By Sam A. Smith
This is a dynamic file; it is under constant development and revision, with new material and links regularly added. Please check back frequently for the most up-to-date information.
Dispensationalism and Covenant theology as views of history
Covenant theology and its view of redemptive history
Dispensationalism and its view of redemptive history
Dispensationalism and Covenant theology as systems of interpretation
Covenant theology as a system of interpretation
Dispensationalism as a system of interpretation
The paradox of covenant premillennialism
Why the Bible should be interpreted literally [normally]
PART 2: The practical application of hermeneutics to Bible prophecy
Understanding the nature of “apocalyptic” literature
The distinguishing features of “apocalyptic” literature
Applying normal (literal) interpretation to prophecy
General interpretive principles
Determine the historical context
Determine the theological and dispensational context
Special considerations in the interpretation of prophecy
Interpreting prophetic parables
Observing the larger context of prophecy
The question of near versus distant fulfillment
Scripture in general, and future prophecy in particular, is never interpreted in a vacuum—nor is anything else. We all come to the study of future prophecy with certain theological conceptions. Ideally, these conceptions have been thoroughly tested and found to be consistent with the statements of Scripture, based upon sound grammatical and historical interpretation, along with a knowledge of biblical theology. In the study of future prophecy one of the predisposing theological concepts that will greatly affect our understanding of prophecy is our view of “Israel” and “the Church.” The reason is that one of the most important questions to be addressed in the interpretation of any prophecy is: “To whom was the prophecy addressed;” and consequently, “To whom does it apply?” In other words, we need to know whether or not the prophecies that were made to Abraham, David, or Israel are directly applicable to the Church. As we will see, the nature of Israel and the Church, and their relationship to one another is perhaps the single most important issue to be resolved as far as the interpretation of future prophecy is concerned.
Dispensationalism and covenant theology, the two major interpretive frames of reference, each have very different views of the Church. These views lead to entirely different interpretations of future prophecy. Understanding these systems and their theological outcomes (i.e., what they believe about the future) is fundamentally important if we are to understand why interpreters disagree over the meaning of future prophecy.
Premillennialism and amillennialism represent not only different conceptions of the kingdom promises of the Bible, they also rest upon entirely different views of redemptive history. Today, there are essentially two views of redemptive history among biblical conservatives—“covenant theology” and “dispensationalism.” Both views are relatively new, having their origins in the post-reformation period. In the middle ages there was little need for an intellectually defensible justification for amillennialism, the church simply declared amillennialism to be so, and as they say, “that was that.” However, in the post-reformation era, even before the re-emergence of premillennialism, it became obvious that amillennialism rested upon a precarious intellectual foundation. Heretofore, the dual interpretive system employed by Augustine provided no real intellectual justification for its highly selective allegorical interpretation of future prophecy. The bias of this type of interpretation in order to produce a predetermined theological outcome (amillennialism) was obvious. This would never do in the increasingly intellectual post-reformation era. Indeed, it would only have been a matter of time before amillennialism came under severe criticism unless some reasonable justification for its concept of the kingdom of God were formulated. Thus, amillennialism gave birth to covenant theology—essentially a view of redemptive history which allows the kingdom promises made to Israel to be applied directly to the Church—thus offering justification for the selective use of non-normal/non-literal interpretation needed to support amillennialism.
The central tenet of covenant theology is that all redemptive history, from the fall of man forward, is the outworking of a singular covenant referred to as the “covenant of grace.” While covenant theologians do not agree on the precise nature of this covenant, since it is nowhere explicitly referred to in the Bible, it is generally conceived of as a covenant between God and elect sinners, promising redemption upon the exercise of true faith in God. Covenantalists refer to three covenants: 1) the “covenant of redemption,” made between the members of the Godhead in eternity past, in which the redemptive roles of the members of the Godhead were established; 2) the “covenant of works,” made between God and Adam in which God promised Adam eternal life, if he would obey Him; and 3) the “covenant of grace,” made between God and elect sinners after the fall, promising life upon the exercise of genuine faith in God. This being the case, covenant theology associates redemptive history from the fall of man forward under one covenant—the covenant of grace. If covenantalists want to argue for the implied existence of such covenants, that in itself is not problematic; however, what is problematic is that under this conception of redemptive history the distinctive dealings of God with specific individuals and groups is characteristically blurred, or simply ignored outright. The result is a view of history in which all believers share equally in all of the divine promises—since they are all saved under the same covenant and therefore (according to covenantal reasoning), comprise the same body, whether it happens to be called “Israel” or the “Church.” Thus, according to covenantalism the kingdom promises made to Abraham and to his descendants, Israel, can be directly applied to the Church (or as is usually the case, allegorized in such a way as can be “spiritually” applied to the Church).
