Interpretation

(Read Part 6) We have been considering four essential principles that are necessary to holding a proper understanding of literal interpretation. These are the univocal nature of language, the jurisdiction of authorial intent, the unitary authorship of Scripture and the textually-based locus of meaning. Here are some concluding thoughts about the entire subject we have been studying. Conclusion What do these factors of literal interpretation mean for certain aspects of current dispensational interpretation? They rule out double fulfillment, near and far fulfillment, [...]

(Read Part 5) To review very briefly, there are four essential principles that we must keep in mind if we are going to have a proper understanding of literal interpretation. The first three are the univocal nature of language, the jurisdiction of authorial intent and the unitary authorship of Scripture. The final element for literal interpretation is the textually-based locus of meaning. We began studying that topic in the previous installment of this series, and pick up with it here. The Textually-Based [...]

(Read Part 4) There are four essential principles that must be considered in order to understand literal interpretation. We looked at the first two, the univocal nature of language and the jurisdiction of authorial intent, in the last installment in this series. This time we will study the third element and then introduce the fourth and final one. The Unitary Authorship of Scripture It is commonly asserted that the Bible has a “dual authorship” and from a certain perspective this may have [...]

(Read Part 3) While it is true that “literal interpretation” is not the private property of dispensationalism, the claim is actually the consistent use thereof. A case can still be made that traditional dispensationalism can make good on this claim. There is no lock-step consensus on what “literal interpretation” really is. In the 19th century, E. R. Craven, the American editor of Lange’s Commentary, with unusual clarity made the point that literal interpretation is better termed “normal” since both literal and figurative [...]

(Read Part 2) Human language had a disruption at the incident of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-10). There was an initial unity of human language; there was “the same language and the same words” (Gen. 11:1). (The KJV has “of one language, and of one speech” [Gen. 11:1]. The NIV has “one language and a common speech” [Gen. 11:1].) There was an organic unity of speech. Vocabulary and syntax were a comprehensible unit understood by all.  Communication was swift. Philologists and [...]

(Read Part 1) A third component of the image of God in man is morality. This has to do with powers which inform one of right and wrong and enable him to act accordingly. A fourth aspect is spirituality. This is the capacity for fellowship with God, to understand and participate in spiritual things, the capacity for eternal life, and the like. A last capacity in the image of God has to do with physical considerations. There seems to be a physical [...]

For decades, one of the sina qua non of dispensationalism has been the consistent use of a literal interpretation of the Bible.[1] In fact, it proved to be the ultimate and most primitive of the irreducible minimum of dispensational tenets. Dr. Charles Ryrie said that one’s hermeneutical principles should be determined before one’s theology is formed.[2] Earl Radmacher later forcefully contended that literal interpretation was the “basic principle” of dispensationalism.[3] Principles of Biblical interpretation are indeed the first order of concerns in [...]