Wrongly dividing rightly dividing?
Forum category
This thread concerns the meaning of the the concept presented in 2 Tim. 2:15 - “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (KJV)
Some here are probably familiar with Scofield’s use of the phrase in his book Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, in which he uses an overly wooden approach to interpret the workman’s action as actually dividing up Scripture passages into different dispensations. I’m sure most of the people on this board would not follow such an awkward interpretation, but I am concerned about another more plausible but almost equally erroneous interpretation. I have heard many people use this text as a proof for expository preaching, thus equating “rightly dividing (or accurately handling) the word of truth” to mean preaching according to the sense of the Bible’s text. I think this too misses the point of the passage, at least in its original context.
What does Paul mean by “the word of truth” (τον λογον της αληθειας)? Is he referring to the process of systematic theology or even to the exegesis of the biblical text? Consider other occurrences of this phrase:
Eph 1:13 (ESV) In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Colossians 1:5-6 Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing
James provides a similar example of this phrase: James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creation.
Paul seems to use this expression to refer not to the Scriptures, but to the message of the gospel, the kerygma if you will. It is not a call to Timothy to study the Bible to find out a system of doctrine, but a call to “be diligent” to clearly and accurately relate the gospel to those around him. Now, obviously there is some overlap here, since by that time at least some of the Gospels had been written, and this text would necessarily apply to any preaching from them. However, it seems a stretch to extend this imperative to all Scriptural exegesis, all realms of systematic theology, and/or Dispensationalism/macrohermeneutics.
Some here are probably familiar with Scofield’s use of the phrase in his book Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, in which he uses an overly wooden approach to interpret the workman’s action as actually dividing up Scripture passages into different dispensations. I’m sure most of the people on this board would not follow such an awkward interpretation, but I am concerned about another more plausible but almost equally erroneous interpretation. I have heard many people use this text as a proof for expository preaching, thus equating “rightly dividing (or accurately handling) the word of truth” to mean preaching according to the sense of the Bible’s text. I think this too misses the point of the passage, at least in its original context.
What does Paul mean by “the word of truth” (τον λογον της αληθειας)? Is he referring to the process of systematic theology or even to the exegesis of the biblical text? Consider other occurrences of this phrase:
Eph 1:13 (ESV) In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Colossians 1:5-6 Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing
James provides a similar example of this phrase: James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creation.
Paul seems to use this expression to refer not to the Scriptures, but to the message of the gospel, the kerygma if you will. It is not a call to Timothy to study the Bible to find out a system of doctrine, but a call to “be diligent” to clearly and accurately relate the gospel to those around him. Now, obviously there is some overlap here, since by that time at least some of the Gospels had been written, and this text would necessarily apply to any preaching from them. However, it seems a stretch to extend this imperative to all Scriptural exegesis, all realms of systematic theology, and/or Dispensationalism/macrohermeneutics.
- 7 views
Charlie, Its a funny thing that you choose to site the passages you did while speaking about rightly dividing the WORD.
If you will read the opening of the book of james you will find that he is speaking to the 12 tribes. The Jews. So does it not stand to reason that he knew what he was saying and that maybe he was speaking of the Jews being firstfruits rather than the church ?
If you will read the opening of the book of james you will find that he is speaking to the 12 tribes. The Jews. So does it not stand to reason that he knew what he was saying and that maybe he was speaking of the Jews being firstfruits rather than the church ?
[Marty H] If you will read the opening of the book of james you will find that he is speaking to the 12 tribes. The Jews. So does it not stand to reason that he knew what he was saying and that maybe he was speaking of the Jews being firstfruits rather than the church ?Not sure I understand your point but surely you don’t mean that James is not for the Church?
Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
Not at all Dennis, I have no doubt that James was addressing christians, The point I tried to make was that by his own hand, He was addressing Jews. As such, He was able to speak either of the church, Or of the Jews. Being that we know who he spoke too, We also know that Paul said “To the Jew first” a number of times.