Perhaps as a product of the time, or possibly as a reaction to the formalization of covenant theology, another view of redemptive history called “dispensationalism” arose. A dispensation is simply a distinct era in which a unique set of operative principles is in place that governs, among other things, divine-human relations. The manifestation of dispensational characteristics in redemptive history was recognized very early; the New Testament writers themselves were well aware of dispensational distinctions. On three occasions Paul made specific reference to particular dispensations [Gr. oikonomia = “economy”]. Those occasions are Ephesians 1:10, 3:9, and 1Timothy 1:4. The concept, however, was not limited to a particular vocabulary and was expressed in various forms in many New Testament passages (e.g., Gal. 3:19; 4:1-5; Heb. 3:1-6; 7:11-25; 8:6-7; 9:15-28; 10:1-18; Rev. 20:4; 21:1-22:5). It is important to point out that while each dispensation involves changes in man’s stewardship before God, this does not mean that dispensationalists believe there has been more than one way of salvation. They do not. There is only one means of salvation, it is by grace through faith; therefore, salvation is the same in all dispensations (though what the people who lived in those dispensations knew about God’s overall plan certainly varied according to nature of progressive revelation).
What distinguished this emerging “dispensational” interpretation of Scripture was a commitment to interpret the Bible normally/literally, and in the light of its dispensational context; this was something that covenantalists had ignored in their efforts to justify amillennialism by bringing all redemptive history under the “umbrella” of the covenant of grace and thus making the Church merely an extension of Israel. One fundamental difference between covenantalism and dispensationalism is that dispensationalism recognizes that normal/literal interpretation leads to the conclusion that Israel and the Church are distinct entities; and therefore promises made to Israel must be fulfilled to Israel, they cannot be arbitrarily reassigned to the Church.
The contention of dispensationalism is that the Bible can only be properly understood when it is understood in its grammatical, historical, and dispensational context; and the covenantal conception of an overarching covenant of grace, if acknowledged at all, should not be allowed to obscure the dispensational context of a passage. When Scripture is interpreted normally/literally, in its dispensational context, without the imposition of covenantal assumptions regarding the supposed identity between the Church and Israel, the result is inevitably a premillennial conception of the future.
Because dispensationalism and covenant theology are both ways of looking at redemptive history (past, present, and future), each orientation naturally has a profound influence on the interpretation of Scripture. The effects of applying the assumptions of either system will influence almost every area of one’s theology. Nowhere is that influence more noticeable than in the study of future prophecy.
The point of controversy between these two frames of reference is not, as might be supposed, the validity of the covenant of grace, though that is a concern. Rather, the disagreement involves the covenantalists’ use of this covenantal construct to equate Israel and the Church. Even if Israel and the Church are saved under the same covenant (and they are, Scripture calls it the “new covenant,” cf. Jer. 31:31-37), there is no logical necessity to view them as the same entity. Therefore, it is not so much the postulation of the supposed “covenant of grace” to which dispensationalists object, it is rather the assumption made by covenantal interpreters that Israel and the Church’s inclusion in this supposed covenant justifies the identification of the Church with Israel. Any such equation is logically defective and confuses two prophetic programs that Scripture presents as distinct (Rom. 11); so much so that covenantal interpreters must subject many prophecies to allegorical interpretation in order to avoid absurd conclusions.
An important corollary of the covenantal system is that the Church is an extension of Israel. Given that assumption, it would seem reasonable that all of the promises made to Israel would apply equally to the Church. The interpretive implications are almost endless, but the final result of covenantal assumptions is that there can be no real distinction between God’s revelation to and plan for Israel, and that of the Church. Under this system of interpretation, the Church is a new form of Israel, and inherits all the promises and blessings made to Israel in former times (understood allegorically, of course).
