequently used figurative language that the disciples (at first) did not understand because they took him too literally. Jesus did not specifically say "I was speaking figuratively" until someone asks him about it. (Again, back to Nicodemus.) Now I understand that everyone accepts some figurative language in the Bible, e.g. anthropomorphisms. But our question is how to know which is which. I don't think the Bible authors are required to tell us when they are speaking figuratively any more than any other author would be. Can you imagine if someone read Cyrano de Bergerac and drew wierd conclusions about the moon based on the fact that Cyrano does not tells us explicitly that he is speaking figuratively? It is not the way language works (i.e. to assume that someone will always tell you that they are speaking symbolically). So why assume the Bible works that way? But once you admit that common sense and genre can impact the interpretive decision, I think there is nothing wrong, in principle, with the possibility that cosmic language is symbolic.”
I have always maintained, even in our correspondence, that common sense and genre do help determine whether words are to be taken strictly literal or figurative.
Every writer wants to be understood. When a writer uses symbolic language, he does so knowing that the reader will know it is symbolic. Too, Bible writers, when using symbols, use symbols that are well understood and whose meanings are apparent. When Paul tells the early church to “beware of dogs,” I am sure that he knew that his readers would know that he was speaking of people, not animals. So too when Jesus says, about Herod, “go tell thatx fox,” the figure is understood. Sure, there were times when Jesus used figures, but those figures were for the purpose of conveying literal truth and were figures that had a clear meaning in scriptural and common usage.
You say,
“I do not acknowledge that in every case where NT writers say "such was done so that it might be fulfilled..." that the writer is taking the prophet literally. Matthew 2:15 is a case in point. You have a good point that Matthew 2:15 is probably not interpreting Hosea as a prophecy, but rather as a type. But typology is by definition non-literal. Yes, Christ comes out of Egypt (that part is literal), but it is not Christ that the OT passage is talking about. And this is an example where the writer says "This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet". You will have to give examples to establish the claim that in every case NT writers interpret literally.”
“But typology is by definition non-literal.” That is not true. Joseph’s life is, in many ways, a type of Christ’s life. Joseph’s life events, forming a parallel with those of Jesus, were literal events. So also those of Christ with whom they form a comparison.
All you have to do Matthew is look at every passage in the gospels where the writer says, “this was done that it might be fulfilled,” and you will see that all were fulfilled literally. You have brought up one possible exception, in Matt. 2:15 (which is really not an exception at all, but very literal), but do you have others? You do admit that Israel being called out of Egypt was literal. You admit that Christ coming out of Egypt is literal. Where is the figurative interpretation? Did Jesus and Israel not literally come out of Egypt? If it is all figurative, what does Egypt symbolize?
You say,
“Another decisive question for me is the nature of the genre of apocalyptic. Were books like Revelation meant to be taken literally? I would not call N. T. Wright's position "unlearned," since he is a recognized scholar in Jewish history and has spent his life studying it. I wish I had Wright's book with me. Then I could give you some examples in Jewish literature where apocalyptic language is taken non-literally. Also, I believe that Jeremiah's prophecy about the exile is not considered "apocalyptic." It is a prophecy. Apocalyptic is a different genre that invokes the use of fantastic symbols (frequently seen in visions) to describe future events. For example, the moon turning to blood, the sun darkening and billows of smoke coming from the earth. Do you have any evidence to show that the Jews took this kind of language literally? The reason Exodus is literal and Revelation is not is because the former is a historical genre and the latter is an apocalyptic genre.”
So, since Daniel and Revelation are, by you, classed as Apocalyptic, and since you define “apocalyptic” as non literal literature, then you take nothing in these books literally? Is this your rule for studying these books? Take them all non-literally?
I called Wright’s opinion unlearned because nearly all learned scholarship says just the opposite. The Jews interpreted very literally those writings in the Old Testament that were styled “apocalyptic.” There is all kinds of proof for this statement. Is apocalyptic literature not in the class of prophetic scripture? You are saying that prophecy can be literal but not apocalyptic. Apocalyptic is part of the genre of the prophetic. Where are you getting your definitions of “apocalyptic”? How are you coming up with the rule that says all apocalyptic writing is non literal?
You then write:
“One argument that Revelation is symbolic is that it is a vision. Visions in the Bible are mysterious because they are non-literal. That's also why Pharoah and Nebuchadnezzar needed an interpreter. Daniel needed the angel to explain his vision to him. Joseph's vision was not meant to say that stalks of corn would literally bow down to him. What makes us think John's vision is any different?”
If it is a vision, then it is non literal? Where did you come up with that? Many of the OT prophets spoke of their entire writings as being “visions.” So, you take all said in these prophet’s writings as therefore non literal. Nothing in Amos, for instance, is literal? It is all the result of vision! Your hermeneutic rule that says all visions and apocalyptic writings are non-literal simply will not work, as I am sure, upon deeper reflection, you will agree.
You next write:
“It seems to me that Peter in Acts 2:19-20 does not take cosmic language literally. He says that the prophecy in Joel is fulfilled in Pentecost, but the sun did not literally go out at that time. Now of course you can always appeal to a two-fold fulfillment, but I don't see that anywhere in the text. I don't think the article you quoted answers this. Your article claims that Peter quoted Joel to give OT precedent to what was going on. I agree. But why then did Peter quote the part about cosmic signs that was yet to be fulfilled? It seems confusing to say "This is what is going on now" and then quote a prophecy about the future. If the "vapor of smoke" or "darkening of sun" were understood in Jewish culture as a figure for something (like maybe judgment) then it would not bother me that the first part was literal and the second part figurative. It would not surprise me that many poems and other genre mix literal and figurative language in the same context.”
Then, you tell me what the “sun turning into darkness” and the “moon into blood” signifies if not the literal sun and moon. What is the sun a symbol of, if it is not the literal sun? What is the moon a figure of? What do we make out of “vapor of smoke” if it is not literal vapor and literal smoke? Can you tell me or is it just left up to your whim?
And, you never did see the weight of the argument on this passage that I presented. Why is the outpouring of the Spirit literal but the other parts not? Why is the receiving of visions and dreams literal, but the sun, moon, and vapor of smoke not? Your position on this passage says that part of it is literal and part figurative. Which parts are which? How did you determine which were which?
You then write:
“Similarly, I don't see a two-fold fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy in the Bible either. Jesus specifically says that John fulfilled the prophecy. I don't find Seiss's commentary on Matthew 17:10-13 very convincing, mainly because the summary statement in v. 13 that Jesus is talking about John the Baptist. To me Jesus seems to be saying, "I agree with the scribes that Elijah will come first, but I'm telling you he already has come." That being said, I do find the evidence you presented from the church fathers very challenging on this point. If there is no opposite testimony in the fathers, I'm inclined to lean toward a literal coming of Elijah based on patristic evidence.”
Well, I am sorry about that. So, John the Baptist restored all things? What about Peter placing the “restitution of all things” at the return of Jesus? (Acts 3) Did you not see the weight of that argumentation?
Why are you so hung up on finding authority in the church fathers? They were not infallible. Besides, the fathers disagreed on issues much the same way we do today.
I am also sorry that you did not see the weight of Seiss’s comments on Matt. 17. John the Baptist was dead at that time, yet Jesus says, “Elijah shall first come and restore all things.” Plus, the prophecy of Malachi shows that the coming of Elijah would usher in the “great and terrible day of the Lord,” which is the day of wrath, still future. Did you overlook this for any good reason?
Next you say,
“I am not stubbornly against a literal reading of apocalyptic texts. In fact, for many years I interpreted them this way and still am open to it. However, I think it is possible that they are not meant to be interpreted this way. I prefer a posteriori evidence like testimony from the church fathers over a priori evidence such as a certain interpretive method that determines the meaning.”