I wished to make a point that while Charlie was making his point about wrongly dividing “Rightly dividing” He used a verse from James. A good example of the need to divide.
I wished to make a point that while Charlie was making his point about wrongly dividing “Rightly dividing” He used a verse from James. A good example of the need to divide.
[Marty H] Charlie, Its a funny thing that you choose to site the passages you did while speaking about rightly dividing the WORD.Whether or not that is true is immaterial to my point, which is that “the word of truth” refers to the gospel narrowly, not the Scriptures materially. The “word of truth” is what “gave birth” (απεκυησαν), an experience that is certainly not unique to Jews. So, “rightly dividing” has nothing to do with partitioning up Scriptures into who, when, and where, since it’s not primarily referring to the Scriptures at all.
If you will read the opening of the book of james you will find that he is speaking to the 12 tribes. The Jews. So does it not stand to reason that he knew what he was saying and that maybe he was speaking of the Jews being firstfruits rather than the church ?
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
considering the fact that some were corrupting the word of God in Paul’s day (II Cor. 2:17), and that there was heresy everywhere (Gal. 3:1, I Cor. 15, and the very text that Charlie cited II Timothy 2:14-18, I Timothy 4:1-5; II Timothy 4:1-5, etc) it seems to me that the KJV is right. We are to study to determine the correct theology, and we are to “rightly divide” the word of truth from the word of error. I John 4:1-6 warns us of the “spirit of truth and the spirit of error”. By the way, the new versions change this passage which defines the false spirit….interesting…
I see nothing wrong with Scofield’s “wooden approach” - it is far more plausible than taking everything (or at least a huge chunk) allegorically.
In Christ,
I see nothing wrong with Scofield’s “wooden approach” - it is far more plausible than taking everything (or at least a huge chunk) allegorically.
In Christ,
Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX
[Stephen Schwenke] considering the fact that some were corrupting the word of God in Paul’s day (II Cor. 2:17), and that there was heresy everywhere (Gal. 3:1, I Cor. 15, and the very text that Charlie cited II Timothy 2:14-18, I Timothy 4:1-5; II Timothy 4:1-5, etc) it seems to me that the KJV is right. We are to study to determine the correct theology, and we are to “rightly divide” the word of truth from the word of error. I John 4:1-6 warns us of the “spirit of truth and the spirit of error”. By the way, the new versions change this passage which defines the false spirit….interesting…Stephen, I don’t know what your post has to do with what I said. The point of my post is that “the word of truth” refers to the gospel, not the Bible. I argue this on the basis of comparison passages. So, any interpretation (Scofield’s included) that makes this passage has to do with the words of Scripture materially is missing the point of the passage. BTW, I have no problem with the KJV translation of this verse, and I’m not sure how it got brought up.
I see nothing wrong with Scofield’s “wooden approach” - it is far more plausible than taking everything (or at least a huge chunk) allegorically.
In Christ,
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Stephen Schwenke] I see nothing wrong with Scofield’s “wooden approach” - it is far more plausible than taking everything (or at least a huge chunk) allegorically.I’m not trying to hijack Charlie’s thread, but I would ask you to consider that it is normative to interpret any form of writing according to its literary genre. What I mean is that you wouldn’t read a book of poems with the same level of literalism as you might read a book on World War II. One is history and the other is filled with literary pictures that mean different things (sometimes radically different) than what the words actually say. Scripture is filled with many types of literature. History should be read with all the wooden literalness that Scoffield advocated. But in order to understand what the Author intended, the other types of biblical literature must be read according to the type of literature that it is: prose, poetry, apocalyptic, history, proverb, etc. IOW, it must be read in according to its literary sense if it is to be “rightly divided”. That is what the Literal Hermeneutic meant before Scoffield came along - according to its literary sense. Dispensational writers later changed the term to mean wooden. But that doesn’t work with too much of Scripture. To try to read Psalms that way would cause us to wonder which cows are God’s and who owns the rest (Psalm 50:10).
Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
Charlie, I can see pretty clearly what you are saying. I might even agree in part.