With regard to future prophecy, if the Church were an extension of Israel it would stand to reason that the kingdom promises made to Israel would be fulfilled to the Church. Even so, covenantalists recognize the problems of a literal fulfillment of these prophecies to the Church. The solution of course, is to selectively allegorize any prophecies that present problems—which turns out to be virtually all of them. Nevertheless, what covenant theology has never been able to satisfactorily explain is its manifestly a priori approach in applying this dual hermeneutic, that is, the necessity to make Scripture conform to its predetermined theological conclusions as evidenced by the selective, rather than consistent, use of allegorical interpretation. How does the covenantal interpreter know when to switch from a normal/literal method of interpretation (which he uses with most of the Scripture) to an allegorical method (applied mainly to select future prophecies)? The answer is simple: the interpretation has been “pre-concluded;” that’s one of the characteristics of allegorical interpretation; the text can say whatever one needs for it to say (which is usually whatever one’s theology requires). Unfortunately, this practice reveals that the covenantal interpreter is not really “interpreting” at all; insofar as he chooses to engage in this practice, he is merely “conforming” scriptural statements to his own theology. Allegorical interpretation is an inherently eisegetical process, in which meaning is put into a passage rather than derived from the passage. This can be seen from the fact that there are no rules governing the process of allegorical interpretation (nor can there be). Even though it might have a veneer of biblical facts and observations from which to work, its core process is entirely subjective.
In contrast to covenant theology (which is based primarily upon the theological construct of the covenant of grace), dispensationalism imposes no artificial grid upon the interpretive process. Instead, it recognizes the natural landscape of theological history as recorded in Scripture, and interprets accordingly. Dispensationalism maintains that instead of pre-concluding the nature of the kingdom and then tailoring the interpretive process to support that conclusion, one should simply interpret Scriptural statements in light of their clearly intended meaning, according to the normal rules of grammatical and historical interpretation. In other words, dispensationalism holds that the meaning of a text should be determined by the text and its context, not the pre-conclusions of the interpreter. If this point is sustained, it becomes apparent that the interpreter cannot arbitrarily manipulate interpretation (e.g., through the selective use of some alternate method of interpretation—like allegorization—in favor of a particular outcome, such as amillennialism). The interpreter must, at the very least, apply his interpretive principles consistently; failure to do so evidences theological bias.
Dispensationalism, as an interpretive system, rejects the idea that because all saved people are saved under the same covenant that automatically makes the promises made to one person or group applicable to all people or groups. If specific promises made to individual believers cannot be applied to others (e.g., that Abram would become the father of many nations, or that Hezekiah would live another fifteen years), it does not seem logical that promises made to Israel should be applied to the Church, particularly in view of the fact that the New Testament makes a clear distinction between the two (cf. Rom. 11). Therefore, dispensationalism holds that the meaning of a passage must be derived from the text itself according to the only rules of communication suitable—the customary usage of language, understood in its historical and dispensational context. When this is done, premillennialism is the clear and natural conclusion.
Since covenant theology was developed largely as an explanation of and interpretive framework for the justification of amillennialism, it is strange that there should emerge in modern times a premillennial form of covenant theology. Covenant premillennialists hold to the same basic covenantal assumptions about the nature of the Church as do covenant amillennialists—that is, that all believers throughout history are part of the Church. However, when it comes to applying to the Church the millennial promises made to Israel, covenant premillennialists object to the degree of allegorization necessary in order to support amillennialism, and thus take a mediate position, holding to covenant theology’s view of the Church, but dispensationalism’s view of the millennium. (As will be discussed later, this position leads to what is referred to as “premillennial posttribulationism”—the belief that the rapture of the Church will occur in connection with the second coming of Christ, just prior to the beginning of the millennium.)
