Ludger,

this is a very important question, & needs to be considered widely. Joyce & I have had private discussion on this, as yet unfinished.

I added some examples in email to Joyce, & discussion focused on the examples rather than the principles, so I am omitting the examples.

I hope AL (moderator) will not consider this contentious.

======================================

Allegorise, spiritualise, interpret, take literally or understand ??????

On another forum (Theology on line) I tried to get dispensationalists to engage in a single combat "battle royal" on the subject "All Scripture should be understood spiritually." THere were no takers, even though that forum is run by Acts9ers (they don't wait for Acts 28!)

My basic position is:

All Scripture (comprising the Old & New Testaments) is the Word of God, inspired by God, true & reliable, and speaks with authority to all people for all time, etc. 2 Tim. 3.

[I prefer "Covenant" to "Testament" because the word for Covenant in the Old Covenant Scriptures should be translated Covenant in the New, to avoid difficulties in understanding.]

The basic purpose of the Scriptures is to declare God's glory, & to reveal Christ as Saviour, calling sinners to repent:

Well done, Ian. I agree with a great deal of what you said.

The problem, as I see it, is that, once again, we must define our terms. I believe that "literal" is understood by all and needs no further definition. But what does interpreting Scripture "spiritually" mean?

I know that there are many figures of speech used in the Bible. One was mentioned in your message, i.e. "allegory".

Figures of speech, by definition, are used to ENHANCE the meaning. For example let's consider the four horses of Rev. 6. Rev. 6:4, Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. It's rider was given power to take peace from the earth.....". I think it is clear that this horse is used as the figure of speech called "simili". That is to say, the horse is put for war. By describing this horse as "fiery red" it enhances the picture of the horribleness of it.

So there is a legitimate use of figures of speech, but what does it mean to spiritualize the interpretation of scripture?

Perhaps we can go from there.

To come back to your original question, Revelation is in the Bible, & should be understood as other Scriptures, by study in context & comparison with related & similar Scriptures.

We should not read it as a future historical vision largely independent of the rest of Scripture.

Note that it is "signified" or a revelation by signs;
there is a blessing for those who read, hear, & keep its writings;
it is given to John for the 7 churches, & his "companions in tribulation".

We should therefore read it for our own encouragement & blessing, particular if we suffer tribulation.

We can readily read & apply as appropriate the letters to the 7 churches in own own situation. We have ears to hear.

I'm not so sure that there is a direct alternative in "literal or spiritual". Obviously some of the visions are in figurative language - signified. I do not think we can go through Revelation with red pen marking the "literal" verses & spiritualising the rest.

In a sense, everything should be "literalised" by studying its significance & assigning an appropriate meaning. We might finish up, e.g. identifying the 2 witnesses as Moses & Elijah, representing the Law & the Prophets - the Word of God by which sinners are saved or condemned. The Word that is in our day rejected, & the commandments flouted. Yet it will stand, and those who utterly rejected it will be condemned "out of the books."

Dear Ian.

There is interpretaion and there is application. First we must determine what is the truth expressed in any passage of the Bible. Then we may see if we can apply that passage to ourselves. But the application does not determine the truth. That is to say, if for example, the tribulation is literal and future (as I believe it is )that does not mean to say that we can not take some comfort from Revelation for here and now.

I'm sure you are not suggesting that if we can take comfort from a passage of scripture then it must be written to and for us.

I believe the old adage is true; all scripture is written for us, but not all scripture is written to us. The former is application, the latter is interpretation.

By the way, you never define "spiritual interpretation".

It is to look for eternal significance in temporal, literal events.

To see promises for all people of God in the promises to Abraham & Israel, for all believers are Abraham's descendants & heirs according to the promise, so that appropriate promises can be claimed by all believers;
To see the cross of Christ in the sacrifices under the Old Covenant;
To see the priest-king Melchizedek as Christ;
To see David's experiences particularly as recorded in the Psalms as prefiguring Christ;
To see the promises of an earthly restoration of Israel as the promises of eternal glory in the resurrection & the New Heaven & New Earth;
To see the New Covenant with Israel & Judah as apllying to all the redeemed people of God.

In a sense that may not be "spiritualising" but as you say, "application" (although I would go far beyond your meaning) or as I have previously suggested, "literalising" because, of course, the application is real.

The term "spiritualising" tends to be used by premils in a derogatory sense. e.g. Last week on Premier (London) Radio. Adrian Rogers gave 3 views of the millennium: pre-, post-, & a- which he explained as the 1000 years being given a spiritual meaning. Its not. We believe the present Gospel age is the millennium.