Sorry about the ambiguity. When I said Scofield was “overly wooden,” I was not referencing his entire hermeneutic (although I probably would describe it that way), but how he approached interpreting this verse. The KJV translates according to etymology “rightly dividing,” but when this verb is used of speech or another communicative act it is a metaphor meaning to handle a matter accurately or to do justice to the subject matter. (Several lexicons do not even reference the etymological meaning as it recedes into the background). In the LXX this verb translates ישר (ya-shar) which occasionally literally means to make something straight but more often carries the extended meaning of acting righteously.
So Scofield messed up on two points. First, he missed the metaphor in “rightly dividing” and second, he interpreted “word of truth” to refer primarily to the actual words of Scripture. Those who use this passage as a proof text for expository preaching avoid the first mistake but still make the second.
So Scofield messed up on two points. First, he missed the metaphor in “rightly dividing” and second, he interpreted “word of truth” to refer primarily to the actual words of Scripture. Those who use this passage as a proof text for expository preaching avoid the first mistake but still make the second.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
There are a few good and helpful thoughts in this thread. I would love to hear what some of you think about Charlie’s actual point in the original post:
Any thoughts on that anyone?
[Charlie] Paul seems to use this expression [the word of truth] to refer not to the Scriptures, but to the message of the gospel.That is a very intriguing point that I have never heard or considered before now.
Any thoughts on that anyone?
Charlie, I don’t know why you are so quick to dismiss my statements. I answered your challenge by stating that the context of II Tim. 2:15 relates to heresy being taught in the churches, as do other passages that I listed. Thus the word of truth is not limited to the gospel, but to the entire set of Scriptures. If it is as you say, then the only unarguable point would be the gospel, and trust me, human nature dictates that we would find a way to argue about that also. The context of both I and II Timothy demand that it be the entire Scriptures.
In Christ,
In Christ,
Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX
[Dennis Clemons]However, this denies the plain interpretation of II Timothy 3:16-17 which demands that we interpret each passage from a literal view. ALL Scripture is given for doctrine, not just the Pauline epistles, or the gospels. Yes even the Psalms and other “poetical” writings have rich doctrinal content that are often overlooked by accepting the allegorical method. Not that prose does not have its figurative character, but we put too much emphasis on that aspect, and dismiss the doctrine that is staring us in the face.[Stephen Schwenke] I see nothing wrong with Scofield’s “wooden approach” - it is far more plausible than taking everything (or at least a huge chunk) allegorically.I’m not trying to hijack Charlie’s thread, but I would ask you to consider that it is normative to interpret any form of writing according to its literary genre. What I mean is that you wouldn’t read a book of poems with the same level of literalism as you might read a book on World War II. One is history and the other is filled with literary pictures that mean different things (sometimes radically different) than what the words actually say. Scripture is filled with many types of literature. History should be read with all the wooden literalness that Scoffield advocated. But in order to understand what the Author intended, the other types of biblical literature must be read according to the type of literature that it is: prose, poetry, apocalyptic, history, proverb, etc. IOW, it must be read in according to its literary sense if it is to be “rightly divided”. That is what the Literal Hermeneutic meant before Scoffield came along - according to its literary sense. Dispensational writers later changed the term to mean wooden. But that doesn’t work with too much of Scripture. To try to read Psalms that way would cause us to wonder which cows are God’s and who owns the rest (Psalm 50:10).
But this is not the worst aspect of the allegorical method. The allegorical method denies plainly worded “non-prose” writings, such as the OT prophets that call for a second regathering of Israel, Israel dwelling in the promised land, Jesus literally reigning from Jerusalem over all nations, with Israel as the main focus of the reign, etc., etc., etc. There is nothing mysterious or figurative about these prophecies, but they are rejected out of hand anyway by those who favor the allegorical school of thought.
Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX
Some here are probably familiar with Scofield’s use of the phrase in his book Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, in which he uses an overly wooden approach to interpret the workman’s action as actually dividing up Scripture passages into different dispensations. I’m sure most of the people on this board would not follow such an awkward interpretation…Interesting - I never knew that Scofield used this passage to defend a dispensational hermeneutic. That’s definitely a bit of a leap to do so!