While meditate positions tend to be attractive, in that they appear to avoid extremes, they are sometimes the product of internal inconsistencies. If covenant theology’s assumption that Israel and the Church are the same entity is accepted (which covenant premillennialists do accept), the conclusion should be that the millennial promises will not be fulfilled to Israel, but to the Church—leading to amillennialism. Yet, premillennialism is based upon those promises being fulfilled to Israel (as distinct from the Church). Thus, premillennialism is not compatible with covenant theology’s view of Israel and the Church. In terms of consistency, “covenant premillennialism” is essentially an oxymoron, somewhat akin to an “Arminian-Calvinist” (or a square-circle).
Progressive dispensationalism represents a movement among some contempoary dispensationalist to bridge the gap with covenant premillennialists. The basic tenets of progressive dispensationalism are that there is one people of God, and that the kingdom rule of Christ has already begun (at least in some introductory, preliminary, or spiritual phase). Progressive dispensationalists also see the church as a co-inheritor (along with Israel) of the Old Testament promises, rather than a parenthetical entity as indicated from a study of Old Testament prophecy (e.g., Daniel 9:24-27) and the explicit statements of the New Testament (cf. Eph. 3:1-10; Rom 11). This is accomplished through the “progressive” subsuming of one dispensation into the next, such that each dispensation alters (and supersedes the previous dispensation. This then becomes a mechanism for folding (or graduating) the people of God under the Old Testament into the Church—accomplishing essentially the same thing that covenant theology attempts to do with its construct of the covenant of grace. The problem is that this simply does not represent a biblical picture of either Israel or the Church, and requires significant reinterpretation of Scripture (using allegorization) in order to iron out all the wrinkles. While progressive dispensationalists insist they continue to accept the basic tenets of dispensationalism, the fact is, they do not. Like many other theological deviations, this one began with a subtle redefinition of key terms (e.g., ”dispensationalism,” “the Church,” “Israel”), and a good measure of hermeneutical “tweaking,” in this case an acceptance of “spiritualization”—with which one can support almost any doctrine. While progressive dispensationalism follows a different route than covenant theology, they aim for the same objective: to demonstrate through some means that there is one people of God in history, and therefore obliterate any distinction between Israel and the Church—in the process redefining the biblical picture of the visible aspect of the kingdom of God as already present (at least in some sense), and thus bridging the gap with covenant theology. The problem with progressive dispensationalism is that it has an unbiblical view of the dispensations (as well as Israel, the Church, and the visible aspect of the kingdom of God), and as a result has to resort to allegorical interpretation on to square its conclusions with the Bible. Paul’s teaching on the distinctiveness of Israel and the Church presented in Romans 11 simply does not fit with the covenantal model, neither does the prophetic plan revealed for Israel’s future in both the Old and New Testaments (cf. Zechariah 14:1-21; Matthew 24-25; Rev. 19:11-20:4), which may account for why these passages have not been given serious treatment by progressive dispensationalists up to this point.
Of the two major interpretive systems, only dispensationalism subscribes to a consistently normal/literal interpretation of Scripture. In other words, dispensationalism represents a truly exegetical method of interpretation.
By literal interpretation, dispensationalists do not mean that one should ignore figures of speech or various literary devices like symbols. Literal interpretation requires that these forms be understood according to the prevailing usage at the time they were recorded. Thus, the key to interpreting symbols is to ask the question, “How would they have been understood by the writer’s contemporaries”—assuming they already understood what had been previously revealed. (The understanding of truth already revealed is almost always a precondition for comprehending new truth.)
A consistently normal/literal method of interpretation is superior for at least two reasons. First, it is the only method by which exegesis (deriving meaning out of the text) is possible. If we accept the fact that the Bible is God’s communication to man and that God intends for man to understand that communication, we can only conceive of God as using human language in a rational and logical manner, according to prevailing usage. The reason is that this is the only way man could ever discern the intended meaning, because the rules of language apply only when language is being used in its normal (conventional) sense. Second, Scripture in general, and prophecy in particular, makes sense when interpreted normally/literally. The normal/literal method is the method of interpretation that we depend upon for other areas of doctrine, including fulfilled prophecy, so it is only consistent to apply it to future prophecy as well. It is worth observing that all prophecy in the Bible that has been fulfilled has been fulfilled in a manner consistent with normal/literal interpretation.