The rule is to interpret literally first, and if to do so is not possible, for whatever reason, then a figurative interpretation is then allowed. All the great leaders in the church have acknowledged this safe rule. For instance, Luther and Calvin and Gill all said this.
You next write:
“If you allow that there are some genres which are meant to be read with lots of symbolism, then we agree. In symbolic genres, the rule you advocate would not apply. So then the question becomes whether or not Revelation is a symbolic or a literal genre, and that is a historical question.”
I acknowledge that the whole Bible is to be taken at face value, literally, and that those times when symbolism and figurative language is used, it is evident and clear. Why not take Revelation literally (except where we are told not to do so)? We exclude the literal when to do so brings in absurdities and contradictions. My own view is that those who take Revelation figuratively have all kinds of problems.
Again, let me thank you for this little discussion. I am sorry I could not help you further. I was once, as I said, an Amillenialist and argued much the same way as you. But, I am now fully convinced of the hermeneutic rules of which I have written.
God bless as you seek to serve him and to know his will.
Steve
The following is the lastest correspondence from my friend. I will follow with my response to this letter.
Dear Stephen:
I think our disagreement stems from the fact that we apply different weights to certain arguments. If I found the arguments as convincing as you do, I would probably agree. I am not dogmatic that all apocalyptic is non-literal, and might I change my mind after more study.
I will, however, offer a few more thoughts.
I suppose I do have a rule that says "interpret literally unless there is reason not to", in the strictest sense of the word. I reason I shun that rule as stated is because it is typically associated with a more dogmatically literalistic tradition of interpretation than I am prepared to assert. It is like the phrase "once saved, always saved." As a Calvinist I agree that a person, if saved, is always saved, but I refrain from using that slogan because it has been championed by people like Zane Hodges in arguing for a view that Christians who apostasize are saved, a view which is heretical in my opinion.
"then you have no rules of hermeneutics. You interpret based on what? By the ordinary rules of grammar? How do you know when to interpret literally and when to interpret figuratively? Are you interpreting my words literally? Are you taking what I write figuratively?”
I don't think there is a line in the sand or specific criteria that work in all cases to determine literal vs. figurative. If I were to make a dogmatic judgment about apocalyptic language, I would do research into the genre of Jewish apocalyptic and try to see how it is supposed to be interpreted. Genre needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. Also, even if a genre is largely allegorical, it does not mean that every word in it is allegorical. I understand that you claim a study of history has already shown that the Jews interpreted the so-called apocalytpic language very literally.
I have always maintained, even in our correspondence, that common sense and genre do help determine whether words are to be taken strictly literal or figurative.
I know. One of the difficulties of argument is determining where we disagree and where we agree. I think this is an area of agreement. I sense that we agree theoretically--that when a person interprets figuratively, there is some reason for it. But I sense that in practice, I tend to be more open to a figurative view than you are. For example, to you discussion of the literal moon turning to blood have to be literal because you can't think of any other sense. I'm not so sure. What does it mean to interpret literally where possible? It is logically possible to imagine God turning the moon to blood. If by the rule you mean that everything written in Scripture that is logically possible (through miracle) must be interpreted interpreted literally, unless Scripture says it is a sign. Then I disagree with the rule. For example, I think (based on N. T. Wright) that the moon turning to blood could be a poetic figure describing a judgment. Or maybe it is a world-changing event. Or maybe it is literal. I'm not going to be dogmatic about which it is. I don't know enough about history to say. If I read the ancient Jews and they always took this kind of prophecy literally then I would be more sure that it was literal. However, you have not given an example from the Bible or other sources (or I don't remember it) that proves Jews took apocylaptic language to be literal. It also is common sense that these celestial sign imageries could be meant as a figure. In many Western works, for example, people use poetic words about the heavens to express what they are trying to say.
Every writer wants to be understood. When a writer uses symbolic language, he does so knowing that the reader will know it is symbolic. Too, Bible writers, when using symbols, use symbols that are well understood and whose meanings are apparent. When Paul tells the early church to “beware of dogs,” I am sure that he knew that his readers would know that he was speaking of people, not animals. So too when Jesus says, about Herod, “go tell that fox,” the figure is understood. Sure, there were times when Jesus used figures, but those figures were for the purpose of conveying literal truth and were figures that had a clear meaning in scriptural and common usage.
I am arguing that perhaps in the Jewish and early church societies it was clear that apocalyptic language of cosmic destruction was meant to be interpreted symbolically, but that in our modern culture we have lost that common assumption.
“But typology is by definition non-literal.” That is not true. Joseph’s life is, in many ways, a type of Christ’s life. Joseph’s life events, forming a parallel with those of Jesus, were literal events. So also those of Christ with whom they form a comparison. . . Where is the > figurative interpretation? Did Jesus and Israel not literally come out of Egypt? If it is all figurative, what does Egypt symbolize?
I belive that typology is non-literal because it applies a text that is literally referring to a specific historical event and says that it also refers to some other completely different event, even though there is no literal reference to the later event in the text. The Matthew example I maintain is non-literal despite the fact that Jesus literally came out of Egypt. This is because (as I said before) the Hosea text says nothing about Jesus. If a text is to be interpreted "literally," if has to be fully literal. If any regular person (not an inspired apostle) interpreted Hosea 11:1 that way without biblical support, you would accuse him of illegitmately reading into the text and not being able to support his exegesis with grammatico-historical method. That is a problem that scholars have been puzzled with over the GH method-- that the inspired apostles did not seem to use it. Also many of the church fathers didn't either. (However, some of the fathers were too allegorical in my opinion.)
I can know that a passage is symbolic without knowing what the symbol means. However, if I had to guess I believe that Matthew is asserting that Jesus "relives" the "life" of Israel because he is the "new" Israel. The fact that Jesus came out of Egypt just like Israel shows that he is the new Israel.
So, since Daniel and Revelation are, by you, classed as Apocalyptic, and since you define “apocalyptic” as non literal literature, then you take nothing in these books literally? Is this your rule for studying these books? Take them all non-literally?
I would admit that they are not apocalyptic if scholars showed they were not. I don't think the entire apocalyptic book must be interpreted figuratively. No genre is TOTALLY symbolic, because then you wouldn't be able to understand anything in it.
How are you coming up with the rule that says all apocalyptic writing is non literal?
Again, I am not dogmatic that this is the case, because I haven't read enough on this topic. But it seems most plausible to me at this point.
If it is a vision, then it is non literal? Where did you come up with that? Many of the OT prophets spoke of their entire writings as being “visions.” So, you take all said in these prophet’s writings as therefore non literal. Nothing in Amos, for instance, is literal? It is all the result of vision! Your hermeneutic rule that says all visions and apocalyptic writings are non-literal simply will not work, as I am sure, upon deeper reflection, you will agree.
Perhaps. Admittedly I am not very familiar with Amos.
Then, you tell me what the “sun turning into darkness” and the “moon into blood” signifies if not the literal sun and moon. What is the sun a symbol of, if it is not the literal sun? What is the moon a figure of? What do we make out of “vapor of smoke” if it is not literal vapor and literal smoke?
Again, I can understand that something is symbolic without knowing what it means. If I had to guess (and it is only a guess because for all I know it is literal), I would argue that it is language of cosmic destruction meant to imply that the old world (the Jewish system) is giving way to the in-breaking of the kingdom of God in Christ. Jesus inaugerated a new kingdom by giving the Holy Spirit. The old world is passing away and the new has come. So the "sun" of the old world is darkened and the "moon" is destroyed. I would quote N. T. Wright as support. But again, this is only a guess. It is possible that it is literal, but if I were to assert that, I would still only be guessing.
Can you tell me or is it just left up to your whim?