What does Paul mean by “the word of truth” (τον λογον της αληθειας)? Is he referring to the process of systematic theology or even to the exegesis of the biblical text? Consider other occurrences of this phrase:I follow what you’re saying, but I want to step back and look at the overall flow of II Timothy for a minute. You can roughly break the book out into a couple sections [and I’m doing this on my lunch, so it’s very rough!]:
Eph 1:13 (ESV) In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Colossians 1:5-6 Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing
James provides a similar example of this phrase: James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creation.
Paul seems to use this expression to refer not to the Scriptures, but to the message of the gospel, the kerygma if you will. It is not a call to Timothy to study the Bible to find out a system of doctrine, but a call to “be diligent” to clearly and accurately relate the gospel to those around him.
- Introduction [II Tim. 1:1-2]
- Reminder to Hold to what Timothy Learned from Paul [II Tim. 1:3-18]
- Share in Our Joint Suffering [Paul and then Christ] [II Tim. 2:1-13]
- Be Someone God Approves Of [II Tim. 2:14-26]
- Be Aware of the Coming Troubles [II Tim. 3:1-9]
- Be Aware of the resources you have [Paul’s Example and the Word] [II Tim. 3:10-17]
- Be Ready to proclaim the Word [II Tim. 4:1-8]
- Conclusion [II Tim. 4:9-22]
Your thoughts?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Jay, I think the two can be harmonized. “Sound teaching” in 4:3 surely refers to a whole, healthy system of doctrine. I don’t know why you would need to equate “sound teaching” with “word of truth” when they’re paragraphs apart and don’t share any of the same words. In 2 Tim. Paul is obviously concerned about more than the gospel. However, I think by lexemic comparison, we can show that “word of truth” means the gospel, and that in 2 Tim. 2:15 Paul is speaking about the gospel. Obviously the gospel is part of the broader system of “sound teaching,” so there is no reason why Paul can’t highlight it in one portion of the text.
There is a form of context error which flattens out discourse. For example, most scholars agree that the gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as the King of the Jews become King of the World. But, not every single pericope, paragraph, sentence, and phrase directly and identically contributes to that theme. For example, Matthew 4 presents Jesus as the True Israel who does not falter in the wilderness. Matthew 5ff presents Jesus as the Greater Moses who gives the covenant from the mount. Neither of those passages can be summarized simply as “Jesus is King,” yet both of them do indeed contribute to the development of Matthew’s theme.
In the same way, assuming that you have correctly identified the purpose of 2 Tim. as encouraging Timothy to keep the whole of Paul’s example and system of doctrine, it does not follow that every individual unit of the text, down to the phrase level, is referencing the whole of Paul’s example and system of doctrine. I think the other occurrences of this phrase, both in earlier Pauline writings and in James (also earlier) point to the conclusion that “word of truth” was a common first-century term for the gospel.
There is a form of context error which flattens out discourse. For example, most scholars agree that the gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as the King of the Jews become King of the World. But, not every single pericope, paragraph, sentence, and phrase directly and identically contributes to that theme. For example, Matthew 4 presents Jesus as the True Israel who does not falter in the wilderness. Matthew 5ff presents Jesus as the Greater Moses who gives the covenant from the mount. Neither of those passages can be summarized simply as “Jesus is King,” yet both of them do indeed contribute to the development of Matthew’s theme.
In the same way, assuming that you have correctly identified the purpose of 2 Tim. as encouraging Timothy to keep the whole of Paul’s example and system of doctrine, it does not follow that every individual unit of the text, down to the phrase level, is referencing the whole of Paul’s example and system of doctrine. I think the other occurrences of this phrase, both in earlier Pauline writings and in James (also earlier) point to the conclusion that “word of truth” was a common first-century term for the gospel.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I don’t believe it is proper Biblical interpretation to snatch a phrase out of the middle of a verse, ignore its surrounding context, both close and broad (the immediate passage of II Timothy 2 and then the whole of both books), redefine the phrase to something outside of the context, and then derive your interpretation.
