Interpretation

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

higher-fire@prairienet.org

>Bro. Copes:
> Since I really am not qualified to determine where in the chronology 
> of Revelation things actually happen, I ask two things in reference
> to the above verse:

 TL> What qualifications does it take to assume that when thing s are
 TL> written out that the first things that are written happen first
 TL> and THEN whatever is written afterward comes next?

     Actually the above quote was from someone else and included in my
reply. I certainly agree with you. There are rules of interpretation which
should be followed which tend to minimize keep many misunderstandings.

 TL> People will throw up in your face that there are variations on
 TL> this process but I say that if you handle the Revelation in the
 TL> same literary sense that you do ANY OTHER BOOK in the Bible you
 TL> will begin to understand it.

     Our methods of interpretation may be closer than expected.

     The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each
word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary,
customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking. It is
called the grammatical-historical method to emphasize the fact that the
meaning is to be determined by both grammatical and historical considerations.

     The "literal" meaning of a word is the BASIC, CUSTOMARY, SOCIAL
DESIGNATION OF THAT WORD. The spiritual, or mystical meaning of a word or
expression is one that arises after the literal designation and is dependent
upon it for its existence.

     To interpret literally means nothing more or less than to interpret in
terms of NORMAL, USUAL, DESIGNATION. When the manuscript alters its
designation the interpreter immediately shifts his method of interpreting.

     The literal meaning of sentences is the normal approach in all languages.

     All secondary meanings of documents, parables, types, allegories, and
symbols, depend for their very existence on the previous literal meaning of
the terms.

     The greater part of the Bible makes adequate sense when interpreted
literally.

     The literalistic approach does not blindly rule out figures of speech,
symbols, allegories, and types; but if the nature of the sentence so
demands, it readily yields to the second sense.

     This method is the only sane and safe check on the imaginations of man.

     This method is the only one consonant with the nature of inspiration.
The plenary inspiration of the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit guided men
into truth and away from error. In this process the Spirit of God used
language, and the units of language (as meaning, not as sound) are words and
thoughts. The thought is the thread that strings the words together.
Therefore, our very exegesis must commence with a study of words and
grammar, the two fundamentals of all meaningful speech.

     Inasmuch as God gave the Word of God as a revelation to men, it would
be expected that His revelation would be given in such exact and specific
terms that His thoughts would be accurately conveyed and understood when
interpreted according to the laws of grammar and speech. Such presumptive
evidence favors the literal interpretation, for an allegorical method of
interpretation would cloud the meaning of the message delivered by God to
men. The fact that the Scripture continually point to literal
interpretations of what was formerly written adds evidence as to the method
to be employed in interpreting the Word. Perhaps one of the strongest
evidences for the literal method is the use of the New Testament makes of
the Old Testament. When the Old Testament is used in the New Testament it is
used in a literal sense. One need only study the prophecies which were
fulfilled in the firs coming of Christ, in His life, His ministry, and His
death, to establish that fact. No prophecy which has been completely
fulfilled has been fulfilled in any way but literally. Though a prophecy may
by cited in the New Testament to show that a certain event is a partial
fulfillment of that prophecy, or to show that an event is in harmony with
God's established program, it does not necessitate a non-literal fulfillment
or deny a future complete fulfillment, for such application of prophecy do
not exhaust the fulfillment of it. Therefore such references to prophecy do
not argue for a non-literal method.

     It is recognized by al that the Bible abounds in figurative language.
On this basis it is often argued that the use of figurative language demands
a figurative interpretation. However, figures of speech are used as a means
of revealing literal truth. What is literally true in one realm, with which
we are familiar, is brought over, literally into another realm, with which
we may not be familiar, in order to teach us truths in that unfamiliar realm.

     The literalist does not deny the existence of figurative language. The
literalist does, however, deny that such figures must be interpreted so as
to destroy the literal truth intended through the employment of the figures.
Literal truth is to be learned through the symbols.

 TL> The idea that the Revelation is not laid out in chronilogical
 TL> order comes from the idea of the Post Tribbers that the rapture
 TL> occurs after some great trial of the saints which IS the
 TL> outpouring of God's wrath. Since what is written does not support
 TL> their claims they contend that the book has no set chronology so
 TL> they can BUILD one that allows them to be right.

     I agree that Revelation is laid out in a chronological order. I don't
know to which "Post Tribbers" you are referring when you say that they have
the chronology wrong.

 TL> Why not just read the book and SEE what it SAYS.  Let's not IM-
 TL> POSE any veiw upon it but simply see what it says.

     I agree. The only limitation is that it must harmonize with what the
Old Testament prophets had to say about the period. If it does not do so
then the interpretation is incorrect.

 TL> It says "What you do NOW (at hand) is IMPORANT because this is
 TL> what will happen, this is the "END" of things."  I live my life
 TL> and if the Lord sees fit, I go into the ground and then I must
 TL> face judgment unto Life or death for the things that have been
 TL> ***DONE*** (already accomplished) in my flesh.

     Let us both be careful here. Certainly one must have faith repent, etc.
(things which the individual must do) but one is not saved by the works they
do but rather by the works which Jesus did. It is not my righteousness which
saves me but His. On the other hand I do understand that my sins (personal
actions and omissions) can result in my not obtaining the goal. I have
crossed swords with a number of Calvinists who tell me that it is impossible
for a true believer to sin. I put that one in the same boat as once saved
always saved.

Walter Copes
The joy of the Lord is my strength
(wcopes@communique.net)
Walter L Copes