I think the reason people are attracted to literalistic interpretation is because without that rule, people are worried that biblical interpretation will run wildly into allegory and have no controls. Part of this is a product of the Reformation, I believe. When you say "scripture alone" you have to make sure that every ordinary reader will be able to come to the same conclusion about what the Bible says without any recourse to tradition.
Of course the meaning is not left up to my whim. There is an actual meaning to be found. It would be determined by looking at how Jews interpreted similar types of language. However they did it would give us the most likely rule for how we should do it (since it was Jews who were writing). On this point I am not yet convinced that Jews took all such language literally.
Why are you so hung up on finding authority in the church fathers? They were not infallible. Besides, the fathers disagreed on issues much the same way we do today.
The fathers are of course fallible. But they give us clues to what the apostles actually taught. Some of them actually heard people who spoke with the apostles. If all the church fathers say something, and none of them disagree, there is a high probability that they got this doctrine from the apostles. Where else would it come from? (And if we can see that it did not come from the apostles, then that is a different story.) So I think it is convincing that all the fathers believe in a literal return of Elijah and that none (presumably) deny it. Where else would they get this, if not from the apostles? The scriptural evidence is less convincing. It is based solely on a rigid interpretation of one statement of Christ saying that "Elijah will come and restore all things" and this statement occurs in a passage which explicitly says that Jesus was referring to John the Baptist (Mt 17:13). But what does "all things" mean? Not even the Mal passage literally asserted that Elijah would restore of "all things." (This case is similar to Rom 5-- I think-- where Paul says that "all men" will be saved in Christ.) Furthermore, if Matthew is defending a future return of Elijah, he does not make it clear because he states in summary that the disciples misunderstood that Jesus was talking about John the Baptist.
I think the church fathers can be critically examined to clear up many disputes that are not clear in Scripture.
Plus, the prophecy of Malachi shows that the coming of Elijah would usher in the “great and terrible day of the Lord,” which is the day of wrath, still future. Did you overlook this for any good reason?
It admit that it is a difficulty, but I don't think it is decisive. I think that time periods in the OT are do not always follow directly on one another. The day of the Lord may be still yet future, but Elijah has already come and Christ is ushering in that day already. I don't know what you think about Daniel 9, but if there is a literal 7-year tribulation it is clear that the 70th week does not follow directly on the 69th week. Similarly, Elijah can come and then the great and terrible day of the Lord happens thousands of years later. He has ushered it in, because he prepared the way for Christ, who then conquered sin and will judge the world. I also question when the day of the Lord is because Peter (in my opinion) says that Joal 2 is fulfilled in Pentecost, but Joel 2 says that the old men will see visions on the day of the Lord. However, Paul seems to refer to the day of the Lord as something yet future. Therefore, I wonder if the day of the Lord is part of the already/not yet tension. It has already come, but a part of it is yet future. (Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven was AT HAND back in his day). So in some sense Elijah=John did come in order to usher in the day of the Lord.
I acknowledge that the whole Bible is to be taken at face value, literally, and that those times when symbolism and figurative language is used, it is evident and clear. Why not take Revelation literally (except where we are told not to do so)? We exclude the literal when to do so brings in absurdities and contradictions. My own view is that those who take Revelation figuratively have all kinds of problems.
The problem is what is "absurd". Is there going to be a literal 10 headed beast walking about on the earth and trying to swallow a baby? (Sorry if I mix biblical metaphors in my unfamiliarity with the issues.) I don't think so. These are symbols. But it is just as possible for God to create such a beast as it is for him to turn the moon into blood. What exactly constitutes an "absurdity"?
I agree that the symbols would (probably) have been clear to the original audience. (Although even Daniel writes about visions with symbols that he does not understand himself.) But since I think clarity is culturally and linguistically relative (what's clear to you may not be clear to me), I accept that what was once clearly figurative may now be clearly literal (or vice versa, of course).
God bless!
Dear ******:
Thanks again for your latest correspondence. It is remarkable that you, as a busy physician (?), are taking time to converse with me on Bible doctrine.
I notice that you are living and working in ********.
I rejected Amillenialism because of its spiritualizing and allegorizing, often done on an individual whim. There is very little uniformity of opinion, among Amills, on prophecy, especially unfulfilled prophecy and the Book of Revelation. There were no rules of interpretation and the literal was often denied and replaced with far fetched ideas that have no foundation in scripture.
You write:
“I suppose I do have a rule that says "interpret literally unless there is reason not to", in the strictest sense of the word. I reason I shun that rule as stated is because it is typically associated with a more dogmatically literalistic tradition of interpretation than I am prepared to assert.”
You state that you accept the rule to interpret literally unless there is reason not to, but, then you turn around and say you “shun” the same rule. The reason? It leads to “a more dogmatically literalistic tradition of interpretation.” Give me some examples. I do not know the abuse that you are talking about. But, granting, for the sake of argument, that some do go too literal (I can think of the Mormons and how they take literally verses about God being a man and repenting) in interpretation of the Bible, would that prove that the literal method is unsound? Then, would the same logic not also say that since some are too allegorical then the allegorical method is false? You know that the abuse of a thing does not make the thing as being right or good.
Your instability, in regard to the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, is evident in your letters. At times you accept while at other times you reject the same proposition. Sometimes all apocalyptic writings are figurative, then, at other times, most of it is, etc.
You say you accept the rule, stated above, and then say,
“I don't think there is a line in the sand or specific criteria that work in all cases to determine literal vs. figurative.”
Is not “literal first unless reason not to” a criteria? Why will it not work in all cases? Can you give me an example?
You say, “I sense that we agree theoretically--that when a person interprets figuratively, there is some reason for it.”
If we agree on this, then why do you keep “shunning” it, and going back on it? What are the reasons, the criteria, that we have agreed on? What would justify taking a verse non-literally?
There are three basic views, with variations, of how the Bible is to be interpreted. One says, “all, or nearly all, of the Bible, is non-literal, myth, allegory, and symbolism.” Another, which is yours, says, “most of the Bible is literal except for the prophetic parts, especially unfulfilled prophecy, which are purely non-literal.” The third says “all, or mostly all, is literal, non-figurative.” I avow, with a long and notable list of holy men.
What we need to find out is how can we, as God’s people, know when to take the word of God literally and when to take it non-literally.
I am sure that you have run into those (Liberals) who seek to make everything in the Bible myth and allegory, that which never literally happened. The story of Adam and Eve, the Flood, Jonah, etc., you would argue, to these allegorizers, literally happened. Illustrations and allegories may be made from these literal stories, as Paul did in Galatians, but they always assume the literal to be true. The arguments you would use to establish the literalness of these stories are the same ones I will use against you in allegorizing the prophetic portions of the Bible.
Most conservatives, those who take the Bible at face value, are reluctant, as you, to say that the Bible is non-literal, as do the Liberals. And, I think it bothers you, due to the apparent inconsistency, that you are guilty of the same kind of interpretation as they. My dad is the same way. He interprets, like all Amills, the Bible literally except for those portions dealing with the coming of Christ, his kingdom, and the reign of saints on the earth.
In one of your recent e-mails, you say:
“One important distinction I would make is between a historical interpretation and literal interpretation. A Bible passage might be talking about a historical event without doing so literally.”
Can you name me one passage that does that? That is something I think a Liberal, who denies the literal Adam and Eve, the story of Jonah, would say. Genesis is history, right? So is Exodus, right? What historian writes figuratively? Did Gibbon? Did Josephus? Luke was an inspired Christian historian, as was Moses. Why would he, or Moses, want to write a history in symbolic language?
Again, I repeat what you said, –“I sense that we agree theoretically--that when a person interprets figuratively, there is some reason for it.”