Didn’t you accuse Scofield of this very thing?
It is also inconsistent on your part, as you deny me the privilege to show how a word or phrase is defined in Scripture, when I attempt to give my view on a particular passage. I have not done so on this thread, but I have on others, mostly on the old SI, and you along with others denied me the ability to do what you are attempting to do here…
Jay, thanks for the contribution. I like the way you broke the book down…
Didn’t you accuse Scofield of this very thing?
It is also inconsistent on your part, as you deny me the privilege to show how a word or phrase is defined in Scripture, when I attempt to give my view on a particular passage. I have not done so on this thread, but I have on others, mostly on the old SI, and you along with others denied me the ability to do what you are attempting to do here…
Jay, thanks for the contribution. I like the way you broke the book down…
Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX
[Stephen Schwenke]… this denies the plain interpretation of II Timothy 3:16-17 which demands that we interpret each passage from a literal view.Nothing in the passage requires wooden interpretation of all Scripture. You’re reading back into the text to say so as I evidence below.
[Stephen Schwenke] Yes even the Psalms and other “poetical” writings have rich doctrinal content that are often overlooked by accepting the allegorical method.You cannot understand doctrine correctly without the proper understanding of alegory. Case in point is Psalm 50:10. If we read it woodenly, we have to begin building a doctrine of God that is incorrect, namely that He is not the Possessor of all creation. Someone else owns a majority of it.
[Stephen Schwenke] The allegorical method denies plainly worded “non-prose” writings, such as the OT prophets that call for a second regathering of Israel, Israel dwelling in the promised land, Jesus literally reigning from Jerusalem over all nations, with Israel as the main focus of the reign, etc., etc., etc. There is nothing mysterious or figurative about these prophecies, but they are rejected out of hand anyway by those who favor the allegorical school of thought.You get caught in your own accusation here. Despite the woodenists’ protests, they allegorize as much as those who take a historic approach to interpretation. But the woodenists allegorize straightforward words and statements like “at hand”, “last day”, and “last trump”. I’m off topic here but when you accuse those you disagree with in this regard, you condemn yourselves more than you know.
Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
[Jay C] I never knew that Scofield used this passage to defend a dispensational hermeneutic. That’s definitely a bit of a leap to do so!Yeah, sadly it is one of their strongest arguments for a wooden interpretation.
Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
2 Timothy 3:16-17 follows 2 Tim. 2:15, so isn’t it likely that Paul is expanding 2 Tim. 2:15 to ALL Scripture?
And doesn’t meditating day and night on the Law (Torah) in Psalm 1 also apply to all Scripture?
And why would one have to work hard and study constantly to accurately present a simple, straightforward message like the Gospel as defined in I Cor. 15:3ff?
And doesn’t the Scripture often present a particular for the whole?
I don’t think Charlie is right on this one at all.
It takes a student — a theologian — a church leader to work hard at studying and preaching the Scripture accurately. Any decent laymen can rightly divide the Gospel message.
I also believe in the concept of the “scarlet thread of redemption.” If we embrace that the Gospel and redemption are present throughout Scripture (either prophetically, or inclusive of the idea that those redeemed need to live a certain way, etc.), there is a sense in which all of Scripture is part of the Gospel. And just as Torah means “instruction,” and anything that elaborates in any way upon the Pentateuch is considered “Torah Study,” so these terms could be understood to include all Scripture — even apart from Paul’s expanded statement in 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
And doesn’t meditating day and night on the Law (Torah) in Psalm 1 also apply to all Scripture?
And why would one have to work hard and study constantly to accurately present a simple, straightforward message like the Gospel as defined in I Cor. 15:3ff?
And doesn’t the Scripture often present a particular for the whole?
I don’t think Charlie is right on this one at all.
It takes a student — a theologian — a church leader to work hard at studying and preaching the Scripture accurately. Any decent laymen can rightly divide the Gospel message.