The application of a dual (normal/allegorical) system of interpretation results in inconsistencies. For example, it results in the first sixty-nine “weeks” of Daniel’s “seventy-weeks” prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27) being interpreted literally but the last, or seventieth “week,” being taken figuratively. Or, in the case of Christ’s advent, it requires a literal interpretation of the first advent of Christ and a non-literal interpretation of the events associated with the second coming (even though they may be contained within the same passage). Once the decision is made to depart from a consistently normal/literal manner of interpretation, interpretation becomes merely the opinion of the interpreter, and it cannot be solidly linked to the text through any known or generally agreed upon standards of communication. What would happen in a modern communications infrastructure if the receiving-end applied whatever communications protocols it wished; or what if it applied a particular protocol simply because it appeared to support what the receiving-end “thought” was the meaning of the communication (albeit, nonliteral and subjective); or worse yet, what if it applied no protocol at all? That’s what allegorization does.
In summary, here are at least three key advantages of the literal method of interpretation. 1 )The literal method anchors interpretation in fact, rather than subjective opinion. 2) The literal method promotes restraint in the interpretive process, since interpretation cannot go beyond the clear statements of Scripture. 3) The literal method is the cornerstone of orthodox theology. Its abandonment in other areas of theology can lead, and has led to apostasy, and its abandonment in the area of future prophecy is the first step in that direction.
The word “apocalyptic” comes from the Greek “apokalupsis,” which means, “revelation” or “disclosure” of something otherwise hidden. Because this term appears in the title of the Book of Revelation, which has so much to say about the future, the word “apocalyptic” has come to be associated with prophetic literature dealing with the future, and in a broad sense it is used to encompass both biblical and non-biblical literature dealing with the future, though our interest here is confined to the Bible.
Apocalyptic literature in the Bible is not easily distinguished from non-apocalyptic prophecy (of which there is a great deal contained within the Bible). In fact, about the only significant feature which can be pointed to is its focus on the future, or events associated with the coming kingdom of God. If we were to suggest that biblical apocalyptic literature is characterized by visions and dreams, we can find that in non-apocalyptic prophecy; if we suggest the use of symbols or symbolic language as a distinguishing feature, we can also find abundant examples of that in non-apocalyptic prophecy; again, if we suggest a judgment theme as characteristic, we can find abundant non-apocalyptic prophecies dealing with judgment. Actually, it’s very difficult to find any trait that consistently characterizes biblical apocalyptic writings—other than a focus on the culmination of the age (the future). Other characteristics generally pointed to are not consistently present and can be found elsewhere. Perhaps the conclusion to be drawn from the lack of distinguishing features of biblical apocalyptic literature is that far too much has been made over the distinction of future prophecy as a class, or literary genre. This unjustified segregation of future prophecy into a special category has been unfortunate because it is sometimes construed as validation for the “dual hermeneutic” applied by covenantal interpreters (i.e., it becomes the classification structure that is used to justify the application of a “special” set of interpretive principles). “Future prophecy” is simply Bible prophecy concerning events that have not yet happened. All fulfilled prophecies—including those of Christ’s birth—were at one time unfulfilled, and in that sense they too were “future prophecies,” but in the course of time, as they were fulfilled, they passed out of the classification of “future prophecies” and into the classification of “fulfilled prophecies.” The distinction of “future prophecy” is not based on unique literary features or content, but on the contemporary reader’s perspective in history. Someday much of what we now consider “future prophecy” will have been fulfilled, and will no longer be classed as future prophecy. The point is this: There is no real difference (in a literary sense) between future prophecy and fulfilled prophecy, and there is certainly no justification for applying a special hermeneutic to prophecy simply because it has not yet been fulfilled. Having said that, there are some general principles of interpretation we need to be aware of, as well as some special considerations in the interpretation of prophecy in general.
Whatever conclusion one may reach regarding the nature of apocalyptic literature as a distinct literary genre in the Bible, one thing is clear; only the literal/normal method of interpretation can ensure that the intended meaning is correctly understood—because only the literal method is truly interpretive. We will now look at some of the principles for interpreting the Bible in general, and prophecy, as a general class of literature within the Bible.