What possible reason would anyone offer, as justification, for taking the entire Bible symbolically? Those who do so, the Liberals, do so because, to take it literally would overthrow their preconceived ideas about God and the world. If they make it all allegorical, then they can interpret anyway they want and make the Bible support their theories.
What possible reason would any Conservative Christian offer, as justification, for taking the prophetic or apocalyptic scriptures symbolically, as the Liberals do the whole of scripture?
Again, it is because he sees in the literal interpretation of prophetic and apocalyptic scripture teachings which overthrow, likewise, his preconceived view of things.
What is it about the literal interpretation of prophecy that has you “shunning” literal interpretation? You shun not from literal interpretation in some parts. When you read, “He died for our sins,” you interpret literally. Why? Why not say it was not literal physical death? When you read, Christ “was buried,” why do you interpret literal physical burial? Why could it not be a “burial in grief” or some other spiritual or figurative burial?
What prophecies, speaking of the first coming of Christ, were not literally fulfilled, but only fulfilled figuratively? Your argument on Matthew and Hosea is very weak. Surely you have more weight to your theory than that. Why don’t you produce a list of prophecies, concerning the first coming of Christ, that were not literally fulfilled?
Again, I ask you, what is it about interpreting the prophecies concerning Christ second coming, his reign on earth with the saints, the millennium, the new heavens and earth, that make you want to not believe it literally? Does it overthrow Calvinism? Calvinism takes the Bible literally, hence their Calvinism. Premillenialists take prophecy literally, as a rule, and hence charge Amillenial Calvinists with inconsistency.
You may say that it is a case of different kinds of genre. But, you have shown that is not so, for you aver that no genre is strictly literal or symbolic.
You are developing a criteria for interpretation. You are getting close to fully accepting the literal so long as no justifiable reason, like 1) common sense 2) context or direct statement of the writer 3) possible contradiction to other plain scriptures, dictates otherwise.
So, perhaps, you should start producing eschatological passages that, you think, proves that a literal interpretation is not justified and a figurative one is. Your reference to Acts to prove Joel was not literally fulfilled fell short. Let me recap that and add a little thereto.
You insist that Peter’s citation of Joel’s prophecy, wherein he says, in reference to the outpouring of the Spirit, speaking in tongues, the cloven fire and rushing mighty wind, on the day of Pentecost, “this is that,” then Peter was saying the whole of the prophecy was being fulfilled on that very day.
Since the sun did not turn to darkness nor the moon into blood, nor pillars of smoke appear, therefore, it must mean something else. Then, you try to make it mean something else! What you should do is realize that Peter was not saying the whole of the prophecy was being fulfilled that very day. He did see what was happening as an inauguration of the prophecy, but he never said the whole of it was taking place before them.
No one saw visions or dreamed dreams that day. Later on in Acts we see this literally happening, but not that day. But, “this is that” must refer to what was taking place that day, not weeks or years later. So, if you are going to say, “whatever of Joel’s prophecy did not literally happen that day figuratively happened that day,” then you must say that dreams and visions are not literal dreams and visions but are symbolic of something else other than dreams and visions.
Also, the prophecy of Joel says God will pour out his Spirit “upon all flesh.” Did that happen that day? No, only 120 were affected, those in the upper room. They were all Jews too. How could “all flesh” mean only 120 Jews on Pentecost? Yet, “all flesh” was the object of the outpouring of the Spirit! I guess “all flesh” somehow figuratively had the Spirit poured on them that day?
The Liberal says that the darkening of the sun, during the crucifixion, was not literal. How are you any different when you say the darkening of the sun, spoken of by Joel and Peter, is also not literal, without being obviously contradictory?
The Liberal says that the darkness plague of Egypt was a myth, an allegorical story with only a moral lesson. You would say it is literal. But, when you come to darkness on earth, during the Tribulation, in the Apocalypse, you take it not literally?
It will become important for you to define what you mean by “apocalyptic” scripture. Can you identify those parts for me? How is it different from prophetic?
You said, “If it is reasonable to interpret literally, then do so. But what reason is there to apply this rule?” Well, the Liberal, who takes all the Bible allegorically, would ask you the same question in relation to those places you do take the Bible literally.
It is reasonable to take histories literally. It is reasonable to take fulfilled prophecy literally for it was testified to be so in the New Testament. It is reasonable to take all the Bible literally except where obvious figures of speech are used, or where the writer says he is speaking symbolically, or where common sense dictates otherwise.
You say, “I tend to be more open to a figurative view than you are.” Well, the Liberal tends to be more open to a figurative view than are you. You interpret much, as I do, literally. I am just trying to get you to interpret unfulfilled prophecy, prophecies about the new heavens and new earth, of Christ’s coming kingdom, the same way you do the other portions of the Bible. I am trying to get you to be consistent.
Are you telling me that Peter, on the day of Pentecost, thought his hearers all understood Joel’s prophecy as figurative?
You write: “I think (based on N. T. Wright) that the moon turning to blood could be a poetic figure describing a judgment.”
I have heard all this before. Allegorizers can take lengthy descriptions of an event, in the Bible, and sum it all up in very vague and general terms. You take very specific descriptions, like the sun being darkened, the moon turning into blood, and such like, and say, “it speaks of judgment.” Of course it is judgment, but not just a vague and general judgment, but a specific judgment. Well might we just say of the whole book of Revelation, “it is all symbolic of judgment” and leave it at that?
As I asked you to define “apocalyptic” scripture, so I ask you also to define what you mean by “poetic figure describing judgment.” I have heard spiritualizers say “poetic expression,” it can’t be literal. Do poets not write in literally understood words and sentences? Yes, they use similes and metaphors, they use symbols and make allusions, but you cannot say “poetic expression” is by nature non literal. I could say, “her hair is like silk and she is a gem.” That is poetic, right? But, just because I use simile and metaphor in poetry, does that mean I am writing in a completely figurative genre?
You say that you do not know whether an expression predicting cataclysmic events are literal or symbolic. Then how can you argue to the Liberal that any of the cataclysms of the Bible are literal? How can you prove the flood was literal? The destruction of Sodom?
You also say that things can be symbolic, in the Bible, and yet we have no way of knowing for sure what the symbols refer to. You say, “I can know that a passage is symbolic without knowing what the symbol means.” How so? Can you say, conversely, that you can know that a passage is literal without knowing what it literally means?
Symbols used in the Bible can be found used in more than one place and in such a way that a clear understanding of the signification of the symbol is known. Where did any NT writer ever interpret an OT passage non-literally? Words are often expanded in their use, in the progressive revelation of God, and will often carry extended connotations. “Abraham’s seed” thus may refer to any of the physical descendants, individually or collectively, or it may refer to Christians who are his seed as they are in Christ by faith.
Something can actually be both symbolic and literal. I believe I am promised a crown, for instance. I believe it to be literal, to be worn on my head, in my glorified body. But, does it not also symbolize authority and power? Royalty?
You say, “However, you have not given an example from the Bible or other sources (or I don't remember it) that proves Jews took apocalyptic language to be literal.”
I have shown that Matthew took prophecy literally. Every prophecy that he says was fulfilled, in his gospel, was literally fulfilled. He was Jewish. I have shown that the Jews who came to John the Baptist, asking, “are you Elias,” believed that the coming of Elias would be literal. You think that Christ was teaching them non literal interpretation by referring the whole of the prophecy to John and to his first coming.
Jesus’s teaching about John being Elias was first taught to his disciples in Matthew 11. Why then, after John’s death, in Matthew 17, do these same disciples come asking him questions about the coming of Elias? They must still be looking for him or else forgot what Christ taught them. This all occurred on the holy mount, when Christ appeared glorious, and Moses and Elias was with him in the same. Peter later writes about this experience on the mount (II Peter 1). He says that this mount experience was connected with Christ’s parousia and coming glory. If so, then Elias is connected with it. Besides, as I have said, and which you have overlooked, is that Peter puts the “restoration of all things” at the second coming in Acts 3. The restoration of all things is connected with the coming of both Elias and Christ. All things are not restored. Eden is still lost. Death reigns and the curses abound. One day all will be restored.
