The Bible provides the information and material needed for its own interpretation. Getting a grasp on the meanings in the Word of God depends on knowing just a few very elementary but enlightening facts explained in this article. Those who have been missing something in their Bible study may find these facts to be just what they're looking for.

   Despite today's explosion of scientific knowledge and interest, there remains a science people hear little about. Yet this science is undoubtedly the most important of all. It is the science of biblical hermeneutics.
   Biblical hermeneutics is simply the science o£ interpreting the Bible. A science is an organized or systematic approach to the study of any particular subject - in this case, the Holy Scriptures. Though this sounds simple, the question of how to interpret the Bible has been the basis for almost all religious disputes, dissensions and disagreements since the Book was written.

Literal Interpretation Defined
   There are two basic approaches to interpreting the Bible. One is the consistently literal interpretation of the Scriptures. The other approach involves in varying degrees a process known as "spiritualizing" the Bible.
   Literal interpretation is simply taking the Bible to mean exactly what it says; that is, taking it at face value whenever it is at all possible to do so. If the Bible is God's revelation to man, then the Bible must be without error, for nothing God does is ever imperfect. And since the canon of the Scriptures has been in its completed form for almost 1900 years, His revelation as presented in the Bible must also be complete and self-contained. This means that the Bible provides the information and material needed for its own interpretation.
   In his book Dispensationalism Today, Charles C. Ryrie gives the basis for the literal interpretation: "Literal interpretation results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value. Based on the philosophy that God originated language for the purpose of communicating His message to man and that He intended man to understand that message, literal interpretation seeks to interpret that message plainly" (p. 96).
   Indeed, if the Bible is to be understood at all, how else could one be expected to understand it except literally?
   Even the Book of the Revelation, considered by many to be the most difficult book in the Bible to interpret, must be understood in the light of the Bible itself. That this is so can be illustrated from the book itself. The expression, "He that hath an ear, let him
hear," is found in Revelation 2:7,11,17 and in a number of other places. The requirement for hearing (spiritual understanding) is simply "an ear" or spiritual discernment, as indicated in Jesus' statement regarding those who had ears but wouldn't hear and had eyes but wouldn't see, recorded in Matthew 13:14,15. This was not a comprehensive knowledge of ancient history or primitive myths and religions, from which basis the Book of the Revelation is usually interpreted. It simply shows that every born-again Christian has the capacity, though often unrealized, to understand the Book of the Revelation or any other book in the Bible.
   Since Jesus plainly stated in John 16:13 that it was the Spirit who would lead believers into aIl truth, and not their knowledge of ancient history and so forth, any interpretation which depends on extra-biblical sources for its understanding must be faulty. Paul insisted that spiritual truths are hidden from those who are wise in the ways of the world but are revealed to the foolish and weak (I Cor. 1:27; 2:14,15). Deuteronomy 29:29 states, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever."
   A literal interpretation of the Scriptures, however, does not argue against all scholarship. Since the Bible was originally written many centuries ago in Hebrew and Greek, true scholarship is necessary to arrive at a clear understanding of the text of the original and to shed light on ancient customs which may be unfamiliar to us today.
   However, as C. I. Scofield remarked in connection with interpreting prophecy, literal interpretation does argue against "seeking in profane history for something which in some respects resembles the predicted events."
   The literalist believes that the Bible must be interpreted in the light of the Bible itself and not in the light of secular history or events. Indeed, one might say that the exact opposite is true - history must be interpreted in the light of the Bible.
   One must remember, of course, that literal interpretation does not preclude the use of figures of speech, parables or even symbols, but rather it teaches that unless something is obviously one of these, it should be regarded as literal, though it may, of course, teach spiritual truths through types, illustrations and so forth.
   The use of symbols in the Scriptures is comparatively rare. What one does find, however, are "signs," which are altogether different. For example, the miracles of Christ are referred to as signs (see John 20:30), but this does not mean that these were simply symbolic literary creations of the writer. It means that they were real, genuine events which occurred exactly as described, yet which nevertheless pointed to higher truths than were indicated by the event itself. The purpose of signs was primarily to authenticate or certify, not to symbolize. Thus the Jews asked Jesus for a "sign" (Matt. 12:38), not a symbolic utterance or event but rather an authentication of His messiahship. Similarly, the events in the Book of the Revelation are, for the most part, real events which do, of course, contain many spiritual or devotional truths (as does, indeed, the entire Bible) but which will primarily authenticate these events in the future as coming from God Himself (see Rev. 1:1).