There are some general principles of interpretation that should be applied to any biblical text whether or not it is prophetic. Those principles are summarized below.
It should go without saying that before one can determine what a text means, one must first determine what it says (literally). This means that the interpreter must determine the proper reading of the text in the original language, and resolve as many difficulties in the wording of the text as possible prior to attempting an interpretation. Additionally, the interpreter should be thoroughly familiar with the lexicography (word meanings), accidence (inflectional forms of words), syntax (the use and significance of inflectional forms of words), and grammar (relationships among words and sentence parts) of the passage. Of course, this is somewhat of an idealization since some of these elements may not come into sharp focus until a trial interpretation is postulated. Nevertheless, insofar as it is possible to acquire this information prior to venturing an interpretation, it should be done.
Every communication is context sensitive, that is, to some degree or another the meaning and significance hinges on the context in which, and concerning which, the communication is made. Therefore, the determination of historical context is essential for understanding any passage of Scripture. Lack of historical context can actually be as much of an impediment to interpretation as uncertainty over the meaning of a word or phrase.
The Bible is a progressive revelation from God. To take a clip out of its biblical context is to remove it from the only setting in which it can be properly understood. Every statement must be understood in the light of what God has revealed up to that point in history. The interpreter must be aware of the predisposing (antecedent) theology of the passage he is attempting to interpret. In other words, he must know the theological context in which the passage sits. Not only that, but the interpreter must also be aware of the dispensational features of the passage. He must ask himself, “What are the operative principles of the era in which this passage was written? Did the events or statements occur before the fall of man, under the law, after the Cross, or are they spoken prophetically in reference to some future age?” With all of the aforegoing information in hand, the interpreter is usually ready to put forward an interpretation. However, there are some special considerations when dealing with prophetic passages.
While the same principles given above apply to both prophetic and non-prophetic passages, there are some features of prophecy which complicate the application of these principles, such as the presence of figurative language, symbols, time compression, foreshortening, even parables. It is important to realize that these special features do not mitigate against the application of the normal/literal method of interpretation, they simply make it more challenging.
Sometimes prophecies seem to compress or expand time by devoting more space to a shorter event than to an event that is longer (e.g., Rev. 4:1-20:10, in which sixteen chapters are devoted to the seven years of the tribulation and only seven verses are devoted to the thousand years of the millennium). In other cases prophecies may contain large gaps in the timeline (e.g., Isa. 61:1-3, where the first and second advents of Christ are pictured as one event; or Dan. 9:24-27, where the church age is entirely omitted), or they may contain no timeline at all and events may not be in chronological order (e.g., Isa. 65:17-25, where eternity is described before the millennium). In some cases, prophecies can supply time relationships for other prophecies. However, the interpreter must be very careful in comparing the information and arriving at conclusions. Also, the supplied time relationship, while helping to understand the overall truth of the subject or event, should not be read back into the more obscure prophecy as if the author were aware of that information—which may not have been the case. This is particularly true when a later prophecy clarifies an earlier one. (Remember, revelation of truth was progressive, with one concept being built upon another.)
At times Bible prophecy makes use of symbols, including symbolic objects, actions, symbolic representations of people, and symbolic use of names and numbers. The challenge for the interpreter is to determine (literally) what the symbol represents. One pitfall that the student of Bible prophecy must avoid is identifying as symbolic things that were not intended as symbols. The fact that a prophecy contains symbols does not mean that everything in the prophecy is symbolic. Generally, one should only identify something as symbolic when any other interpretation is nonsensical or conflicts with clearly established biblical facts. If the interpretation of something non-symbolically makes good sense, then one should not seek to interpret it as a symbol.
In interpreting symbols, one should check the immediate context carefully; the meaning of the symbol may be identified in the passage. If the immediate context does not supply the meaning of the symbol, the larger context of Scripture should be checked. It is possible that the symbol is used elsewhere, and its meaning may be more apparent from another passage. Always look for the first occurrence of a symbol; often the key to interpreting a symbol will be found where it is first used. In seeking to interpret symbols, remember that symbols, by their very nature, bear some affinity to the thing symbolized. Paying careful attention to the properties of the symbol may provide a clue as to what it means.