You further write: “It also is common sense that these celestial sign imageries could be meant as a figure. In many Western works, for example, people use poetic words about the heavens to express what they are trying to say.”
You think Joel’s prophecy was understood by those present, on Pentecost, as poetic language that meant the old covenant was being abolished and the new being instituted? You think they understood that “moon turning into blood” meant simply some kind of vague general judgment, upon who knows who?
So, in that day, one could say to another, “the moon turned into blood today,” and another know that he meant “judgment was rendered today”? What is “celestial sign imageries” that are figurative of something else? Give me some examples from the Bible where such celestial movements are referred to and yet mean something else, like the fall of a person.
You say, “I am arguing that perhaps in the Jewish and early church societies it was clear that apocalyptic language of cosmic destruction was meant to be interpreted symbolically.”
Give me an example. What is such prophetic language symbolic of? If earthquakes do not mean earthquakes, but something else, then what? If the destruction of the Jewish temple, where one stone is not left upon another, is not literal destruction, then what is it symbolic of? If “stars (meteors) falling to the earth” does not mean literal stars and earth, then what do the stars and earth represent? What kind of falling is it then? If you have no other Bible passages that use these figures in apparently figurative ways, then you are at a loss and it is no wonder you say you cannot know what the symbols mean, in symbolic books, only that they are symbols. But, how do you know they are symbols if you cannot discern their signification?
You say, “No genre is TOTALLY symbolic, because then you wouldn't be able to understand anything in it.” But, you say that without remembering, it seems, that you were willing to grant that genre, like common sense, was a valid rule or criteria. But, if genre can be either or, then it cannot be a criteria.
You say further:
“I would argue that it is language of cosmic destruction meant to imply that the old world (the Jewish system) is giving way to the in-breaking of the kingdom of God in Christ. Jesus inaugurated a new kingdom by giving the Holy Spirit. The old world is passing away and the new has come. So the "sun" of the old world is darkened and the "moon" is destroyed. I would quote N. T. Wright as support.”
The problem with this? You have already said that Peter was using figurative language that the Jews, to whom he was preaching, had a clear understanding of the meaning. Then they already understood it before he preached it to them, right? They understood that “sun” meant “old world” of the Jewish law covenant? They understood that the “turning of moon into blood” meant a new kingdom was being established? Talking about weak or weighty arguments, I would have to classify that as very menial.
You write further:
“Of course the meaning is not left up to my whim. There is an actual meaning to be found. It would be determined by looking at how Jews interpreted similar types of language. However they did it would give us the most likely rule for how we should do it (since it was Jews who were writing). On this point I am not yet convinced that Jews took all such language literally.”
The important point is not how any particular Jew interpreted the OT scriptures, but how Jesus and the NT writers, who were Jews (except Luke), interpreted. Show me where any NT writer took an OT prophecy and interpreted it non literally. Can you do it? Can you show this to be the predominant method? For, whatever is predominant is the rule. The exception is never the rule. You seem, like all Amills, want to make an exception, a rule.
You say,
“Is there going to be a literal 10 headed beast walking about on the earth and trying to swallow a baby? (Sorry if I mix biblical metaphors in my unfamiliarity with the issues.) I don't think so. These are symbols.”
Again, if you will read the passages dealing with the beast, you will see our rule at work in the hands of the Apostle. John tells us that the seven heads are symbols. “They are seven kings”! What do the “ten horns” represent? John tells us that they “are ten kings.” You seem to imply that we must interpret the beast all literally. Yet, the rule is still there, for we interpret literally unless we are told not to, which we are, in the passages dealing with the beast!
You say, “Daniel writes about visions with symbols that he does not understand himself.”
I do not think that is wholly true. How could it be so when most of his symbols were interpreted for him by the angel? The “head of gold,” on the figurative image, was interpreted as representing the Babylonian kingdom. There is that rule again, the writer telling us what is symbolic and what the symbol means.
Well, this is long, and I probably left out several things I wanted to say. If I think of them, and judge them weighty, I will forward them on.
God bless
Stephen
Here is the latest reply from Matthew followed by my reply.
Dear Stephen:
I have been a bit busier lately, so I haven't had a chance to sit down and read your email. I would love to have you (and your family) over for dinner sometime with **** (my fiance) and I.
Let me clarify a few things. I disagree that my previous emails have been "unstable." Rather, I would describe my positions with the word "tentative." I am hesitant to say whether a given passage is literal or figurative because I have not studied the matter thoroughly (which is precisely why I don't want to write about it publicly). I can see how this could be seen as unstable vacilating. The rule says: "interpret literally unless there's a reason not to." My argument is that there is a plausible reason not to interpret some apocalyptic passages literally. Not definitive, but plausible. So I do not rule out a figurative interpretation, although I may not dogmaticly accept it yet. But I have not, to my knowledge, asserted a proposition and its opposite. If so, then it came out wrong.
I shun the rule because most people who advocate the rule do so in order to assert that all cosmic language ought to be taken literally. I do not share that belief as of yet. Therefore, I don't want to be misunderstood as advocating that belief by advocating the rule (guilty by association). I also think the rule is looser than you might (allowing a wider range of passages to be figurative). Also, thinking more about it, I might reword the rule like this: "interpret figuratively when there is reason to believe the writer cannot be speaking literally." The previous wording seems to say that literal reading is the default and the burden of proof is put on the figurative interpreter. I don't know if I would commit to that.
The crucial point in our debate is what the Jews thought about apocalyptic.
I do not commit to the position that everything in apocalyptic is figurative, but that much more of it is than in other genres.
The difference between Genesis and Revelation is that one is meant to be historical and the other is meant to be an apocalyptic vision. So I don't think taking Genesis literally is inconsistent with taking Revelation figuratively.
I previous proposed a reason that a conservative might take the apocalytpic passages figuratively: because that's (maybe) how they were meant to be taken by the Jewish authors of the time.
My distinction between historical and literal was meant to be a theoretical distinction. No actual historian that I know of writes history using allegory. But I think it is common for prophets to use allegory, even though they are talking about the future. For example, Daniel's vision talks about beasts, but it really refers to actual events in history.
You wrote: "Again, it is because he sees in the literal interpretation of prophetic and apocalyptic scripture teachings which overthrow, likewise, his preconceived view of things."
In some sense this is true. This is a phenomonen that Nicholas Wolterstorff called the "wax nose" phenomenon. He is a Christian philosopher who wrote a book called DIVINE DISCOURSE in which he argues that the way you know something is figurative is that it is not probably literal in the context given. He brought the case of my best friend saying, "Here comes Ronald Reagan." I have to know certain things in order to interpret this statement, i.e. that Ronald Reagan is dead, that he was a conservative politician, that he was President and most of my friends don't know the President, etc. Since these things make it probable (in this case, impossible) that I could be speaking literally, I interpret it figuratively to mean that someone with the same political views as Ronald Reagan is approaching. Of course, this rule makes interpretation culturally relative. The problem is that this supposedly turns scripture into a "wax nose." That is, you have to know something about God (e.g. that he is a spirit) before you can interpret the Bible (that certain passages are anthropomorphic). Everyone has to interpret through the lens of their perconceived ideas. If these preconceived ideas happen to be wrong, the interpretation will be wrong, and it will take a much larger argument (a broader cumulative case) in order to convince the person to change his mind. Wolterstorff could not answer the wax nose objection (the same that you are presenting to me) except to point out that it is the only way we CAN go about interpreting literary statements. It's what we have always done since birth. When a statement doesn't make sense literally, but we know it is true, then it must have some figurative meaning that we are missing (as in the above example). I think this latter point is decisivie.
