Last night in the eschatology
class, we considered two important hermeneutical questions that we must ask
prior to studying eschatological passages. We spent the vast majority of our time on one of those questions:
Are there two peoples of God or one?
(Check the website in the next couple of days for the audio and video.) The other
question, which I’d like to address here, is this: will we employ a literal
hermeneutic or a genre-sensitive hermeneutic?
Some folks would advocate
approaching all Scripture with the same principles of interpretation regardless
of the genre. Whether the text is
narrative, law, poetry, or prophecy, they would interpret the text literally,
unless the context requires a figurative interpretation.
I won’t rehash all that I said
regarding genres of biblical literature in the first part of the hermeneutics section, but I will say that approaching the text literally unless the context
requires a figurative interpretation is exactly backward when we are studying
prophetic/apocalyptic literature.
Literal-unless-the-context-requires-otherwise is a great approach for
narrative and epistles, but for genres that are characterized by highly
figurative language, like poetry and prophecy/apocalyptic, the better approach
is figurative-unless-the-context-requires-otherwise.
Remember that this is how the
apostles interpreted Old Testament prophecy. Peter in Acts 2 interpreted Joel 2 figuratively. That is, he understood Joel to be
referring not to the sun literally turning dark and the moon literally turning
to blood, but that these images spoke metaphorically of God powerfully working
among men. In our sermon series on Matthew 24 we noted that the OT frequently uses cosmic and cataclysmic language
to speak of God bringing about changes in nations, governments, social
structures, etc.
Similary, in Luke 3 the Gospel
writer interpreted Isaiah 40 figuratively. Isaiah wrote, “Every
valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven
ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain.” Luke did not record these events
(valleys being lifted, mountains being lowered, etc) taking place in a literal
sense. If they had happened
literally, that would certainly warrant inclusion in his Gospel! Rather he recorded John the Baptist
preaching the gospel and notes that this preaching fulfilled Isaiah’s
prophecy. Luke understood Isaiah
to be speaking metaphorically of the preaching of the gospel humbling the proud
and exalting the lowly.
When a modern interpreter
interprets other prophetic passages in the same way, those who pride themselves
on always interpreting the Scriptures literally will characterize this kind of
genre-sensitive interpretation as “spiritualizing” the text, or removing it of
its significance. This is an
unfair characterization. Understanding
figurative language in a figurative sense does not “spiritualize” the text or
empty it of meaning. Rather it
understands that language in the sense in which the biblical authors intended
and in the sense in which the apostles themselves understood it. If the apostles interpreted prophecy
this way, certain we can and should do the same!
Why is this an important
issue? It’s going to greatly
impact how we interpret eschatological texts, like those in Daniel, Revelation,
and elsewhere. If we insist on a
literal-unless-the-context-demands-otherwise interpretation, we’ll end up with
a very different picture than if we interpret these texts in accordance with
their respective genres.
As with the question of two peoples
of God or one, we may disagree and that is fine. These are not questions that should divide us. We simply need to understand that our
answers to these preliminary questions will largely determine our answers to
the big questions of eschatology.
Comments