I also believe in the concept of the “scarlet thread of redemption.” If we embrace that the Gospel and redemption are present throughout Scripture (either prophetically, or inclusive of the idea that those redeemed need to live a certain way, etc.), there is a sense in which all of Scripture is part of the Gospel. And just as Torah means “instruction,” and anything that elaborates in any way upon the Pentateuch is considered “Torah Study,” so these terms could be understood to include all Scripture — even apart from Paul’s expanded statement in 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
"The Midrash Detective"
Ed - I went back with fresh eyes to read 2 Tim 2 and from v. 1 Paul is specifically concerned about the propagation of the gospel, he says for the sake of the elect (2 Tim 2:10). In 2 Tim 2:8 he makes specific reference to the resurrection and “my gospel”. In 2 Tim 2:9 he talks about how he is bound but the gospel is not. He continues to discuss our death and resurrection in Christ and faithfulness as a result. In that context, he tells Tim to remind others of these basic truths and to rightly handle the word of truth. So while I have little doubt that it is applicable to all of Scripture, Paul takes special time to point out the gospel as leading up to his statement in 2 Tim 2:15.
Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
There is a vast difference between using figurative language to express a thought, and writing/interpretting in an allegorical manner.
Pilgrim’s Progress is an allegory. It is a fictional story that illustrates spiritual truths. The allegorical method of interpretation denies the truth of a passage, relegating it to a mere story, and not real.
Figurative language is normal, and can easliy be seen and interpretting in light of all Scripture.
The allegorical method of interpretation is by definition subjective, and it falls to the one interpretting the passage as to how real they choose to believe it to be.
The “wooden” literal system of interpretation accepts all Scripture as the very words of God that are meant in a real, literal sense. If accept the allegorical method, we deny the historical and prophetical realities of Scripture, and then make the Scripture what we want it to say, instead of accepting what is written as God’s word as it stands. A literalist will simply trust that God knew what He wanted to say, accept what is written as it stands, and then seek to interpret any given passage in light of its immediate context, but also in light of the entire Scripture. Thus each passage has its place; it is all real; God meant what He said; we simply believe all that He said, even when it goes contrary to our nature or our scheme of interpretation. This does not deny figurative language; however it seeks to interpret that figurative language within the context of the entire revelation of God in the Bible. So, Psalm 50:10 being figurative is quite simple. It is not allegorical; it is figurative, but very easy to understand what the author is driving at. There is no mystery surrounding the text.
The allegorical method does not by definition accept that God actually meant exactly as He said. It seeks to impose its own subjective thoughts onto what the Lord Himself said.
In Christ
Pilgrim’s Progress is an allegory. It is a fictional story that illustrates spiritual truths. The allegorical method of interpretation denies the truth of a passage, relegating it to a mere story, and not real.
Figurative language is normal, and can easliy be seen and interpretting in light of all Scripture.
The allegorical method of interpretation is by definition subjective, and it falls to the one interpretting the passage as to how real they choose to believe it to be.
The “wooden” literal system of interpretation accepts all Scripture as the very words of God that are meant in a real, literal sense. If accept the allegorical method, we deny the historical and prophetical realities of Scripture, and then make the Scripture what we want it to say, instead of accepting what is written as God’s word as it stands. A literalist will simply trust that God knew what He wanted to say, accept what is written as it stands, and then seek to interpret any given passage in light of its immediate context, but also in light of the entire Scripture. Thus each passage has its place; it is all real; God meant what He said; we simply believe all that He said, even when it goes contrary to our nature or our scheme of interpretation. This does not deny figurative language; however it seeks to interpret that figurative language within the context of the entire revelation of God in the Bible. So, Psalm 50:10 being figurative is quite simple. It is not allegorical; it is figurative, but very easy to understand what the author is driving at. There is no mystery surrounding the text.
The allegorical method does not by definition accept that God actually meant exactly as He said. It seeks to impose its own subjective thoughts onto what the Lord Himself said.
In Christ
Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX
Discussion