I do not shun literal interpretation. I only shun the slogan "interpret literally unless there is reason not to."
I think a good case can be make that Paul meant "Christ was buried" to be taken literally, but such a case for Revelation is much weaker.
I do not think my case of Matthew is a weak example. However, I would not limit my understanding of Jewish apocalyptic to the Bible. I would also study the cultural context in which the Bible writers lived. I have not done the research, but I bet there are examples of apocalyptic langauge being meant as figurative by its authors.
I also do not think that my interpretation of Elijah "overlooks" anything. I see the weight of it differently than you. I concede that restores "all things" is a difficulty, but I have seen other places in the biblical where "all" is not meant literally (such as Romans 5 talking about the salvation of all men).
Furthermore, the Malachi prophecy does not mention "all things." That implies Jesus read more into Malachi than was there.
Figurative interpretation does not overthrow Calvinism because the theological statements that teach Calvinism are meant to be taken literally, but in the case of apocalyptic it is not so clearly literal.
Like I said, I think we need to take each type of genre or even each individual passage and determine its context to decide if it is literal or figurative.
What you should do is realize that Peter was not saying the whole of the prophecy was being fulfilled that very day. He did see what was
I must admit you are right that even the visions and dreams were not literally fulfilled on the very day of Pentecost (at least not that we know of). This undercuts my argument, but does not prove that the passage is literal. It remains possible (based on other data) that the cosmic imagery is a figurative description of something that will happen in the future (but even that was in some sense present as "the last day").
The Liberal says that the darkening of the sun, during the crucifixion, was not literal. How are you any different when you say the darkening of the sun, spoken of by Joel and Peter, is also not literal, without being obviously contradictory?
Incidentally, I accept the darkening of the sun at the cross as figurative because Eusebius talked about a pagan philosopher he also attested to a literal darkening that he tried to explain by an eclipse (although the pagan may have been answering a Christian argument without actually believing that the darkening occurred).
A darkening at the end times may also be possible, but what does the moon turning to blood mean? Does it turn red or or does it literally turn to blood? How literal do you want to be?
It will become important for you to define what you mean by “apocalyptic” scripture. Can you identify those parts for me? How is it different from prophetic?
I will have to research it before I can answer this definitively. A rough definition of apocalyptic might be "a prophetic vision pertaining to events of the future which is frequently describes using cosmic imagery."
You said, “If it is reasonable to interpret literally, then do so. But what reason is there to apply this rule?” Well, the Liberal, who takes all the Bible allegorically, would ask you the same question in relation to those places you do take the Bible literally.
And I would be obliged to answer him (e.g. with Burridge's book on the gospel as Greco-Roman biography).
Testament. It is reasonable to take all the Bible literally except where obvious figures of speech are used, or where the writer says he is speaking symbolically, or where common sense dictates otherwise.
The problem is what were obviously figures of speech or what was symbolic language to ancient Jews may not be figures too us. I do not have the knowledge now to defend this claim, but since I have heard experts assert it, I am open to it until I learn more.
You interpret much, as I do, literally. I am just trying to get you to interpret unfulfilled prophecy, prophecies about the new heavens and new earth, of Christ’s coming kingdom, the same way you do the other portions of the Bible. I am trying to get you to be consistent.
You see this as inconsistency, but remember that in my view there is a difference (even if I cannot now define it precisely) between the apocalyptic prophecies and other parts of the Bible. So it is not inconsistent.
Are you telling me that Peter, on the day of Pentecost, thought his hearers all understood Joel’s prophecy as figurative?
Yes, if they understood him correctly (and if it really was figurative). I don't assert (contrary to what you seemed to think) that all of Peter's hearers understood exactly what he was saying any more than they understood what Christ was saying.
just because I use simile and metaphor in poetry, does that mean I am writing in a completely figurative genre?
I do not think any genre is completely figurative. But I have seen in poetry cosmic language being used to describe world-changing events.
You say that you do not know whether an expression predicting cataclysmic events are literal or symbolic. Then how can you argue to the Liberal that any of the cataclysms of the Bible are literal? How can you prove the flood was literal? The destruction of Sodom?
I would have to research this more. I would start by looking at the differences in genre (and how they were interpreted by the early church) and then I would look for scientific evidence. It may be that I could not convince the liberal.
You also say that things can be symbolic, in the Bible, and yet we have no way of knowing for sure what the symbols refer to. You say, “I can know that a passage is symbolic without knowing what the symbol means.” How so? Can you say, conversely, that you can know that a passage is literal without knowing what it literally means?
Suppose a Republican friend of mine is approaching. If I say to a foreigner "here comes Ronald Reagan" and he knows Ronald Reagan is dead, but not that he was a political figure, then the foreigner would know that I am not speaking literally (because RR is dead) but he might not understand the figure--that I was making a political statement about my friend. Similarly, Daniel's vision was obviously symbolic and he did not take it literally. But he did not understand it until the angel revealed what it meant.
It is also (surprisingly) possible for a statement to be literal and not know what it means. If Paul says "the thing that restraineth" is now in the world but will someday be taken away, the Thessalonians know exactly what he is talking about but we are left to speculate (even though Paul is probably speaking literally).
The fact that no genre is completely symbolic does not rule genre out as a criteria for determining literalness. I think my criteria are probabilistic. If a genre is 80% figurative, then it is 80% probably that any given statement in it is figurative. That helps swing the argument in one way or the other. It does not have to be 100% figurative. If a genre is 50% figurative, then it leaves us with doubt about how to interpret, although other clues could easily give the answer.
Something can actually be both symbolic and literal. I believe I am promised a crown, for instance. I believe it to be literal, to be worn on my head, in my glorified body. But, does it not also symbolize authority and power? Royalty?
This certainly complicates matters, although I would not commit to the literal crown, I admit it is possible.
How do you interpret Revelation 5? To me it seems like some of it is literal and some of it is figurative, but the author does not explicitly say it is figurative. Do you think there will be a literal lamb before God? (The elders identify him as a Lion actually.) I guess to me the whole of Revelation is so obviously figurative it is hard to take seriously the idea that it is literal unless the author explains it as a symbol. If the apostles had to explain every symbol, why not just write literally?
You have certainly presented a formidable argument and I will have to think about it some more. There are some more comments I have, but I will have to think about how to explain them clearly.
Sincerely,
******
Dear *****:
I again thank you for your recent correspondence. I do hope you are still enjoying our little discussion. I do believe it has been thus far in the Spirit of Christ and that God has been pleased with us in our attempts to clearly understand his word.
Generally I am busy but lately my work has slowed down and this has allowed me more time to reflect and study. Are you a doctor? If so, what specialty? I have several doctor friends here. One is a pathologist. I noticed you had your undergrad degree in microbiology. I can understand therefore your busy schedule and can only feel humbled that you feel time with me is worthwhile.
I appreciate too the invitation and will let you know when and my wife and I might be taking a trip to Ohio. My youngest brother is needing to go there over the next couple weeks and I do not know if I will take him or he goes on a bus. I may be without my wife however.
Take your time on reading my e-mails. I hope I have not been too verbose.
Congratulations on your impending marriage. I pray the Lord blesses you both exceedingly.
I have to wonder why you attend the Reformed Episcopal church. Did you not write against infant baptism and in favor of believer’s baptism? Do you support their church form of government? Are they predestinarian?
Brother *****, you write:
“Let me clarify a few things. I disagree that my previous emails have been "unstable." Rather, I would describe my positions with the word "tentative." I am hesitant to say whether a given passage is literal or figurative because I have not studied the matter thoroughly (which is precisely why I don't want to write about it publicly). I can see how this could be seen as unstable vacilating.”