The student of prophecy should be especially careful about interpreting numbers as symbolic. Of the great many occasions in which numbers occur in Bible prophecy, they are seldom used symbolically. Biblical numerology can become another form of “spiritualization” (allegorization). Even in the case in which a number may have some special significance elsewhere, the use of the number in a specific prophecy does not necessarily mean that it should be interpreted as a symbol. The rule to follow is this: “If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.”
A parable is an extended simile; it conveys a truth through the medium of an analogy. Several things should be kept in mind when seeking to interpret parables, be they prophetic or not.1) Don’t try to find some special significance for every detail of the parable. Some details are only given to complete, or “round out,” the similitude. Even when Christ interpreted His own parables, He didn’t assign significance to every detail in the story, but only those elements that were central to the truth being conveyed. 2) As an extended figure of speech, and like all figures of speech, parables are only used to teach a single, central truth. 3) Many parables are interpreted within the context of the passage; one should look for the interpretation to see if it is supplied. 4) Even if the interpretation is not given, the context may contain clues as to why the parable was spoken and what it means.
A great many prophetic events are dealt with in more than one place. Therefore, interpretation should take into account details revealed elsewhere. This does not mean that those details should be read into the passage under consideration, only that the final interpretation should be in harmony with other Scripture. For example, there are over a dozen passages of Scripture that describe the second coming in detail. All these passages do not include precisely the same details, but they are all accurate, if not complete, descriptions of the event. The complete description of the event (so far as we have it) is the sum of all the available information. Therefore, the interpreter should seek to interpret each of these passages in the light of the whole [biblical] prophetic context.
Students of the Bible have debated the question of whether there is a “fuller” meaning to some passages than what the human authors may have been aware. After all, if the principal author of Scripture is God, why could He not have infused within it a deeper meaning than even the human authors were capable of understanding? The answer is that He could; however, we would have the same difficulty deciphering the message as the original authors. We also have to be careful not to confuse “significance” with “interpretation.” While the significance of a prophecy may seem to change with increased revelation, its interpretation does not.
There can only be one correct interpretation of any passage. If there could be more than one correct interpretation, how would we know, and by what process would we discover them? Whether there is in some prophecies a meaning beyond the obvious normal/literal meaning only God knows, and if there is it does not appear that He has let us in on how to accurately detect and decipher them. Until He does, we must be content with the only method we know that leads to objective meaning, and that method is grammatical-historical-dispensational interpretation. Of course, this rules out any “double sense” of Scripture unless God Himself interprets it for us elsewhere in Scripture, and there are only a few instances of this.
In some cases prophecies seem to have both a near and a more distant fulfillment. This does not argue for a double meaning. It may be simply a general prophecy. In other words, the prophecy may not be linked to a specific event so much as a specific “kind” of event or events. Or, it may be that the nearer event is merely a foreshadowing of the ultimate (prophesied) event to come. Another possibility is that a prophecy may be partially fulfilled at one point with the completed fulfillment occurring later; such would still constitute only one fulfillment. However, as indicated previously, a passage can have only one correct interpretation, and consistent with that, prophecy has only one fulfillment, in other words the interpreter cannot justify an interpretation requiring multiple meanings.
Biblical apocalyptic literature should not be regarded as a separate literary genre from fulfilled prophecy, though prophecy (in general) is a genre separate from other forms of biblical literature, like historical narrative or didactic literature. (This does not prevent us from viewing “future prophecy” as a subset of general prophecy, as long as we understand this classification is due to our position in history, not something peculiar about the literature itself.) As with all Scripture, prophecy must be interpreted normally/literally, giving due consideration to figures and symbols. Only the normal/literal method anchors interpretation in objectivity. “Spiritualization” (allegorization) is an inherently subjective process, since it breaks with the normal use of language and thus follows no set course, other than the whim of the interpreter.
Copyright 1995, 2004, 2005 by Sam A. Smith
[This document may be copied for non-commercial,
religious and educational use, as long as this entire notice
appears on each copy. All other rights are reserved.]
<http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com>, and is
adapted from What the Bible Says About the Future,
by Sam A. Smith, available online at: www.biblicalreader.com