The Covenantal Kingdom

by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith

Chapter Two:

Interpreting Prophecy

Conclusion

It should be clear that, beginning with the creation narrative, there is a Biblical basis in the prophetic and symbolic language of the Old Testament for the postmillennial approach to the book of Revelation and other highly figurative New Testament passages. Undoubtedly, the last word has not been spoken on these passages. But an approach to these portions of the Bible based on the Bible's own creationist imagery is the only method of faithfully interpreting these highly symbolic passages of Scripture.

The so-called "literal" approach of the dispensationalist is far less truly literal than an approach that carefully examines the use of figurative language in the Bible. Dispensational premillennialism, since it either denies or ignores the fact that there is a symbolic system grounded in the Biblical doctrine of creation, is forced to interpret Biblical figures of speech in speculative terms which conform to our cultural predilections (IQ(J and/or the evening news (IQ(J but which are alien to the Bible. The appearance of "literal interpretation" gained by this speculative approach is a false impression, hermeneutical trick-photography.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the "literal interpretation" debate distorts the issue. The issue is not literal versus figurative interpretation. The fundamental issue in hermeneutics is whether or not the Bible itself contains the key to prophetic interpretation. The postmillennialist is confident that the Bible is self-interpreting, since the self-interpreting nature of Scripture is essential to the idea of its transcendent authority.[31] Confusion about the self-interpreting nature of Biblical revelation leads to distortions of the doctrine of inspiration. Ironically, the dispensational doctrine of literal interpretation tends to undermine the authority of the Bible by asserting a form of perspicuity that is culturally relative. Though they claim to interpret "literally," dispensationalists, too, must distinguish between literal language and figurative language, but the dispensationalist's criteria for making that distinction are found in the modern Western cultural milieu rather than in the Scriptures themselves. What the modern American mind can see as "literal" is interpreted "literally" and what it sees as figurative is regarded as figurative.

The Reformed doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture is linked to the idea of Scripture as self-interpreting, so that the Word of God is able to speak to all men in all lands in every generation. The most important single hermeneutical principle is that the Scripture interprets the Scripture. The Bible itself gives us a system of figurative language and thus provides the key to its own understanding. The real hermeneutical issue, then, is not literal vs. non-literal, but Biblical vs. non-Biblical.

NOTES:

31. This is not to say that general revelation is unnecessary or less necessary than special revelation. General revelation is necessary, sufficient, authoritative, and perspicuous for the purposes for which it was given. Nor do I intend to imply that we do not need general revelation to understand the Bible. We may derive very important information from history, science, or other realms of knowledge to help us understand the Bible. What I am saying is that we do not derive principles of interpretation or our basic approach to the Scriptures from changing cultural norms. On special and general revelation, see: John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), pp. 62 ff.