Perhaps “unstable” was not the preferred word. Still, you acknowledge being hesitant and tentative. About making our correspondence public, I have copied our previous e-mails in my Apologetics journal but will not do so any longer. I am taking any reference to you out of the previous entries.
You next say,
“The rule says: "interpret literally unless there's a reason not to." My argument is that there is a plausible reason not to interpret some apocalyptic passages literally. Not definitive, but plausible. So I do not rule out a figurative interpretation, although I may not dogmaticly accept it yet.”
I think we are in agreement here. No person who accepts the Bible for what it says excludes interpreting figures of speech figuratively. All those who accept the literal interpretation of the Bible realize that figurative language is used in the Bible. But, they also assert that any symbolic or allegorical language is easily understood and explained by how the language is used throughout the Bible. We are not at a loss to know the meaning of prophetic symbols but can know their literal import and interpretation from Biblical usage.
You next write:
“I shun the rule because most people who advocate the rule do so in order to assert that all cosmic language ought to be taken literally.”
I must insist that you define “cosmic language.” You use this term like you do “apocalyptic language” and “apocalyptic prophecy.” As of yet you have yet to precisely define these terms so that a person could identify each part of the Bible as such. Are you saying that only prophecy predicting cosmic cataclysms are non-literal? II Peter chapter 3 is all non-literal? All the cosmic destruction delineated by Christ in his Olivet discourse and John in the Apocalypse?
I am amazed that you do not interpret “the sky turning to darkness” during the crucifixion as literal. Do the other writers in Christian-Truth share your views? Was the earthquake also not literal? Then what was the Roman soldier reacting to when he said, “surely this man was the Son of God”? When the text also says, “many of the bodies of the saints which slept arose and went into the holy city,” is this figurative too? If so, how can you say the resurrection of Jesus was literal?
It seems like you try to define words by using tautologies.
You next write:
“Also, thinking more about it, I might reword the rule like this: "interpret figuratively when there is reason to believe the writer cannot be speaking literally."
Well, that is all I affirm by interpreting the entirety of the Bible. We are agreed then? We take Jonah literally, as did Jesus, unless we are given solid reasons for not doing so? We take the destruction of Sodom literally, as did the subsequent inspired writers who commented upon it? We take the deluge under Noah literally too then? What reason have we for not doing so?
You next say:
“The previous wording seems to say that literal reading is the default and the burden of proof is put on the figurative interpreter. I don't know if I would commit to that.”
Is it not the default for the Bible as a whole? Why do you want to take most fulfilled prophecy literally, by default? Why do you by default see past miracles and cataclysms as literal (except for that which occurred when Jesus died) If you do not take the literal first method a priori, then you cannot defend taking any of the Bible literally and you, admittedly, cannot convert any who say the whole is figurative and allegorical.
You next affirm:
“The crucial point in our debate is what the Jews thought about apocalyptic.”
I do not agree with that. Anyone who knows anything about Jewish history, especially at the time of Christ’s birth and ministry, realizes that there was not uniformity of opinion about anything. You had sects then, among the Jews, some who interpreted literally and some not. We need not study books written by Jewish historians to understand the Bible. The Bible was written so that the common man could read and understand it. Studies of history can only augment that study. But, they are not necessary to understand it. Amillenialists cannot interpret Revelation and Daniel without knowing Maccabees, Josephus and Gibbon! You think the Lord sent us prophecies that we cannot understand without these man-made books?
No, the crucial point in our debate is what the Jews, to whom Jesus and the apostles actually conversed with, thought about the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. It is clear, if you look at the questions asked Jesus by the Jews, that they nearly all interpreted literally. Did they not look for a literal Elijah? Even if you say that Christ was showing them a non-literal fulfillment in John the Baptist, you are still affirming that the Jewish disciples were looking for a literal fulfillment (but that Christ was not).
Your crucial point would have more weight if you had said, “the crucial point is what Christ thought about the apocalyptic.”
You next write:
“I do not commit to the position that everything in apocalyptic is figurative, but that much more of it is than in other genres.”
But, you have no rule to help guide Ethiopian Christian type questions. They want to know which parts are literal and which not? Would the average person today, reading Acts, not be able to know which part of Joel’s prophecy was literal and which was not?
Actually, you should apply your rule to the whole of the Bible and not to just those parts that you call apocalyptic. You do not take the cosmic events connected with the crucifixion literally.
You next say:
“The difference between Genesis and Revelation is that one is meant to be historical and the other is meant to be an apocalyptic vision. So I don't think taking Genesis literally is inconsistent with taking Revelation figuratively.”
There are no prophecies in Genesis? Genesis has several prophecies. The first was given by God himself. It was literal even though he used figures of speech. The “seed of the woman” was literally fulfilled in Jesus being the seed of Eve. The “seed of the serpent” is literally fulfilled in the Anti-Christ. There are symbolic meanings connected with the literal, to be sure. Spiritually, the “seed of the woman” includes the elect. And, spiritually, the “seed of the serpent” signifies the reprobate. This is partially shown in the parable of the good and bad seed in Matthew 13.
Noah prophesied of a coming deluge to the antediluvians. Was he talking about future cosmic events? Was he not talking about a literal flood and a literal destruction?
In Genesis God told Moses that the Israelites would end up spending 400 years in Egypt. That was a prophecy. It was literally fulfilled. Now, Joseph was given a prophecy in a dream and it is clear that the imagery was not to be taken literally. As I said, we interpret literally unless reason forbids it, which it does in the dream prophecy of Joseph.
But, Joseph himself, while he is on his death bed, gives out startling prophecies for each of the tribes. And, even though he used figures of speech, he was talking about literal events in the lives of his descendants.
So, you agree then that histories are written in literal language. You even are willing to agree that many prophecies are but histories written in advance and are willing to take them literally. This is good.
You next write:
“I previous proposed a reason that a conservative might take the apocalytpic passages figuratively: because that's (maybe) how they were meant to be taken by the Jewish authors of the time.”
Would a person picking up the Bible today know that? Here again, you are affirming that the Bible cannot be understood by the average man today without a knowledge of the history of Jewish hermeneutics. That is just not tenable to conservative Christians who take the Bible at fact value.
You say next:
“But I think it is common for prophets to use allegory, even though they are talking about the future. For example, Daniel's vision talks about beasts, but it really refers to actual events in history.”
Common? How common? I have already challenged you to prove that. I have already asserted the opposite and believe it is so evident that you must be ignoring it. All, if not nearly all, of the prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ was literally fulfilled. You have not shown otherwise. I contend that, for instance, the prophecy of Zechariah that says, to Jerusalem, “thy king comes unto you, meek and lowly, and riding upon a colt, the foal of an ass,” was literally fulfilled.
Why did you overlook my point on the prophecies of Daniel? I think it is evident that Daniel believed in the rule to interpret literally unless he is told not to. He was told not to! He was told that the dream was all symbolic! If the norm was to do that anyway, why tell him? And, here is another very important point–even though symbolic language was used in his prophecies, they were not fulfilled symbolically but literally. Real empires were depicted by the head of gold, the arms of silver, the thighs of brass, the legs of iron. Literal kingdoms were symbolized by beasts. The lion was Babylon, as we are told! The bear corresponded to the two arms of the previous prophecy, being the dual Medo-Persian empire, etc.
Jesus said, about Daniel and his prophecies, “when you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place...” Was he not referring to a future historic event, something literal that their physical eyes could behold?