Dispensationalism
   Despite attacks on literalism from many quarters,
it is obvious that the literal interpretation is the only interpretation of the Bible based on a consistent hermeneutic. It is also true, and even opponents of literalism will admit this, that a consistently literal interpretation must result in dispensationalism, premillenialism and pretribulationism. John F. Walvoord, president of Dallas Theological Seminary, remarked that "dispensationalism . . . is not a premise seized on arbitrarily but a result of the application of literal interpretation of Scripture which all conservatives recognize is the norm for interpreting the Bible."
   Ryrie also points out in Dispensationalism Today that "the nonliteralist is the nondispensationalist, and the consistent literalist is a dispensationalist" (p. 96).
   Dispensationalism, far from being a divisive or schismatic method of interpreting the Scriptures, is simply the view that God has dealt with men through different external forms at different periods of history, though salvation through grace alone has remained the same in every dispensation. This view can be illustrated quite simply by the fact that God first commanded Adam to eat the fruit of the trees; later, after the fall, Adam was to eat by his own labor (that is, evidently, grains for bread); Noah was allowed to eat the flesh of animals; the law of Moses forbade the eating of certain "unclean" animals; and Peter was shown that nothing made by God should be considered unclean (Acts 10:15). Which commandment of God do we follow today? Obviously, the one revealed to Peter - the one which applies to our dispensation of grace, often called the dispensation of the Church. More information on the dispensations can be found in Back to the Bible's study course Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, by Theodore H. Epp.

Spiritualizing the Scriptures
   The greatest and most common danger that results from failing to follow a consistently literal interpretation of the Bible is "spiritualizing." To many persons today, the Church is "spiritual Israel," that is, all of the Old Testament promises relating to Israel have been transferred to the Church. Yet is it reasonable to take all the blessings promised to Israel and apply them to the Church and at the same time take all the curses of the Old Testament and apply them to literal Israel?
   The result of confusing Israel, the Church and the nations in prophecy is the spiritualizing of many Old Testament prophecies. In interpreting prophecy, a Bible student must interpret unfulfilled prophecies in the light of those which have been fulfilled. Every prophecy in the Old Testament related to Christ's First Advent was fulfilled literally. Why, then, do nondispensationalists think that those prophecies relating to Christ's Second Coming must be spiritualized or regarded as symbols? For example, the Book of Zechariah, in chapters 12-14, predicts the betrayal of Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, His triumphal procession into Jerusalem and other events which occurred exactly as predicted. How can one dare to suggest that the prophecies contained in the same book about His Return, the gathering of the world's armies against Jerusalem and the splitting of the Mount of Olives will not happen exactly as described?
   Richard W. De Haan, in his book How to Study the Bible, pinpoints the basic flaw of spiritualizing: "When we begin to interpret in this manner [spiritualizing], one guess is as good or as bad as another" (p. 16). He illustrates this fact by referring to Isaiah 11:6-9, the famous passage which predicts that "the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid" (v. 6). De Haan wrote, "If I were to use this method of spiritualizing, I could claim that the wolf is the United States, the lion is Britain, the bear is Russia, and conclude that this passage teaches these three will ultimately make peace. Such are the vagaries of spititualizing the Scriptures. How much easier it is to believe that when Jesus comes and the Kingdom is set up, even the animals will be at peace with one another."
   One can interpret the Bible for himself if he adopts a consistently literal approach. It is important to remember the saying, "If the literal sense makes good sense, any other sense is nonsense." When one deviates from the literal interpretation of the Bible, "anything goes." It is also noteworthy that the major cults and heresies of history have used the spiritualizing process a great deal.
   The person who accepts the Bible literally need never be ashamed or uncertain when questioned about his own beliefs, for he possesses the only consistent hermeneutic possible and has a basis for understanding and interpreting the Bible which assists him well in a lifetime of Bible study.
   Developing a biblical hermeneutic based on a consistently literal interpretation is also necessary in order "that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14).

Click for More on Understanding God's Word

reprinted from Good News Broadcaster, December 1977; copyright 1977, Walter Jerry Clark