Did not Daniel interpret the prophecy of Jeremiah literally? Did Jeremiah not say that Israel would be held captive in Babylon for 70 years? Was it not as literally fulfilled as that of the 400 years that God told Moses the Israelites would be in Egypt? When God, during that long time, promised them a deliverer, did he not literally send Moses, who is a type of Christ?
I do not fully understand your “wax nose” discussion. I understand how “here comes Ronald Reagan” could be interpreted non-literally. But, it could only be understood as being non-literal by those who, as you say, knew beforehand 1) who he was, 2) that he was dead, and 3) that contextually the speaker discussing politics.
You think that the average Joe who picks up the Bible to read is reading statements after that manner? Getting away from the hypothetical, let us come down to reality and common sense. Do the average readers today need have all such information to interpret the Bible?
You then write:
“I do not shun literal interpretation. I only shun the slogan "interpret literally unless there is reason not to."
Then what is your rule? I still have no idea what it is.
You then write:
“I think a good case can be make that Paul meant "Christ was buried" to be taken literally, but such a case for Revelation is much weaker.”
Give me the facts of this “good case.” I am sure that the rules you use to prove literal interpretation of the prophecies that say Christ would be killed are just the one you are now rejecting. You do not show why a case for interpreting Revelation literally, unless we are given reasons not, from context and common sense, is weak.
You then say,
“I bet there are examples of apocalyptic langauge being meant as figurative by its authors.”
But, what would that prove? It would simply prove that there were differences of opinion on interpretation just as there are now. Your examples for interpreting prophecy, cosmic language, and apocalyptic writing, should not come from a Jewish sect but from the Jewish Christ and apostles. It should come from your study of the gospels and of the interactions recorded between Christ and the religious leaders recorded therein.
You then write:
“I concede that restores "all things" is a difficulty, but I have seen other places in the biblical where "all" is not meant literally (such as Romans 5 talking about the salvation of all men). Furthermore, the Malachi prophecy does not mention "all things." That implies Jesus read more into Malachi than was there.” But, Jesus and the apostles had the authority and inspiration to enlarge upon the original prophecies. I am surprised at you for finding some kind of argument in that for your case.
Two things, from the prophecy of Malachi and of Christ’s enlargement of it, are evident: 1) The coming of Elijah ushers in the “great and terrible day of the Lord” and the “time of the restitution of all things.” Neither of these occurred when John the Baptist appeared and partially fulfilled the prophecy.
Why would not full redemption involve restoring ALL that had been lost by sin and the fall? You believe that we will only be partially restored? What adjective would you place in between the words “all” and “things” that would serve to restrict it?
You then say,
“Figurative interpretation does not overthrow Calvinism because the theological statements that teach Calvinism are meant to be taken literally, but in the case of apocalyptic it is not so clearly literal.”
But, you gave no reasoned proof for this assertion. Those who deny the literalness of the Bible would make you prove it. How do you know that theological statements are “meant to be taken literally?” If it is not from how the apostles and prophets interpreted previous revelations, then from what? Did not Jesus, the prophets and apostles, as I have shown, not take the prophecies literally unless told not to or else it was self evident?
You then ask:
“A darkening at the end times may also be possible, but what does the moon turning to blood mean? Does it turn red or does it literally turn to blood? How literal do you want to be?”
Don’t know for sure. I would tend to think that since color is what was the object intended to convey, from the reference to the “sun be darkened,” then color too is the thing intimated by “moon being turned into blood.” Again, context leads me to think of blood as color or hue, not of literal blood.
Then you next argue, saying,
“A rough definition of apocalyptic might be "a prophetic vision pertaining to events of the future which is frequently describes using cosmic imagery."
That is almost a tautology. It is really not a clear definition. You use “apocalyptic” in a sense that is unique to yourself, it seems. You have limited figurative interpretation to those prophecies that deal with stars, earth, sun, moon, heavens, etc. So, if God wanted to speak of coming changes to the literal heavens, he could not do it? I bet you will revise your definition to say, “some prophecies dealing with the cosmos are non literal.” I bet these examples will turn out, upon further examination, to be very few, if any. So, you would still have to acknowledge, at that point, that the rule is secure. You interpret literally most of the time. Whatever you do most of the time is the norm or rule.
You then write:
“The problem is what were obviously figures of speech or what was symbolic language to ancient Jews may not be figures too us. I do not have the knowledge now to defend this claim, but since I have heard experts assert it, I am open to it until I learn more.”
I think the differences, culturally speaking, would be minute. God has, in his decision to use figures of speech, used such as the common man may know their significance. God would not be making his word plain for later generations did he use rare obscure symbols that only a small culture had any knowledge of. If he uses the figure of a sheep, for instance, I think most men will be able to grasp the significance. “All we like sheep have gone astray.” The word “like” tips us off to non literal interpretation. It is simile. But, you do not have to be Jewish to know something about sheep getting lost and going astray.
You then write:
“I don't assert (contrary to what you seemed to think) that all of Peter's hearers understood exactly what he was saying any more than they understood what Christ was saying.”
But, you should be asserting that to be consistent. You are telling me that Peter used symbolism that the Jews, at least since the days of Joel the prophet, knew was non-literal. If he used commonly understood Jewish symbolism, then they would have known exactly what was being taught by the symbols. So, my argument stands, for your position is, reductio ad absurdum, that the Jewish hearers on Pentecost knew Peter was talking about a new kingdom being set up by saying “the sun will be darkened and the moon turned into blood..” But, you must admit that the average Joe today would read those words and not come up with that interpretation. So, you make his understanding of the true interpretation absolutely dependent upon a knowledge of Jewish history. The average man might as well give it up or simply put his trust in some Jewish historical scholar.
You then say,
“I do not think any genre is completely figurative.”
But, you have forgotten that you said “theological genre” is all literal! You believe Bible histories are all literal, right? Plus, you have said that you DO believe that “prophecy dealing with cosmic things” are all figurative, right? Which is it then?
You then write:
“It is also (surprisingly) possible for a statement to be literal and not know what it means. If Paul says "the thing that restraineth" is now in the world but will someday be taken away, the Thessalonians know exactly what he is talking about but we are left to speculate (even though Paul is probably speaking literally).”
I just simply do not agree with that.
You then write:
“How do you interpret Revelation 5? To me it seems like some of it is literal and some of it is figurative, but the author does not explicitly say it is figurative. Do you think there will be a literal lamb before God? (The elders identify him as a Lion actually.) I guess to me the whole of Revelation is so obviously figurative it is hard to take seriously the idea that it is literal unless the author explains it as a symbol. If the apostles had to explain every symbol, why not just write literally?”
Well, now we are getting somewhere. If we are going to continue this friendly Bible study and discussion, then we need to get into some prophecy at some point. Since you have identified the Book of Revelation and of Daniel as being mostly “apocalyptic” (and so do many others), then we ought to begin there. So, I see no reason why the beginning of the Apocalypse proper should not be a good place to begin. First, I would ask you if you have access to the book by Seiss, called “The Apocalypse.” If so, then I would ask you to read him on chapter five. I adopt his views wholeheartedly on the significance of this seven sealed book. If you do not have access to it, then let me know and I will copy it from my copy of the book. Then, once we have that before us, we can begin to see how to interpret Revelation. Okay? I will save my answers to your questions on this chapter till Seiss' comments on chpt. 5 has been read by you.
You then conclude by writing:
“You have certainly presented a formidable argument and I will have to think about it some more. There are some more comments I have, but I will have to think about how to explain them clearly.”
It is my belief that what I am writing is much needed today in the Christian world. I am not saying anything but what fathers in the church have been saying since the days of the apostles. I believe that Jesus, together with the other inspired writers, interpreted the Bible literally as a rule.
Again, I want to say that I appreciate your spirit and willingness to learn and discuss. I look forward to hearing from you again.
May God richly bless you and yours.
Stephen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)